On what grounds was she discriminated against?

godtabh

I saw this online today.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dentist-who-refused-to-treat-woman-with-hiv-to-pay-10000-compensation-928693.html

Dentist who refused to treat woman with HIV to pay €10,000 compensation

There are 9 grounds of discrimination recognised in Irish law:

• Gender.
• Civil status.
• Family status.
• Sexual orientation.
• Religion.
• Age.
• Disability.
• Race (includes race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins)

As the article doesn't state which one and the case was brought to the Equal Status Act at Workplace Relations Commission where is the issue?

Mundo7976

godtabh wrote: »

I saw this online today.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dentist-who-refused-to-treat-woman-with-hiv-to-pay-10000-compensation-928693.html





As the article doesn't state which one and the case was brought to the Equal Status Act at Workplace Relations Commission where is the issue?

Disability?

D3V!L

Could it fall under disability ?

Mundo7976

Id also say he realised he fcuked up when he asked if she was on any medication after injecting the anaesthetic

CIARAN_BOYLE

D3V!L wrote: »

Could it fall under disability ?

I would say yes it can fall under disability.

On the other hand it mentions in the article

Some dentists and dental services continue to refuse treatment to people living with HIV, incorrectly believing that there are special places to treat people who are HIV positive.

I wonder if there's any justification for this view. If there are or should be specialist clinics it surely can't fall under disability but instead under best medical practice.

It's also worth noting that this was settled and there's no case saying if the dentist was right or wrong.

HIV positive dentists have to resign from practice. Is there not an argument that if that's the case anti contamination protocols are too low in general practice and there needs to be specialist clinics.

drunkmonkey

There has to be a chance of infection, I've spat blood in the dentists bowl.
Probably screwed up by giving the injection first but was probably going to sue anyway if refused straight away.
Mod deletion

Jupiter Mulligan

Surely this bit is relevant to the settlement:

"Prior to the woman’s dental appointment, she had disclosed her HIV status to the Dental Clinic."

GM228

HIV is covered under disability under the Equal Status Act 2000:-

“disability” means—

( b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness

utyh2ikcq9z76b

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's a bit like the gay cake, they should be able to refuse service especially when there is a chance of infection.

The chance of them getting infected with the gay just handing over a cake is very low

lawred2

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There has to be a chance of infection, I've spat blood at the dentist.
Probably screwed up by giving the injection first but was probably going to sue anyway if refused straight away.
Mod deletion

so much wrong with that sentence

Mod
Agreed, deleted

drunkmonkey

I'd say you could argue when it's a contract disease where the dentist/staff are at risk of infection it would be ok to discriminate on health & safety grounds alone.
Cheaper pay up that fight it though not to mention how the right wing media could latch onto it.

godtabh

GM228 wrote: »

HIV is covered under disability under the Equal Status Act 2000:-

Learn something new every day!

.......

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'd say you could argue when it's a contract disease where the dentist/staff are at risk of infection it would be ok to discriminate on health & safety grounds alone.
Cheaper pay up that fight it though not to mention how the right wing media could latch onto it.

So you think medical professionals should be able to refuse to treat people because they have various diseases?

huey1975

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There has to be a chance of infection, I've spat blood at the dentist.
Probably screwed up by giving the injection first but was probably going to sue anyway if refused straight away.
Mod deletion.

Mod deletion

Effects

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

HIV positive dentists have to resign from practice.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There has to be a chance of infection, I've spat blood at the dentist.

What about HIV positive people on modern drugs, making them unable to transmit HIV?

Can they still not practice as dentists or, if a patient, continue to have dental treatment as normal?

drunkmonkey

....... wrote: »

So you think medical professionals should be able to refuse to treat people because they have various diseases?

If it's infections and they have no experience of proper procedures in dealing with someone with it absolutely yes they should be able to say no.
There is blood involved, I assume if HIV blood mixes with yours it could mean trouble.
I could be wrong and you can't transfer it by mixing blood, I haven't looked it up it's just an assumption I've held for as long as I can remember. Probably just like the dentist.

drunkmonkey

Effects wrote: »

What about HIV positive people on modern drugs, making them unable to transmit HIV?

They can't transmit it through blood? I'd want video evidence of them taking it every day or a fresh blood test. I would not take their word for it nor should you be expected to.

Force Carrier

Blood or saliva. But the chances are miniscule. Also the dentist wpould have to be not wearing her gloves and have an open cut.

drunkmonkey

Force Carrier wrote: »

Blood or saliva. But the chances are miniscule. Also the dentist wpould have to be not wearing her gloves and have an open cut.

They'd have an open cut if you chomp down on them, those gloves wouldn't stop a good set of gnashers.
Dentists do get bitten.
There is a risk, it might be small but it's serious enough not to ignore.

Force Carrier

Is a certain level of risk normal to tjeir ptactice reasonably expected

drunkmonkey

That's not an everyday risk. I'd say there's a lot more than HIV to watch for though.

Lime Tree Farm

It's now just the Dentist we should be worried about.

https://electroiq.com/1995/10/contaminated-dental-equipment-can-carry-hiv/

Force Carrier

I think the probability of the hiv patient biting the dentist is infinitesimal.

Further again, transmission blood to blood of hiv is minute odds. There is just a handfull of documented cases of hiv transmission via bite in the 40 years history.

lbc2019

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If it's infections and they have no experience of proper procedures in dealing with someone with it absolutely yes they should be able to say no.
There is blood involved, I assume if HIV blood mixes with yours it could mean trouble.
I could be wrong and you can't transfer it by mixing blood, I haven't looked it up it's just an assumption I've held for as long as I can remember. Probably just like the dentist.

Hopefully a dentist would have more knowledge than you. Exposed blood splashes does not transfer HIV.

https://www.healthline.com/health/how-long-does-hiv-live-outside-the-body#bottom-line

Effects

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They can't transmit it through blood?

If the HIV positive person is on modern medication, they can't transmit it by any means. It can't even be detected in their blood.

Dav010

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'd say you could argue when it's a contract disease where the dentist/staff are at risk of infection it would be ok to discriminate on health & safety grounds alone.
Cheaper pay up that fight it though not to mention how the right wing media could latch onto it.

It’s breathtaking to see ignorance like this over 30 years after HIV was first identified. It is not ok to discriminate against someone who has a communicable disease. All dentists are required to follow cross infection protocols where every patient is considered a risk to staff and other patients. A considerable percentage of people who are unfortunate enough to be infected, do not know they have HIV. Are you stupid enough to think we only take precautions for the ones who know they are infected? There are lots of other diseases that people have, we treat them on a daily basis and we don’t worry about contracting them because we take the necessary precautions, all day, every day.

Op, to answer your question, yes it is on disability grounds. We cannot refuse a patient just because they have an illness. I haven’t read the full article but I suspect this is a newly qualified/inexperienced dentist who got nervous when the patient informed them of their HIV status, All dental students are taught about treating infectious patients, Dental teaching hospitals treat these patients.

Regarding the poster who said Dentists must resign if they contract HIV, certainty this used to be true, with advances in treatments I’m not sure if this is still the case. To my knowledge there has only ever been one case worldwide where a dentist infected a patient, this was done maliciously, I think it was in Florida in the 80’s.

CIARAN_BOYLE

....... wrote: »

So you think medical professionals should be able to refuse to treat people because they have various diseases?

If the medical professional does not have the best quality equipment to prevent the transmission of disease and/or there are specialist clinics that can handle the patients with reduced risk of transmission then sure.

Otherwise they should have to treat all.

Effects wrote: »

What about HIV positive people on modern drugs, making them unable to transmit HIV?

Can they still not practice as dentists or, if a patient, continue to have dental treatment as normal?

Here's an article from the British dental journal on the requirement to exit practice if diagnosed with hiv.

https://www.nature.com/articles/sj.bdj.2009.608

The potential of drugs preventing transmission isn't really talked about.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Dav010 wrote: »

Regarding the poster who said Dentists must resign if they contract HIV, certainty this used to be true, with advances in treatments I’m not sure if this is still the case. To my knowledge there has only ever been one case worldwide where a dentist infected a patient, this was done maliciously, I think it was in Florida in the 80’s.

Ive found references to a number of recent cases of healthcare workers being removed from contact with patients in Irish papers but I don't know if it's a temporary thing til they take a course of treatment or a permanent step.

Dav010

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

If the medical professional does not have the best quality equipment to prevent the transmission of disease and/or there are specialist clinics that can handle the patients with reduced risk of transmission then sure.

Otherwise they should have to treat all.



Here's an article from the British dental journal on the requirement to exit practice if diagnosed with hiv.

https://www.nature.com/articles/sj.bdj.2009.608

The potential of drugs preventing transmission isn't really talked about.

Just to be clear about this, there are no degrees of equipment quality in relation to cross infection control. Any Clinic found to be operating in a manner that puts their patients at risk will be closed and the Dentist struck off the register for negligence.

drunkmonkey

Dav010 wrote: »

It’s breathtaking to see ignorance like this over 30 years after HIV was first identified. It is not ok to discriminate against someone who has a communicable disease. All dentists are required to follow cross infection protocols where every patient is considered a risk to staff and other patients. A considerable percentage of people who are unfortunate enough to be infected, do not know they have HIV. Are you stupid enough to think we only take precautions for the ones who know they are infected? There are lots of other diseases that people have, we treat them on a daily basis and we don’t worry about contracting them because we take the necessary precautions, all day, every day.

There's a bit of an issue in the UK at the moment with HIV and Hepatitis caused by a hygienist. https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-48339679

Your dealing with serious infections, the dentist made the right call under the circumstances. It's wasn't safe to proceed.

bfa1509

I'd happily pay the 10,000 than to risk it.