so - what do y'all think?

[littlebillie 10]

from http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/hiv_injected021119.html

about the boy who was injected with HIV by his father...

 

 

 

"...

BSJ has also wanted to join the Boy Scouts, but Jackson says the local troop turned him down when she requested that they not disclose his illness to the other scouts and their parents.

 

"I told them that it would be OK, that if they use universal precautions, he would be alright. If anything, they're more of a risk to him than he is to them," she said. "I told them that if they use the universal precautions, there is really no reason for anyone to know he is HIV-positive. I

know they had a [supreme Court] ruling where the Boy Scouts could bar homosexuals from joining their organization. Sometimes I think they're equating being HIV-positive with being gay. But I believe that as the Boy Scouts, they should be at the forefront of things."

 

A spokesman for the Scouts' Greater St. Louis Area Council said he was unaware that the 11-year-old had run into difficulty with the organization, and said the group would be willing to work with the family to help the boy get involved with Scouting.

 

"I would think that if you get a group of [local] parents together, they'd come to a win-win decision," said Joe Mueller, explaining that the Scouts have no policy barring HIV-infected children, and that local chapters set their own rules for admitting members. "We'd be happy to

work with her [Jackson] and her son."

 

He noted in a subsequent e-mail, however, that the national Scouts' rules do require notification when a member has a deadly, communicable illness. The rule reads: "because of the potential harm to other participants, the existence of the life-threatening communicable disease would have to be disclosed to all of the adult members and in situations involving youth members, to their parents. Unfortunately, any considerations of confidentiality for the afflicted individual are greatly outweighed by the necessity for the other participants to be able to knowingly limit their exposure to the potential harm."

 

-O-

 

By now, I think we all know I'm pro-'gay in Scouts'. So let me also say that I agree with the full disclosure stance of the BSA, and that by now, we know that there are MANY innocent victims of AIDS.

 

Other opinions?

 

 

[evmori 11]

Considering the circumstances, the boy should be admitted. It's not his fault his dad is such a moron.

 

A pro-gay Scouter? Sounds like a contradiction in terms!

 

A joyous New Year to all!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SR540Beaver 116]

Littlebillie,

 

I agree with the disclosure also. I think the boy should be admitted to Scouts in whatever limited capacity he could participate. Sine he is fed his meds thru a tube 9 times a day, it would be kind of hard for people to not know about his illness. I would think campouts would be impossible for him to participate in. The others kids and parents DO need to know about him being HIV positive. We went camping a few weeks ago and during a game of capture the flag in the dark, one of our scouts busted the back of his head. While the actual wound was small, it bled alot. What if he had been HIV positive and the scouts and scouters who helped him didn't know? I say let him in, but openly disclose his illness for the safety of the other boys involved.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

First of all, everything else aside, what a terrible story, and what a terrible thing that this man did to a child. An 11-month-old child, and his own child -- the mind just reels. What he did was, in a way, worse than killing the child outright, though I guess that raises a philosophical question that I can't answer. What is indisputable is that this man has killed his own child, in slow-motion, and has robbed him of his childhood, and eventually his life as well. Imagine being 11 years old and not only going through the agony of a debilitating disease that leaves you exposed to cancer, among other things, but also knowing that you have already lived past when the doctors say you should have died.

 

As for the BSA, if there really is a national policy that the other participants have to be notified, I can't disagree with it. If the story is to be taken literally (always risky when reading a news story), the boy was not excluded from a troop because he has AIDS; what the troop did was to turn down his mother's request that his condition be kept confidential. I agree with the BSA that when you are dealing with a "deadly, communicable disease," the "right to know" of other participants outweighs the interest in confidentiality. This boy does not merely have the HIV virus, he has "full-blown AIDS." His mother is probably correct that the boy is more at-risk from the other boys than they are from him, and that with precautions, the other boys can be protected, but that isn't really the point. The protection could never be complete, and there is no "margin of error" with AIDS. If you get the HIV virus, you are at very high risk to get AIDS (I don't know the percentage, but it is my impression that it is somewhere in the 30-40 percent range), and once you get AIDS, you're dead. There aren't too many other diseases that present those kinds of numbers. I don't think it is enough to tell parents what kind of precautions should be taken "just in case" there is a child around who has AIDS, I think they have the right to know which specific child it is.

 

And I also disagree with the mother in her comments about the "gay issue," I don't think one has anything to do with the other. Unfortunately, her son has a communicable, 100 percent fatal illness, and I don't that that should be kept secret from other parents. I do have to wonder how they handle it in the boy's school, where the other children are at greater risk than the other boys in a Scout troop would be (because they are around him for a greater period of time) and where, I'm guessing, some of the boys in the same troop probably also attend.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Kwc: "Capture the flag" in the dark? Hmmm, I wonder what the "Guide to Safe Scouting" has to say about that one. Even if it says nothing specific, I suspect it has some statement to the effect of "use the sense God gave you." Since, as I recall from my Scout days, capture the flag was generally played on rough, wooded, hilly and often rocky terrain (otherwise how are you going to hide your position from the other team), doing it at night does not seem to comply with the "rule of common sense." And that's regardless of whether there might be a boy around with a blood-borne communicable disease. Also, with regard to HIV and AIDS, remember that AIDS does not always show up right away. There could potentially be a boy with HIV in every Scout troop in the country, and nobody would ever know... but the other members of the troop would still be at some risk of contracting HIV, and eventually AIDS, and nobody would know until it's too late. One more reason not to play capture the flag at night, I guess.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

The mind reels....

 

Father seems to nice a term to apply to the perpertrator.

 

kwc, without getting into whether or not Capture the Flag is an appropriate night time activity ( I think it is) have none of your troop heard about the afore mentioned Universal Precautions? It boils down to treating every patient as if they had AIDS. Every year healthcare workers die from exposure to blood bourne diseases. Only a tiny fraction is AIDS, mostly its Hepatitis B. Using universal precautions is the smart way to handle all first aid circumstances where blood is present. Now, should the troop know about the boys condition, do they have a right to know? Interesting quesiton.

 

According to HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996)a persons health history is privileged information and may only be released by either the patient or patient's guardian. So, I guess the question is, is it legal for BSA to dispense medical condition without the proper authorization. I would agree the troop needs this information, but is it legal to give it to them against the boy's mother's wishes?

 

This opens a lot of questions, just what can troop leadership keep secret and what must be known by some, by all?

[littlebillie 10]

OGE,

 

you raise an interesting legal question. at some point, is Leadership considered acting in loco parentis? if so, what powers are they given thereby?

 

even so, there is a difference between legal issues and moral issues. perhaps the mother was not legally bound to share the boys condition - and perhaps she was, I really don't know.

 

that aside, tho' - I trully believe that she is morally and ethically bound to share it, and as a mother, she must recognize in other parents a certain need to know this kind of thing.

 

thorny...

[littlebillie 10]

evmori,

 

contradiction in terms? well, I guess it's how you define the terms, eh?

 

IF homosexuality is natural and part of God's plan (and there are field and clinical observations of homosexuality in the animal kingdom), then there's NO reason they shouldn't join.

 

but IF it is deviant behavior, then gay kids are youth at risk, and we should open our doors to them - it becomes part of the modeling value. (Under this view, the leadership issue remains open to debate, i know).

 

and if all matters of sexuality ain't none of our business anyway - a strong party line for many - then it shouldn't be a screening criterion at all.

 

so - MY stance, a contradiction in terms? Nah - seems to be the only logical conclusion, however you look at it.

 

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Concerning the capture the flag game played at night. We are part of a Webelos den that was doing a one night Polar Bear patch campout. It is winter and the sun goes fown around 5:30 PM. A couple of representative boys from a Boy Scout troop in another town was nice enough to visit our camp and invite our boys to come over and play with them. It was a moonlit night and everyone had flashlights. The Scouts were taking it pretty easy on the Webelos and had a pretty open area to play in. One of our boys decided to climb to a low limb of a tree and hit his head while hopping down out of the tree. He had about a 1 cm laceration on the back of his head. Fortunately, our den leader is a head ICU nurse and our asst den leader is an EMT. They had him fixed up in under 5 minutes. BTW, they were under the supervision of adult leadership.

 

While I would never disagree with the GSS, a little adventure is good. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I'd rather have my son playing capture the flag in the dark with Scouts and adult supervision in a council campground than some of the stunts my buddies and I pulled after dark in our own neighborhood when I was his age. Don't ask, I won't tell.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Kwc, wasnt a snipe hunt was it? Cuz in that case.... Oops. dont need to highjack another thread. Funny, though I despise Snipe Hunts as degrding, An after sunset game of Capture the Flag suits me just fine as long as the boys have seen the course in the daylight. I mean, I dont want all the fun sucked out of the program.

 

The question is not of morals and ethics, but of legal issues. Under HIPPA (as I understand it) all health information is privileged. As for your Emergency Response team, the ICU Head Nurse and EMT, I wonder if they could share the concept of Unviersal Precautions with the troop. May not be a bad thing for BSA to add to the first aid requirements.

[SR540Beaver 116]

OGE, no it wasn't a snipe hunt. Well, I'm not sure if you meant during the campout or what we did as kids. I went on a snipe hunt as a kid and then helped lead a few myself in my younger days. Now that I am older and wiser, I'd wise my son up real quick before I let someone take him on a snipe hunt.

 

OK OGE, now let's sit back and see how many people ask what a snipe hunt is! LOL

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OK, I withdraw the comment about capture the flag. I think this thread is about something too serious to go hurtling so far off-topic so early. Come on guys (and gals), we can stay on-topic if we really try!(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Ok NJ, I'll stop but remember you started it ::tongue firmly stuck out::

 

As it is, does a family have a right to medical privacy or not? Where does privacy stop and the troop's need to know begin? And I ask the lawyers of the group to weigh in on HIPPA requirements. And if the lawyers dont know about HIPPA, consider it continuing education to find out about it, it could be huge.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Gee OGE and NJ,

 

HIPPA almost turns this into a "don't ask, don't tell" type of thing. Let's say that BSA does not have a right to know unless the person wants to tell them. Now let's imagine that this HIV positive scout is out on a snipe hunt, gets hurt and several scouts and scouters get infected trying to help him. What is the liability to BSA or the council or the troop when parents of a litigious nature find out that an HIV positive kid is participating in outdoor activities that carry a considerable risk of injury and they didn't know so they could protect their children as they saw fit? While the easy answer is if the BSA didn't know, they can't be held accoutable. But remeber, in today's courts, OJ walked out a free man and gun manufacturers are being held accountable for murders committed by individuals. Given the nature of the BSA program and the outdoor activites, I think we have an obligation to ensure the safety of each and every scout. Don't you have to provide certain medical related documents or release forms before being able to participate in certain BSA outdoor activities. Sorry, I'm still just a Cubs dad, so my Scout knowledge is still limited.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I am asking if federal mandated privacy laws can be ignored based on the feelings that the troop oughta know.

at what point do we ignore federal laws because we know we are right and the law is wrong?

 

BTW, just checked the Boy Scout handbook, has a good section about handling blood.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)