hiv

littlehobo

Hi,just wanted to get peoples opinion on this.A good friend of mine was diagnosed hiv positive last year.Shes not a drug user,shes in a stable relationship,has a nice home and a nice family.She went to get a tattoo done on Tuesday and agonised over weather or not to reveal her hiv status.In the end she decided to just tell the truth.The tattoiest point blank refused to tattoo her.She was very hurt and embarressed.She thought as they use sterile,new needles for everybody it would be ok.Now i know that a lot of people go in to these places and say they have no diseases(even though they do)and they will get tattoed no problem.Was he within his rights to refuse her?Shes thinking of legal action.Has anyone ever heard of anything like this happening before?

Gordon

Not a PI and possibly not a Legal Discussion topic either. If that is the case, then sorry Mods.

Overheal

I plead ignorance; whats the medical significance behind barring her?

The_Conductor

Overheal wrote:

I plead ignorance; whats the medical significance behind barring her?

There is a risk, albeit small, that the tattoo artist may be exposed to blood from the person they are working on. It depends on lots of different factors. While sterile needles will provide protection for the person undergoing the tattoo, the artist has limited steps he/she can take to protect themselves, one step of which is to avoid situations which would knowingly put them at a much higher risk than they would otherwise be. Its common for tattoo artists to refuse to tattoo those suffering from HIV or Hepatitis. If someone has low clotting factor (or any of a long and bewildering list of other medical probs) the risk of flowing blood can be a real risk which cannot be ignored. I cannot imagine that were legal action to be initiated it would be successful. It is not the same as wandering into a hair salon and the hair dresser refusing to cut your hair- its an entirely different situation.

S./

seamus

Your friend would have no case for illegal discrimination I'm afraid.

The tattooist has a valid (though unfortunate for your friend) reason for refusing to do the tattoo - as smccarrick outlines above. It's not about the needles being sterile, it's about the small (tiny, but existing) risk of blood flow while the tattoo is being done. Even a tiny trace of blood could potentially splash during the procedure. This could end up unseen on chairs or equipment or (for example) into the tattooist's mouth, where they could become infected.
The risk is tiny, but can't be ignored.

For the record, I believe your friend was very right to tell the tattoo artist, even if it didn't result in the outcome she wanted. At least she gave the guy the option of getting involved. There are probably a few tattoo artist out there who'll do it - some who are probably positive themselves. There may be HIV support groups or online forums that can recommend someone.

johnnyskeleton

I'm not sure if Seamus' post opens this up for advice or not, but I think there may well be an equalty case in this. A person cannot discriminate in the supply of a service to someone with a disability, which includes "the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness" (s.2 Equal Status Act, 2000).

Although it may have been sensible to include such a provision, I don't think there is anything that allows discrimination on the basis that the service provider might contract the illness.

That said, this is only a view, and your friend should contact the equality authority to see what they think.