I have a boss I work with who's husband was a prison guard. He was involved in breaking up a fight between 2 inmates. There was blood and he had gotten blood on him. NYS law says that its the new HIPPA law that's protects the right on an individual and was not allowed to know weather or not the inmate had a diease. The prison guard had the option on going on meds to prevent any diease that he may have gotten. After taken the meds for 6-months he now has server liver problems. He would not have had these problems if he was allowed to know if the inmate had hiv or not. Don't you believe that a guard should have the right to know if a prisoner has aids or not this way here if there was a fight and blood was involved they could prevent themselves from contacting it?
2007-02-01 08:55:53 · 14 answers · asked by ompie 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
My bosses husband has not been able to return to work because the meds he was precribed has made him very ill. He recently retired. I do think that the prison guards have the right to know about the statis of an inmates health. Or prisoners who have contagious dieases should be kept seperatly from others. I guess thats NYS for you. This happened about 3yrs ago, I am not sure if the law has changed.. my guess is probably not. Do you know?
2007-02-01 09:17:16 · update #1
Absolutely.
If an inmate with hiv pos. spit on a guard it would be assault with intent to kill.
There is something really wrong here, not the least of which is a violation of the guard's right to know, part of the United States Code.
2007-02-01 09:03:35 · answer #1 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and no. An inmate may come in testing negative and sero-convert after being incarcerated. Meaning he may now be positive from an exposure that did not turn up on previous testing.
Addintionally, anyone working in close proximity with high-risk people should treat all of them as potentially infected.
As a health care worker if I am exposed I can request that the person be tested, but I cannot force them.
People, even criminals have a right to be treated equally and with some measure of respect, and sadly even in our modern world people treat people with HIV/AIDs differently than they do those without.
2007-02-01 09:20:28 · answer #2 · answered by Susie D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say no and here's why,...every guard should automatically assume that all inmates are HIV positive, as should all people about to have sex with non-tested partners. While HIV is a relatively difficult virus to catch, Hep.C is rampant in prisons and quite easily transmitted. Your friend can get a PCR test that will look for the virus itself, not merely the presence of HIV anti-bodies, and this more sophisticated test will pick up the virus, it it is there, in a matter of days, rather than weeks. He took those liver killing meds based on old data which prisons are loathe to update. He should not have needed to take them longer than 2 weeks before knowing his status.
2007-02-01 09:13:06 · answer #3 · answered by RevJim 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have never heard of such a law. Common sense tells me that a prison guard is working a high risk job with a high probability of violence occurring. I would hope every guard would like to know the most of any situation he/she gets into. There are precautions a guard can take like dressing in protective gear that will prevent any blood transfers. But they can not always anticipate what is going to happen at any given time and gearing up can be cumbersome.
2007-02-01 09:03:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a Rn we treat all pt'swith "universal precautions." Basically this means gloves for all pts, and gowns and mask with some pts. (Generally respiratory pts.) Most people in a possible situation where there is a known probability of blood contact, like a police officer, carry gloves in their gear and put them on FAST if the need arises. As a prison guard he should be carrying gloves at all times. As far as Hippa with disclosure acts, in the medical Field, in the event of exposure, with consent the pt. is tested, and the employee is tested. Generally there are follow up tests for the employee at 6 months and a year. Medication is not indicted if testing is negative. BUT if the pt.is positive the option of preventavie treatment is there but the pt. does have to consent to testing.
2007-02-01 09:06:39 · answer #5 · answered by sweet sue 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
prisoners have no right to use the bathroom or pick their nose in privacy so how are they going to be protected by hippa laws. i don't think they should be protected by hippa laws. it just makes no sense to me.
in prison the rationale is to treat every inmate like they have aids or some other disease. so it doesn't really make a difference if the cop knew for sure the inmate had an infectious disease. he should take the medications regardless.
2007-02-01 09:06:51 · answer #6 · answered by Miki 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is ridiculous...prisoners should not have that kind of right at all..A prison guard should always know what he could be getting in to..
however, a problem could arise if the guard was to refuse to break up the fight....
2007-02-01 09:01:15 · answer #7 · answered by Mr. Smoothie, aka Mr. SmartAss 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
definite; my cousin's spouse died at age 40 8 from a innovations tumor (glioblastoma); yet another buddy died at 40 six from a similar subject. As toughness is going, this isn't any longer lots while there are people obtainable residing to a hundred greater and greater in lots of situations.
2016-09-28 07:12:46 · answer #8 · answered by fryback 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. and his liver issues are most likely a result from meds. Been there did that. Thank goodness it can heal itself.Not for aids though. just ptsd.
2007-02-01 09:02:42 · answer #9 · answered by JAMI E 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most definiteley sould have been warned. The aids guy should ahve to wear a marker
2007-02-01 08:59:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋