Protection of privacy versus Public Safety
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:28 am
(This thread was originally posted on the forum which I moderate but seems like a good choice for discussion here, I'll paraphrase rather than directly copy/paste, that's how I roll *grin*)
Back in february a friend of mine who is a teacher told me about something that had happened in their school (I'll apologise for being so vague with regards to specific details about the story, the privacy issue reaches even to this kind of discussion) that I think could bear some thinking and talking about.
They'd found out that a parent of one of the students in their class had died from AIDS. Since they have no real way of knowing when the parent in question contracted HIV, it raises the issue of whether or not the student might be HIV positive themselves.
The problem is that privacy laws in the United States basically prevent them from asking that the child be tested, prevent them from demanding that the child be tested, prevent them from even asking if the child HAS been tested, and evidentally prevents them from asking any questions of any child or parent at all about whether they may be carrying communicable illnesses.
Even if it were to be proven from voluntary admission from the child or remaining family that the child were HIV positive, they'd be forbidden from basically doing anything to indicate that they know this. They coudln't treat the child any differently or they'd all be charged with discrimination.
The reason I find this so problematic is that the privacy rights intersect with the public safety. This isn't like being forbidden to ask someone's religion, or whether they might be gay, or who they voted for in the last election, this is a serious, incurable usually terminal illness that can pretty easily be spread among kids who are prone to lots of skinned knees, cut elbows, and classroom accidents.
They'll ban peanut butter from a school of thousands for one kid who is deathly allergic (My highschool and middle school both did this) and that's not considered treating them differently for the purposes of discrimination, but even just informing the school's administration and medical staff (if any) or even the relevent teachers that one of their students has a communicable and incurable illness is somehow a gross violation of rights that needs to be prevented at all costs.
What do you think? How do you reconcile something like the public safety against the privacy of the individual? Clearly if the other students were aware that they were carrying a serious illness, they'd be treated differently, probably made fun of, probably become an outcast, but is the risk of some schoolyard play ending in some cuts and brusies leading to the transmission of something as serious as HIV worth that level of protection?
Things like the sex offender registry already pave over the right to privacy of some individuals because it is feared that they could be a menace to the public safety, or at least that the public has "a right to know" about such a potential threat, how is that any different really?
Back in february a friend of mine who is a teacher told me about something that had happened in their school (I'll apologise for being so vague with regards to specific details about the story, the privacy issue reaches even to this kind of discussion) that I think could bear some thinking and talking about.
They'd found out that a parent of one of the students in their class had died from AIDS. Since they have no real way of knowing when the parent in question contracted HIV, it raises the issue of whether or not the student might be HIV positive themselves.
The problem is that privacy laws in the United States basically prevent them from asking that the child be tested, prevent them from demanding that the child be tested, prevent them from even asking if the child HAS been tested, and evidentally prevents them from asking any questions of any child or parent at all about whether they may be carrying communicable illnesses.
Even if it were to be proven from voluntary admission from the child or remaining family that the child were HIV positive, they'd be forbidden from basically doing anything to indicate that they know this. They coudln't treat the child any differently or they'd all be charged with discrimination.
The reason I find this so problematic is that the privacy rights intersect with the public safety. This isn't like being forbidden to ask someone's religion, or whether they might be gay, or who they voted for in the last election, this is a serious, incurable usually terminal illness that can pretty easily be spread among kids who are prone to lots of skinned knees, cut elbows, and classroom accidents.
They'll ban peanut butter from a school of thousands for one kid who is deathly allergic (My highschool and middle school both did this) and that's not considered treating them differently for the purposes of discrimination, but even just informing the school's administration and medical staff (if any) or even the relevent teachers that one of their students has a communicable and incurable illness is somehow a gross violation of rights that needs to be prevented at all costs.
What do you think? How do you reconcile something like the public safety against the privacy of the individual? Clearly if the other students were aware that they were carrying a serious illness, they'd be treated differently, probably made fun of, probably become an outcast, but is the risk of some schoolyard play ending in some cuts and brusies leading to the transmission of something as serious as HIV worth that level of protection?
Things like the sex offender registry already pave over the right to privacy of some individuals because it is feared that they could be a menace to the public safety, or at least that the public has "a right to know" about such a potential threat, how is that any different really?
Sure test the kid... as part of testing the entire student body, teachers unions and administrative staff.. oh and don't forget the PTA