|
| ||
|
2004-01-24 In The Media I've been sitting on whether or not to write this entry for a couple of days now. I realize that it has the potential of being very controversial, but then I decided that I happen to like controversy. Some of you out there may not agree with me on this issue, but I don't expect everyone to have the same point of view as I do. Testing people for HIV has been in the local news a lot lately. I'll deal with each case in turn. First, there was the announcement that the Grand Séminaire de Montréal (i.e. where priests are trained) will be tested for HIV from now on. I saw red when I read this in the newspaper. Their reasoning behind this is completely ignorant. Those in decision-making power have it in their heads that pretty much all people with HIV are homosexual, which, for those who actually pull our heads out of the sand know, is total bull. The only reason this idea exists is because anal sex, which some gay men (but not all) have, is more likely to result in small tears in the anus than is likely in the vagina. But HIV and AIDS is by no means limited to the gay community. But, the Grand Séminaire has decided to remain ignorant. My next problem with this issue is that, in my opinion, it shouldn't matter what a priest's sexual orientation is, because if he's going to be a priest, he's going to swear vows of celibacy. He's not supposed to be having sex anyway. Of course, they counter with the argument that these priests will be in a seminary full of other men, and therefore, the temptation to break the vow of celibacy will be greater. Um, yes. Because all gay men are of course mad sex addicts who will walk the halls in search of a warm bed to share. In my opinion, a gay priest will have no more trouble in a seminary filled with other men than a heterosexual priest will when sitting in a room alone with a young woman. This is total bullshit, and they're basically shooting themselves in the foot anyway because the number of men wanting to become priests has been dropping for some time. But yes, go ahead and automatically eliminate more people. Then, this week (or maybe at the end of last week), we heard of a surgeon at a hospital who died recently of AIDS. She knew that she was HIV-positive, and performed surgery on thousands of children since the early 1990s. Given my opinion above, I hope that I will not be misconstrued as being unsympathetic to the rights of HIV-positive individuals. I believe that such persons should be allowed to keep their jobs, to live their lives up to the fullest extent possible. But this doctor did not inform parents of her disease. Yes, she would have been wearing surgical gloves. But gloves can be cut when holding a scalpel. At the very least, she should have told the parents of the patients so that the parents could have made an informed decision. Would this have likely led to her losing her job? Sadly, yes. But now there are thousands of children (or young adults who were children at the time of their operation) who must now be tested for HIV. Some members of the hospital also, apparently, knew of the doctor's condition, but they did nothing. I hate to say these things about someone who has died, but this struck a nerve with me. After all, it is considered to be responsible and fundamentally right for people with HIV to inform people they will be sleeping with of their disease, don't we? Why is it different in the case of a surgical doctor? On a related note, Montreal police are also thinking about testing new officers for HIV (though, curiously enough, not the existing officers). This, I agree with. Police officers are often at the scene of accidents, where there can be wounds and blood. Although it cannot be passed if the police officer in question has no wounds on his or her hands, accidents sometimes do necessitate the officer to pull accident victims from the wreckage, which can cut the officer's hands. I suppose they, too, could wear gloves, but I'm not sure how often this is done, and again, gloves can be cut too. It's a tricky subject, by all means. Hence my hesitation in posting it at all. But I will repeat it here again: I believe that people who have contracted HIV should still have all of their rights. But those without the disease should not be placed in danger of getting it. If there are any concerns about this entry, or if you have alternative arguments, please do not hesitate to contact me by email. |
Portal (coming soon) Get notified: |
|
