You’re HIV doc? You can now perform surgery on patients.

[Janus]

I’ve just been reading on teletext news that medics who are infected with HIV will now be allowed to perform any duties including surgery and dentistry. England’s chief medical officer Sally Davies said, “ It was time to scrap out-dated rules”.

 

I just have this vision of a scenario, an infected dentist performing a difficult extraction-lots of blood, slips with the tools and cuts himself while fingers are still in the patients mouth. Or a surgeon cuts himself with the scalpel during an operation. Even a doc stitching a deep wound and pricking his finger with the needle.

 

Apparently there had been a ban in place. I don’t quite understand what could have changed for something that was considered high risk to the patient to now become ok. Very strange.

[andygardener]

If it was high risk, that person shouldn't have been doing those duties based on talent, not the risk of transmitting a disease.

 

Doctors have to perform surgery on patients with HIV, if it is OK that way it must be OK the other way.

 

So because bomb disposal teams have to search for unstable explosive devices it's OK for a potential terrorist target to have their house checked out by people wearing unstable explosive devices?

[Rupert_Baehr]

I underwent some urgent surgery in June. I was exceptionally lucky - I was rather ill and the surgeon who operated on me was (I am told) one of the best in the world.

 

Bugger! I forgot to ask him whether he was HIV Positive!

 

I suppose I really should have done so, because the infection I had would probably have killed anybody else who had a compromised immune system - (and it wouldn't have done a lot of good to anybody with a good immune system who happened to get infected, either.) (He did know what I was infected with.)

 

If you need surgery in a hurry and if I need surgery in a hurry and if you are ahead of me in the queue, then if you want to discuss the health of the surgeon, go ahead! - I'll take your place and you can wait until he has answered all your questions to your satisfaction. (That will of course, be after he has finished working on me.)

 

He has already satisfied his controlling authority that he is fit to operate and that'll work for me.

[Janus]

If it was high risk, that person shouldn't have been doing those duties based on talent, not the risk of transmitting a disease.

 

If "what" was high risk? You`ve lost me there, I don`t grasp what you are saying.

 

Doctors have to perform surgery on patients with HIV, if it is OK that way it must be OK the other way.

That is a fair point.

 

So because bomb disposal teams have to search for unstable explosive devices it's OK for a potential terrorist target to have their house checked out by people wearing unstable explosive devices?[/QUOTE]

Andy,

how/why would someone (police/army) be wearing explosives:huh:

[Rupert_Baehr]

Andy,

how/why would someone (police/army) be wearing explosives

 

Err... what do you think makes the bang when somebody fires a weapon? - Some police and soldiers have been known to carry firearms.

 

What do you think happens to a 'standard round' when it 'cooks off' outside the breech of the firearm in which it was supposed to be used?

 

Try a bit of 'lateral thinking' - and count your balls.

[cgksheff]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/15/hiv-restrictions-health-workers-lifted

 

and

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2393946/NHS-surgeons-dentists-HIV-allowed-operate-patients-ban-lifted-Government.html

[Ridgeway84]

Apparently only four patients have ever been infected. Not much to worry about then, just four one off's. It's safe to say there won't be any more.

 

---------- Post added 15-08-2013 at 06:48 ----------

 

If it was high risk, that person shouldn't have been doing those duties based on talent, not the risk of transmitting a disease.

 

Doctors have to perform surgery on patients with HIV, if it is OK that way it must be OK the other way.

 

I'm surprised no one's pointed out the obvious flaw in this argument. That it's the job of a surgeon to knowingly risk infection. It's not the job of patients to unknowingly risk infection from surgeons.

[Mecky]

Read the BBC edit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23698991.

 

Don't think it's a good idea myself.

[Daid]

Apparently only four patients have ever been infected. Not much to worry about then, just four one off's. It's safe to say there won't be any more.

 

.

 

None of which were in the UK and besides, there's more risk of being murdered in our hospitals.

 

We appear to risk infection each time we enter a hospital and as cleanliness is not observed by the majority of people that go in them as patients and as visitors why are you worried.

[Manlinose]

i think there is a difference between a potential theoretical risk (i.e. that you might get an infection from a dirty ward) and a potential actual risk (that someone carrying the HIV virus may accidentally cut themselves whilst operating on you)

 

i don't know enough about the treatment of HIV these days to be able to form any valid opinion as to the likelihood of it being transmitted in such a way and, if i was in need of surgery i wouldn't be too bothered at the time, but surely the medical staff should be the ones saying - there is a risk i may infect someone, so i should not be taking part in this procedure.