He doesn't have AIDS, he is HIV positive, and that could've been a condition he was born with based on the status of his parents.

They don't let pregnant girls here attend public school. They attend a school for unwed/pregnant teens. The school district doesn't want other kids seeing them.

Treestalker, are you really that ignorant? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Maybe treestalker should come down out of the trees and learn what has been happening with HIV for the last twenty years! For a tree you have a shallow mind.

Birth, silly. Children do not get to choose their parents or the traits and/ or diseases inherited therefrom.

He probably got it from his mom when she delivered him OR he's a hemophiliac and got it via blood transfusions. He's not a danger to anyone.

Does it really matter HOW he got it??? NO. Can we stop blaming victims please.?

Treestalker, your question just goes to show that health education in this country is extremely poor.

A sexually active boy could be a danger to others so he should not be allowed at school? huh? what kind of reasoning is that?

Treestalker, there are 2 very valid ways this boy could have gotten HIV, without being promiscuous.

1. From his HIV positive mother

2. From being raped

It's not sexual activity that I would worry about. When I was 13 there were plenty of fights in schools where blood was spilled and that is the danger with a HIV positive kid.

Just like the parents that want you to drive slow in their neighborhood but speed through others when they are in a hurry, I bet alot of posters here wouldn't be so brave if this kid was playing football in their kid's gym class.

Are you willing to bet your kids life on this.....are you? Really? Be honest with yourself....and us.

he was born with it. duh!!

Privately-owned institution. Like any business, they have a right to refuse service. Tough luck.

Blood transfusions from improperly screened donors have always been a problem. Frankly it shouldn't matter how he got it, this school is plain ignorant of how hiv works. It's not like you can catch it by breathing on someone.

Privately-owned institution. Like any business, they have a right to refuse service. Tough luck.

That is true, but they can't refuse someone on a discriminatory basis, there must a legitimate reason to do so. In this case, there seems to be no legitimate reason, more likely the institution denied business based on discrimination, which is illegal.

I wonder if perhaps their concern isnt so much someone coming in contact with his blood accidentally.

But rather, the prospect that he and another student might engage in protected sex, that results in a broken condom and infected classmate.

and then the subsequent lawsuit from the newly infected classmates parents, especially if his status was never disclosed - either from the school, or from the boy himself.

As a private school, it's entirely plausible they simply decided his enrollment was not worth the risk.

Privately-owned institution. Like any business, they have a right to refuse service. Tough luck.

The school denied him specifically because of his medical condition, not his merit. This is not special treatment, it is blatant discrimination against someone with a medical condition. Had the school said he was denied because he did not qualify academically, that would have been a different story.

The Americans with Disabilities Act protects people from discrimination based on their medical condition or disability. This law applies to ALL public and private schools, businesses, governments, charities, etc. You simply cannot deny a person access to something just because they have a medical condition or they're disabled.

For those who are concerned about the blood supply in the U.S.... I work at a blood bank (in the research area that deals with Hemophilia research) and I can tell you that every single blood donation is tested for HIV before it is sent out. That does not make it impossible, but nearly so, that he got HIV from a blood transfusion due to Hemophilia. This boy is too young to have received a donation when this was an actual problem. Not only that, the only way to know that he is HIV positive is for an HIV test to have been done. Who on earth does an HIV test on a 13 year old? If you were to find out that your kid was having sex (probably with someone around the same age), you might be angry, but I don't think a parent's first inclination is going to be to get STD testing done unless they have evidence of extreme promiscuity, or if a health condition were to develop. At his age it is far more likely that he contracted HIV from his mother, and was tested as a small child. While they don't say so in the article, I could almost bet you that this boy is also adopted, which is often the case with children who have HIV.

Who cares how he got it and folks it's not like the FLU. You can only get it through Transfusions, being born with it or through sexual contact. But the bottom line is apparently this kid is really smart and can be a very productive member of society if not make this place a better place as he grows. Look at Magic Johnson (Steve-2570999). DUH...... I say let boycot Hershey’s chocolate. There are other brands out there that produce just as good chocolate if not better.

Bad judgment on the writer to imply sex is the way this kid got HIV. I'm willing to bet it was either from a tainted blood supply, an infected dentist who pricked his finger during a proceedure, or his mother. I've known and worked with many HIV positive people. This is ignorance, stupidity, and fear. Ignorance is a treatable condition, and I hope the school gets treatment-and fast!

Where in the article did the bioethicist volunteer to help the boy enroll in his kids school. Must have missed that part of the article.

Just because the boy is HIV positive DOES NOT mean he is sexually active. Let's keep our focus straight here. He could have gotten it from any number of things, and for all we know could have been living with it his entire life. So let's try not to judge without all the information.

Let them be sued into the ground. A pox on any school with this backward mentality. The dishonor they bring upon themselves cannot be put into polite language. I can only imaging the low quality of citizens they put on our streets.

Look HIV is contracted one of 4 major ways.

1. Bodily fluids - sex

2. Blood transfusions - typically from an operation

3. Mother to child - from birth

4. Dirty needles - usually drug addicts

It has been reported that mosquitoes can carry the HIV virus but there has never been a documented case of infecting anyone that way.

And as so many has said..He is HIV +....that's a big difference than having AIDS. More and more people are now living much more of a normal life as the active stage of the virus remains dormant longer and longer because of the advances in medicine and science.

It truly is appalling to hear grown adults talk and think with the knowledge of AIDS from the 80's.

Are you willing to bet your kids life on this.....are you? Really? Be honest with yourself....and us.

Yes, I would. I'm cautious, not paranoid.

Dang peeps, chill on Treestalker! Like YOU know everything about everything!!!

Let's look at the real dummies here and that's this school's administrators. Shame on them for punishing a thriving student because of something he has no control over! Of course they can still protect their other students! What an idiotic thing to say!

Let him spread his wings and fly : )

Steve2570999 - that kind of ignorance is what has caused this problem. He is less risk to students than the total ignorance of HIV is. If he gets a cut it would still be difficult for someone to be infected. They would also have to have an open cut in order to be infected.

dmd - the skin has to be broken for there to be any worry.

Those of you who state that HIV and AIDS are not considered a disability are wrong. Here's the info from the ADA site (I just googled HIV and ADA):

2. Q: Are people with HIV or AIDS protected by the ADA?

A: Yes. An individual is considered to have a "disability"
if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a
record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an
impairment. Persons with HIV disease, both symptomatic and
asymptomatic, have physical impairments that substantially limit
one or more major life activities and are, therefore, protected
by the law.

Hopefully this will settle the legal issue in anyone's mind!

@Nikki-1975634 they don't let pregnant girls go to the same school over there? Where do you live? I'm pretty sure that's a legal issue and sounds like a form of discrimination and segregation. I'll go a head and throw my personal story in there, I was pregnant in high school but was an honors student. They tried to act like I had to go to one of those schools but I told them I WOULD NOT go because they couldn't offer me the education I wanted. Then they backed down because they had no legal grounds to stop me from going to a normal public school just because I was pregnant.

It is too bad that a child has this disease but the school is right in not letting him attend...he does not have the right to put others in danger...Before all you bleeding hearts start to cry "homophobe" I feel the same way about severe allergies...why should the typically normal child have to bow to the few that have issues and thus be forced to live a less then fulfilling life? If he were to cut himself and then contact others it could spread the infection...

@Happy, Steve, and Others- When I was in high school 10 years ago my health class was informed that there were 7 students in the school with HIV. They wouldn't and couldn't tell us who they were, only the nurse and a few in the administration knew. This in no way affected my school experience or that of any other student I know of.

Underprivileged is the key word. Not HIV positive. HIV is something even hospital personnel take extreme precautions with. You expect a private school to simply admit him without have these types of safety nets in place. For crying out loud, if a hospital person even gets a drop of blood or bodily fluids on them they are immediately provided a aint medicine and the area is sterlized. Usually the person is even give 48 hours off. Followed by HIV tests every 6 months. You say unacceptable, I say caution and mindful of the rest of the student population. Furthermore they are private school, one which is not subject to the same rules as public schools. They have to right to admit or not based on their choosen standards. Boycott all you want...alone and sad...but in the end it is their choice not yours or anyone else for that matter.

@gtownhandyman: You're damned right I would. This pretense you have about "innocence" is precious. I bet you really believe that. Somehow, this kid something other than "innocent," right? Oh, you talk a good game about "not intentional malice," but you immediately jump back in with the "innocent" mantra and we all know you're not exactly being truthful.

You clearly don't know how HIV is transmitted, do you? Your "CAN [note the scary emphasis] be spread through bodily fluid" makes it seem like he's a character in a Japanese sword movie where one tiny prick will cause him to burst in huge gouts of blood and cover everything for 20 feet around him.

It's hard to get HIV.

Exactly what risk is this boy going to pose to anybody?

Be specific.

Hysteria never dies among the ignorant. This boy is no danger to anyone.

So...basically what the both of your are arguing here is that children with HIV+ status should be isolated from all other children?

Even in day schools, children still play together after school, go to parties together, and live in the same homes as other children.

What you're both advocating is a backwards view reminiscent of 1980s dialogue on the disease. Your discussion and treatment of this child is probably not unlike many people he's encountered in his life...and for having to go through that struggle, for having that DISADVANTAGE, he deserves that school just as much as anyone else.

@dmd-244801: You clearly don't know hospital protocol for none of what you say is true. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as a phlebotomist. You know, the people who draw your blood. There would be no surgeons. Hell, the entire nursing staff would have to be replaced every single day what with all the body fluids that exist in a hospital.

By your logic, HIV transmission would be rampant between those who have it and those who live with them, but that simply isn't the case.

And by the way, a private school is a public accommodation. You need to read up on your law:

A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors offices, dentists offices, hospitals, retail stores, health clubs, museums, libraries, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and places run by religious organizations are not considered places of public accommodation.

That's from ada.gov, or does the federal government not know what a public accommodation is?

No I am saying that this school does not have to admit him. It is not discrimination or bigotry it is a choice. They made the choice that they do have the ability to handle that kind of infectous diease and they do not want to open that door. Period, nothing more nothing less. There is no rule of law that protects persons with HIV because it is not a disability it is an infectous diease. One that is very serious.

@Brain - Mother is a nurse and father is a Doctor. But you are correct I know nothing.

Further my son attends private school, and they do not accept students who are HIV positive. Private schools have there own policies, procedures and admission rule. They do not have to follow anything that is not law. Since HIV is not covered under the Disabilities act they have no rule of law and therefore are not discriminating at all. Public Accommodation yes but that still does not force them to accept every student that applies. You are totally missing the point, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT HIM AS A STUDENT. Period not matter what the reason is they do not have to accept him. If what you are saying is true then Harvard University is discriminating by forcing students to have a proper SAT ACT score for adminission. Your logic is lost in the idea that this is discrimination. You have to prove that point first before you try and prove the other.

Serious, yes. But extremely treatable and incredibly difficult to transmit outside of sexual intercourse (remember, we're discussing HIV here, not AIDS, not that it should be any different).

There is no threat here, I can only hope if he gets to attend school there, that the other students are more knowledgeable about and accepting of his condition than some people here.

The school has the right to turn him away as a private institution, but not on these grounds.

@Erica - On any grounds. They have the right to turn him away on any grounds they see fit.

Brian P: Exactly what risk is this boy going to pose to anybody? Be specific.

Something as simple and innocent as an accidental cut, maybe during a group project, and God forbid another child actually as a boo-boo that hasn't fully healed. That's a risk, and one too many.

Somehow, this kid something other than "innocent," right?

I never implied this child is something other than innocent, nice try. What I won't do is ignore the fact that he has an incurable disease that can be transmitted ...and that he's a teenager who will make mistakes.

It's hard to get HIV.

Not for kids, they don't always think about the consequences of their actions. These aren't adults who recognize and take the precautions we do, nor do they wash their hands every few minutes as if they are in a hospital, nor do they immediately have cuts and scrapes attended to. These are kids, and they pass every form of fungus and infection and virus and bacteria among themselves because THEY ARE KIDS.

It's time to let the backwoods hillbilly idiots in on a NOT AT ALL SECRET. You cannot get HIV from casual contact.

You can't catch HIV like you catch the flu. It's not airborne.

Please that is ridiculous and highly unlikely that this kid will get a cut and bleed on another kid's open wound. And besides that, he's 13, not 6, and he's obviously been living with this disease and I'm sure is aware of how it is transmitted and how to take care of himself.

Brian "Exactly what risk is this boy going to pose to anybody?"

he's a 13 year old boy with hormones, a penis...and likely a belief that wearing a condom is all that he needs to do to be safe.

Except, condoms break.

As an adult, i'd have no issue dating someone HIV - im mature enough to handle the realities of that, and take any type of sexual relations with all precautions.

Kids...i struggle to see the maturity would exist, and that makes me nervous...

@dmd-433801 not so, according to the ADA, which (though a private school) it's been established here MHS has to adhere to, people with HIV are protected and so cannot be discriminated against based on their physical health status alone.

That's exactly what MHS has done here.

DMD - Uh, HIV/AIDs IS most definitely covered under the ADA, so no, the school cannot base a decision about whether or not to admit this child on the fact that he is HIV positive. Really doesn't seem like you know much about what you're talking about here...

Jessica - words would be wasted telling you how idiotic you sound.

The kid has lived presumably his entire life with the disease. Has he attended public schools thus far? Has anyone been infected? If anything at this stage in his life the risks of accidental infection decrease, because he is educated about the disease, probably more so than half the people posting on this thread. Some of you sound as i you think they have to quarantine the area if this kid skins his knee. His blood isn't going to jump up and attack someone. I thought we were over this...

HIV is not transmitted through a peck on the cheek however the CDC has determined that HIV can be spread through prolonged open mouth kissing. How many stupid teenagers do you think would understand that you can't kiss this young man? Teens are stupid they have no forethought. There has been documented "casual" infection from child to non infected parent several times. THat is what school staff and teachers become in boarding schools: parents. You think there is no sex going on at Hershey School---lol ----they are teens, they find a way. There is masturbation, nudity etc. Its life. Unfortunately, I would agree with Hershey school. ugg its not right---i know. NO easy answers.

What is the risk... hmmm... let's see now.

Hormonally charged boy lives at school without supervision. Finds hormonally charged girl. Perhaps your daughter. He likes her. As with young teens who make bad choices, doesn't tell her he is HIV positive because he is afraid. Maybe a nice druggie moment, or perhaps a little passion. We now have HIV positive girl.

We have the technology to wipe out this disease once and for all, but it wouldn't be politically correct. Requiring tests on all individuals, then tatoo'ing a nice mark in an obscure area for those that are infected. For the mark, they get free treatment. Those that 'unclothe' the mate, find the mark and make their own decisions. Disease irradicated within 50 years.

I know, I know. You hate me. What a terrible thing to say. Know what? I don't care. It is your 'politically correct' attitude that is and will be responsible for millions more deaths from this disease. At least my way, no harm done and problem solved.

Instead... guess what we do? We make special immigration asylum laws for HIV and AIDS patients to especially come to our country with special priority. What a weird way to take care of our citizens.

As odd as it is for me to say, I think I agree with the school on this one. There are some items hereof importants to note: Frankly I do not believe that THIS child is a danger to other children. I am sure he is rather responsible.

However, I see other children as being a danger to themselves around him: Allow me to quote the article: " It gives a free education to ...kids with behavioral problems. " Does that include biting, scratching...? Second the children are young. Having worked with young children I know for a FACT that this includes biting, scratching...

At that age, and with children with behavioral problems, I would fear for the other children hurting themselves also. It is a hard call, but I certainly understand it, and respect the school for making it.

DMD

They do not have to follow anything that is not law. Since HIV is not covered under the Disabilities act they have no rule of law and therefore are not discriminating at all.

Oh but you are wrong here. HIV was amended into the Disabilities act in 2009. So it is in fact a law that they must render services to people with HIV and that they are in fact in breach of the law and can be subject to a discrimination lawsuit at the parent's leisure.

Look--this school has children with behavioral problems and children from poor families. Such children are prone to risky behaviors. That the school is refusing to admit the young man is a tacit admission that there is some nookie going on, and they know it. Let's first ask how many young women at that school (these are not children--they are teens) become pregnant. Let's also ask what the rate of STDs might be at the school.

If there are quite a few teen moms, and if there is a high rate of STDs, then they made a very good decision in having the young man denied entry. They probably cannot share this information without making themselves look really, really bad--but it doesn't take much to figure out that they know perfectly well that there will be some HIV transmission, and they will get sued.

So--they enroll this young man. He infects one or more young ladies or young men at the school--because his HIV status cannot be revealed by the school to the students and because he isn't likely to share the information. Now, what are you going to say? Will it be the school's fault for not monitoring children who quite likely do not want to be monitored and could not be prevented from engaging in this behavior unless they were locked in separate rooms at night?

If the young man goes to a public school, it isn't all that likely that there will be nookie during the daytime on school grounds (not impossible, just less likely). It's not that big of a problem. If the young man infects another, it's more likely to happen on the parents' watch than on the school's.

The key point is that it is a boarding school, it is a school for high-risk children who are going to engage in risky behaviors, and this equals a high risk for HIV transmission. I would rather see them try to accommodate the young man--but if they really cannot, I'd like to see them try and arrange for the young man to attend a day school where he can get an equally good education. When he is a bit older, more mature, and better able to manage his own illness, then this will be a far more minor problem.

I do not see that this school is absolutely wrong. But, I do think that they are going to have to be candid with those who investigate and prove that they have an on-campus issue with sexual behaviors among the students, because it is mostly sexual behaviors that would be the vector for infection here.

If they really don't have a problem with sexual behaviors, and the pregnancy and STD rate are low, then I would agree that they are in the wrong. I just don't happen to think that one will find no problems there since we are discussing poor children with behavioral issues, and it really is characteristic to have high pregnancy and high STD among that population.

Revised ADA Regulations Implementing Title II and Title III both versions available online at ADA.GOV - Search HIV no match found

You were saying Geowil? Further there is a 1994 version and a 2010 version not a 2009 version. An infectious diease is not a disability. HIV is the infectious diease not like AIDS. So I would recommend before you attempt to provide someone else wrong you should make sure that you are not the one that is wrong.

Um...dmd-433801, you may want to check out this FAQ page from the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section:

'www.ada.gov/pubs/hivqanda.txt'

Or you can read this snippet:

2.   Q:  Are people with HIV or AIDS protected by the ADA?

     A:  Yes.  An individual is considered to have a "disability" if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a
record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.  Persons with HIV disease, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, have physical impairments that substantially limit
one or more major life activities and are, therefore, protected by the law.

Persons who are discriminated against because they are regarded as being HIV-positive are also protected.  For example, a person
who was fired on the basis of a rumor that he had AIDS, even if he did not, would be protected by the law.

Moreover, the ADA protects persons who are discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with an
individual who is HIV-positive.  For example, the ADA would protect an HIV-negative woman who was denied a job because her
roommate had AIDS.

@tomorrowsnews:

You should educate yourself more on the subject. Saliva cannot transmit HIV on its own. A person must have bleeding in their mouth for swapping spit to pose even a small risk.

oh, well done, dman

I'll just add that under the American with Disabilities Act, Title three, private schools are defined as public accommodations in Sec.36.104 (10) Definitions.

And public accommodations cannot discriminate against people on the basis of disability. That's in Subpart A, Section 36. 101 Purpose.

Milton Hershey is in clear violation of the Act. This was all hashed out in the 80's, I can't believe it's all come up again. This kid's right to accommodation for his disability outweighs the very remote chance of him infecting others, and that's that.

http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html#Anchor-36103

OMG there are totally stupid people on this site. If HIV were spread as easily as most of you seem to think - everyone would have it. There are kids in public schools with HIV that no one knows about just so they won't be attached with the stigma this boy is.

He got HIV either by a blood transfusion or by passage from his mother. The total stupidity of this argument is beyond belief.

As for the total idiot who said it's not hard for HIV to spread with kids because they have penis's etc. - stupidity. According to that rationale HIV should be rampant among kids but - hey - it isn't.

He should be allowed to attend school - with a few precautions if he is cut. It's pretty simple really.

SCOTUS ruled asymptomatic HIV is a disability under the ADA. Bragdon v Abbott, US Sup. Ct No. 97-156

I still can't believe what I read. He is a threat to no one. I'm sure he has no intentions of going to school to have unprotected sex with anyone there. My best friend passed away two years ago of AIDS. He had it for 20+ years and died at 70. I was at no risk at all. I ate the food he cooked (he didn't open his veins and drop his blood in the gravy), hugged him, drank after him from a glass, knowing how HIV is spread. I didn't get HIV from being in the same room with him. I'm still HIV- and had the best friend I've ever had and still miss him. This is true a violation of this child's rights.

The latest version of the ADA adopted this last March has - just like the federal govt that publishes it - has become so broad in scope that anyone can be covered if you can prove your quality of life is effected...it is laughable...there are many cases where employees have sued under the ADA...even a truck driver who had a DUI and claimed alcoholism (which is covered) and was protected under the guidelines and the company was forced to keep him as a driver so forgive me if I think that the coverage under the ADA is BS. As for the HIV issue the majority of cases are still spread by gays and bisexuals so if the lifestyle is abandoned then the cases will drop dramatically.

Some of you are just plain hysterical. I hope all of you realize that there is a very, very good chance that there is at least one infected child in most public-schools in this country. Some of you act like you would never allow your child to be around someone HIV+, but chances are they are around at least one person with the disease 5 days a week. Most infected people don't wear signs announcing it. Get a clue

Just because a person is disabled, does not mean they are entitled to special treatment/acceptance. This is where America get's it wrong. My father in law was severly disabled and prior to his passing, referring to all the disability laws of this country, stated, "Never has so much money been spent on so few people." and he did not mean that in a positive way

No one is asking for special treatment. he just wants to go to school.

@ Steve, it is a blatant violation when the school acknowledges that his condition is the reason for not accepting him.

He is not asking for special treatment. He is asking for equal treatment under the law. He does not pose a health risk, nor does his presence require any additional costs to the school. Merely pointing out that the basis for their decision is not valid.

There is no violation of the Disabilities Act or Rights because HIV is a Disability. Further that is a private school that has its own charter and rules as well as admission process. They have every right not to admit him or any other student they do not wish too. It is sad but what happens in gym when that student cuts himself and another student gets blood on them? In a hospital that medical professional is immediately provide medication and sterlize the area. This is a serious infectous disease and it is mindful of the establishment to want to protect the majority.

Unfortnate as it may be the lawsuit will get no where as well. The only reason it was filed was a last ditch attempt to get the child into the school and public announce that they denied his entry. I do not know what is worst, the fact that this child has to suffer with HIV or the fact that his parents felt the need to publicly humilate him.

While this kind of discrimination shouldn't be happening, it is more widespread than we can imagine. It is difficult to overcome bigotry. Some people will never be enlightened because it is more comfortable for them to remain bigots than to think through an issue and change their opinions.

BW-267706

While this kind of discrimination shouldn't be happening, it is more widespread than we can imagine. It is difficult to overcome bigotry. Some people will never be enlightened because it is more comfortable for them to remain bigots than to think through an issue and change their opinions.

'Biggotry'? Who hates the kid? Who dislikes him?

You're actually demonizing people who are trying to protect disadvantaged children from a 100% fatal disease that can be spread from person to person. The nerve of some people amazes me!

The flush lever has been pulled, this country is swirling around and around and around...

@BW - It has nothing to do with enlightenment or bigotry has to do with a fatal infectous diease being spread is a small area. These childern live at this school, they do everything here. The administration is only protecting the population of that school. Refering to my above post as to the drastic measures that hospitals take when a patient comes in with HIV. Double and Triple gloves, masks, gowns, and not mention if blood or fluids gets on one of them...Please this is about discrimination this is about protecting a population of students.

You're actually demonizing people who are trying to protect disadvantaged children from a 100% fatal disease that can be spread from person to person. The nerve of some people amazes me!

1) HIV/AIDS has NOT been a 100% fatal disease for many years- it's completely manageable like diabetes.

2) HIV infection is actually hard to get - single exposure infection is extremely rare outside of sexual contact. The virus is quite delicate and cannot live outside the body for but for brief moments.

Inform yourself and stop with the hysteria, your ignorance harms people like this boy.

It is sad but what happens in gym when that student cuts himself and another student gets blood on them?

The same thing that would happen if ANY student cut himself. Prudent practice requires medical personnel to assume that everyone has HIV or other infectious diseases.

@culheath - Comparing HIV to diabetes is somehow just wrong. It is no where near the same. You cannot get Diabetes from blood transfer but you can get HIV. And it can be as simple as a kitchen knife that this boy used an accidentally got his blood on being used by another child to open a box and accidentally cut themselves with it. It is not ignorance that is harming people it is the misinformation of thinking it is perfectly safe.

1) HIV/AIDS has NOT been a 100% fatal disease for many years- it's completely manageable like diabetes.

2) HIV infection is actually hard to get - single exposure infection is extremely rare outside of sexual contact. The virus is quite delicate and cannot live outside the body for but for brief moments.

Inform yourself and stop with the hysteria, your ignorance harms people like this boy.

Because there are drugs that can ensure us longer lives with the disease it does not make it any less dangerous. Life-prolonging drugs (not cures) certainly don't make it any less logical to reduce exposure to it as much as possible.

An 8-year old cubscout asked me what 'blood brothers' were. I told him what it was and asked where he had heard of that. He had been watching old black and white television series and apparently some boys his age had mentioned that in the show. I told him that we don't do that anymore, that it was never a good thing in the first place and he scurried off. I later found him asking another counselor for a pin, apparently these two boys had decided they WERE going to be blood brothers.

That's a real story from this summer. Do you care to claim that your adult claims of difficult transmission are relevant to CHILDREN? They don't think like we do, they don't see the harm and the politically-correct notion that this one boy's feelings are worth enough to put an increased risk on 1800 other students is laughable.

Facts are facts and this is a bad disease. Few steps are too extreme to protect our youngest and most vulnerable from it and if that view is 'hysteria' then so be it.

@dmd-433801, if you read what the man said, the virus is VERY delicate, and the odds of two children cutting themselves and one infecting the other in enough time that the virus wouldn't die would be astronomical. Please read the facts and understand accordingly.

There has NEVER EVER EVER been a case of HIV spread my casual contact. Not in 30 years. Ever.

Seems someone needs to learn what a public accommodation is:

A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors offices, dentists offices, hospitals, retail stores, health clubs, museums, libraries, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and places run by religious organizations are not considered places of public accommodation.

That's from the ada.gov site. Note that private schools are public accommodations. This isn't surprising since they are performing a public service: The education of students who are required to attend school.

What, pray tell, do these other people need protection from? Be specific. You're making it seem like all it takes is a pin-prick and suddenly everybody is doing their best Carrie imitation. By this logic, HIV should be rampant since anybody who lives with an HIV+ person would be at risk of infection.

But that simply isn't the case. HIV is hard to get.

And bigotry doesn't mean hatred. It means treating people poorly without just cause which is precisely what is happening here. An innocent child is being discriminated against due to bigotry against him being HIV+.

Comparing HIV to diabetes is somehow just wrong. It is no where near the same. You cannot get Diabetes from blood transfer but you can get HIV.

The only difference is that is that HIV is potentially infectious, in other regards the parallels hold; both are life threatening conditions and both are completely manageable via drugs and healthy lifestyle.

The problem here is not cautious awareness, but rather hysterical reactions based on ignorance.

HIV is most certainly considered a disability, and covered under anti-discrimination laws. Which, the OPs father notwithstanding, exist because society as a whole has an ugly habit of ignoring or outright marginalizing anyone who isn't "normal". This being a prime example. Kids infected at birth with HIV are going to school RIGHT NOW! They go to the same summer camps as your kids, the same daycares, the same parks and baseball leagues. And none of them have ever infected another child. Not in 3 decades.

Get over it, and learn something.

There is no risk. Nobody has even gotten HIV through casual contact and never will get HIV through casual contact.

I worked with an HIV/AIDS support group in the 80's, we gave final stage comfort and care to sufferers. Even back then it was known that the virus that causes AIDS (HIV) dies the second it hits air, it is impossible to get the virus casually. One other thing, since it was an Ecumenical organization we had communion every month after our board meeting and shared a common Chalice - NONE (as in not a single person) that participated ever become HIV positive or contacted AIDS as a result of our association with our "clients" or sharing the Chalice with the HIV positive members of our board. So to assert that this child is a threat is totally bogus and feeds into the fear, ignorance and hysteria that, unfortunately, still exists and is very obvious by many posts. Sad.

Tomorrowsnews, I don't have to personally investigate. The EXPERTS HAVE DONE IT FOR ME. And if you have to dig that hard to find ONCE instance of something having happened, I'd say the risk is small enough that you have a better chance of catching something less rare. Like, say, a deadly strain of flu. Something that I can find LOTS of instances of by a simple Google search.

Few steps are too extreme to protect our youngest and most vulnerable from it and if that view is 'hysteria' then so be it.

Here's an idea. Let's take all HIV-positive people and confine them to, say, an off-shore island somewhere. We could have some religious organization, say, like the Catholic Church send missionaries to take care of them.

Keep them there until they die.

Does this sound familiar?

The below is copied directly from the ADA website, showing that HIV/AIDS is in fact considered a disability, and to DMD, just because your mother is a nurse and your father a doctor does not make you either, nor does it make you knowledgable in this area. I don't claim to be an expert, however I am smart enough to know that as an organism it cannot live outside the body for more than a few second and as such would take direct wound to wound contact to infect by blood which is why doctors and nurses double glove because they may cut themselves while dealing with an open wound thus providing the perfect storm. If you are insinuating that this child is going to be treating other peoples wounds rather than a school official or nurse then yes maybe he shouldn't go there. Otherwise I'm sure, having lived with the diease for 13 years, he knows all the risks and will be careful to not infect others. You really should do some of your own research, as it only took me one search on the ADA website to bring up pages of items on HIV/AIDS, instead of relying on your second hand knowledge from your parents careers. My dad is a farmer but I don't claim to know how to drive a tractor...

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
AND PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS

I. Introduction

1. Q: What is the ADA?

A: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) gives federal
civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar
to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color,
sex, national origin, age, and religion. It guarantees equal
opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public
accommodations, employment, transportation, State and local
government services, and telecommunications.

2. Q: Are people with HIV or AIDS protected by the ADA?

A: Yes. An individual is considered to have a "disability"
if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a
record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an
impairment. Persons with HIV disease, both symptomatic and
asymptomatic, have physical impairments that substantially limit
one or more major life activities and are, therefore, protected
by the law.

Persons who are discriminated against because they are regarded
as being HIV-positive are also protected. For example, a person
who was fired on the basis of a rumor that he had AIDS, even if
he did not, would be protected by the law.

Moreover, the ADA protects persons who are discriminated against
because they have a known association or relationship with an
individual who is HIV-positive. For example, the ADA would
protect an HIV-negative woman who was denied a job because her
roommate had AIDS.

Kim - I also posted this above for DMD. Got tired of his/her rant about it not being covered under ADA. I'm sure he/she will still come back with some obfuscation about it not being covered. It is, DMD, and the Hershey School CAN be found in violation of the act. Perhaps, DMD if your parents were lawyers instead of medical professionals you would know that fact.

That should absolutely follow such a decision. I don't want any of my money going to support a school that doesn't support education for all. Let them continue to operate without the tax breaks, or let them continue to operate with them AND this student.

Bill...

"It is unfortunate for the 13 year old to be in this situation, but it gives no one the right to endanger others when it does not have to be."

Wow... I can't believe these ignorant comments! Are you really that UNEDUCATED? Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years or did you make a conscience choice to avoid reading scientific facts about HIV so you can continue your bigoted outlook?

SHAME ON YOU!

There is never NO risk, not as long as people come in contact with others. Unless every student is being tested and re-tested continuously, the risk at that school is already non-zero.

And remember once infected, never cured

And they said the same for Hansens Disease. And smallpox. And yellow fever. and malaria. And...

And do you think that this child doesn't understand the risks involved with his condition? Do you think he would just let his nose bleed uncontrollably onto other children? I bet this kid knows more about containing and cleaning up his bodily fluids than you do. I bet he knows more about how HIV is transmitted than you or I do.

I'd have no problem sending my children there. Don't you think your children could already be associating with HIV positive kids in public schools? Or are you going to say HIV kids shouldn't go to public schools too? Where should they get their education, eh?

That makes you an uneducated simpleton and I feel sorry for you and for your children.

And apparently you don't understand how easy it is to transmit.

Because it isn't easy at all. HIV is hard to get.

It's as easy to pass hepatitis C or viral meningitis as HIV. How many stories have there been in the news lately about that? And it's estimated that about 50% of people with Hep C are asymptotic and don't even know they have it.

The kid's lived with this all his life. He knows how to take care of himself and others.

Disadvantage 1 kid or put 200 at risk??? use some common sense!

I guess you would like all airline passengers to be checked for HIV before boarding...what if the plane experiences heavy turbulence or crashes or some angry drunk stabs the HIV+ person with a plastic fork or any number of random and highly improbably events occurs?

The point being that the "risk" you are talking about is smaller than the risk you take every time you get on an airplane that you will die in an air crash or be struck by lightning or eaten by a shark. Do those things happen? - yes, but the odds are so remote that people don't really think about them...being upset at the similarly remote probability of this boy being a risk to his schoolmates is pure bias and hysteria.

Hey people posting things about bloody noses and what not how about going to webmd or something before commenting. Once air hits HIV infected blood the virus dies unlike Hepatitis which can live outside the body for up to four days. An HIV positive person bleeding on a non HIV positive person would more likely be hit by a car then contract it through a nose bleed, paper cut or fist fight. But hepatitis would be more likely. You think they do not have hepatitis positive children there? I find it very unlikely there is no child in that school with some sort of blood born illness. Don't try to say Hep isn't deadly because it can be, I personally know two people who have died waiting for liver transplants, both of which got it from mothers through child birth.

"Friend" is Quaker -speak for a fellow Quaker. It just a clever rewording of Pennsylvania motto "the Quaker state". Not actual, literal friends.

Really?? OK ... let's just ban all attractive male students. After all, even if they're not HIV positive, they could transmit other STDs, cause pregnancy, etc....

"it's very possible that he is attractive, if so, other students will want to have sex with him, these are high-school kids after all"

yes, because all high-school girls hump every attractive male on sight. i can see how you would think this is an issue!

HIV is no longer a death sentence in a handbag. there are treatments and this boy is most likely receiving them. yes there is a slight risk of exposure but to honestly think that someone who has lived with this disease is unaware of how communicable it is, is just ignorance. HIV infected children are probably in YOUR CHILD PUBLIC SCHOOL RIGHT NOW!!!! is your child infected? NO!

my mother is a nurse she said that yes they do take extra care with HIV/AIDS patients but they do NOT have to quarantine the whole building because the kids gets a nose bleed! they clean the blood while wearing gloves, not a freaking hazard suit! and then they clean the area as they would any other blood spill and dispose of the infected blood in a medical waste bag just like they would WITH ANYONE'S BLOOD! they are not forced to go through screening or any of that nonsense UNLESS they KNOW they have an open wound that came IN DIRECT CONTACT with infected fluids. the fact that you AND your "nurse/doctor" parents are so ignorant about the fact surrounding HIV/AIDs makes me think A: they are not medical professionals of ANY kind. and/or B: you have been living under a rock!

let this kid come to my school district where his intelligence will matter more than his disease

Why do you support the school's position? There has never been a case of HIV spread through casual contact. It's a decision based on antiquated fear and information.

You do realize that by rejecting him for his HIV status, they are treating it as a political issue, not a medical one, yes? Because his status is not a medical issue for anybody else.

Exactly how do you think HIV is transmitted? Be specific. Hint, "exchange of bodily fluids" is not specific enough.

HIV is hard to get.

Now why would he mention that if there was no risk. If there was no risk why would a seminar be needed?

Because of people like you who "know" there's an extreme risk.

Because the ADA prohibits discrimination in places of public on the basis of HIV status. A school, public or private, is considered under the law to be a place of public accommodation; therefore, the school may not discriminate against the boy. Special rules apply to religious schools and private clubs, neither of which is this school. No law prevents a school from denying admission based upon bad grades.

I have a three-year-old daughter who I love more than my next breath. I would take her to an HIV ravaged country and let her play with any of the children because I UNDERSTAND BASIC SCIENCE and know that HIV is not spread through casual contact. We know this because this disease is no longer a mystery. In 30 years, nobody has caught HIV from playing with an HIV infected child.

Incorrect. They are a public accommodation (and you do know the legal definition of such, yes?) and thus are required to comply with the law.

ObamaLies,

Read some of the other posts. HIV is a disability. This means people with HIV cannot be denied a public service because of their disease. The school said up front they denied his application because he has HIV. They are in the wrong and are in blatant violation of the law, private school or not.

All of you have to ask yourselves whether you'd let your kids play around another kid who is HIV positive.

Absoulutely I would. And did. And 8 years later she"s healthy and uninfected.

First, HIV is a protected disability under the ADA. Secondly, there has never been a recorded case of casual contact transfer of HIV. Finally, kids are germ factories. Mono, Hepatitis, and Meningitis are far more easily passed, more prevalent, and kill faster than HIV but no one is arguing either refusing admittance or expelling those students who have those illnesses-- only this student with HIV.

You can't cure mono; it just eventually goes away on its own. Hep C isn't always curable. And many viral meningitis victims die.

Bit misleading to leave out the rest of the quote. You know, the parts about how treatment can reduce even the risk of transmission through unprotected sex, or through blood-to-wound contact, by massively reducing the viral load (the amount of virus replicating and circulating in the blood). A high percentage of the people who have uncontrolled HIV infection a) do not know they are infected (that's 1 in 5), b) have limited access to medical care and drugs (estimated at 3 to 4 in 5), or c) they are either unusually impulsive, homeless, drug using, desperately low income, or some combination of the above (also roughly estimated at 3 to 4 in 5...and yes, the categories overlap, so they don't add up to 5). None of these situations, so far as we can tell, apply to this boy. He has the self-discipline to be an honor student. He's on meds. He may very well have a near-undetectable viral load, and therefore be much safer, as far as his fellow students are concerned, than random people in their own families.

Viral load has a huge effect, BTW. The best (and one of the few) documented cases of transmission via oral sex without bleeding gums or open lesions involved a monogamous couple where one partner was near death from HIV, with a hugely high viral load (this was in the era before effective treatments to reduce viral load). That's when oral sex was recategorized to "low risk" from "probably no risk."

Hepatitis remains infectious far longer outside the body than HIV (which is a very fragile virus). Several sub-types of hepatitis have no effective treatment or cure, and can be just as lethal as HIV. If you're going to worry about your kids, read up on and worry about hepatitis, not HIV. The precautions you should be using anyway for hepatitis (which is sadly, not rare) will more than protect you, and your kids, from infection with HIV.

your 100% fatal disease has NOT yet killed me and I've had it since 1985

Not YET, that's true ...I suppose.

Uncle Gar,

So if you die in the next 30 or so years, then he was right (of course you might be 102 by then!, but it would be the HIV that did it).

I suspect gtownhandyman is a true country bumpkin that probably thinks floride in his water is a government conspiracy too!

Uncle Gar - Hang in there and high five to you dude; I am sure you will outlive both of the two uneducated "persons" (obviously Hugh, you are not one of them) that commented. I've seen folks that have lived for years with terminal cancer and those that have died "less than six months from diagnosis" of what's considered curable cancer and "it wasn't pretty to watch" either.

Many of those that have posted to this wall are lucky that ignorance and fear aren't terminal illnesses.

OMG Margaret- I have a cold sore, I'm a threat to society, no wonder no one would sit next to me on the bus yesterday; I'm sure it wasn't because there were so many empty seats, no, I now know that they were really afraid of me! I should hang my head in shame and stay out of public so no on else gets one. My husband should divorce me so he doesn't get one. My family should shun me. I should stay away from children and everyone else. I'm a menace to society and feel like a leper. Thank you for pointing that out that herpes is incurable, I just don't know how I can go on now. (You know, I really wish there was a sarcasm font for posts like this.)

So, where do you think HIV positive children should get their education? By your logic, they are putting all children at risk and shouldn't even have the chance to go to public schools either. Or do you think public schools have better trained personnel that could handle an HIV child? I'm rather doubtful of that one, myself.

Selfish parents, indeed, just trying to get their children the best education they can, despite their children having 'issues'. Guess they should just all be home-schooled, eh?

Also Steven, HIV is protested under the Disability Act. The school, by claiming they denied his admission because of HIV, has placed themselves in the iron sights of any disability lawyer that is willing to take the case.

By the way, contracting HIV from blood exposure is actually very hard. People have blown it way out of proportion. The only way you can be infected 100% of the time is through sex or prenatally or are injected with the blood. Surface contact with skin and infected blood doesn't mean you get infected. If there is a wound or sore where the blood lands then the chances are higher.

I would never allow my children or grandchildren to attend a school with HIV infected individuals, teachers, administrators or children.

Maybe you should just lock yourself, your children, and your grandchildren in your house and never venture out again. You do know that there are a bunch of HIV-positive people out there in the world, you're undoubtably interacting with them, and you'll never know it.

So remote as to be comical.

I would allow my child to play, bunk and go to boarding school with this child without batting an eyelash, yes.

You know why? Firstly because I understand science and know her risk to be so remote it's not worth discussing. But also because of this:

Because it's HIV. A completely manageable disease at this point. In one case, even cured. Medication manages the viral load and it is no longer and instant death sentence. On the .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000026%, or some equally ridiculous number, chance that she'd become infected, she'd be okay. We'd make sure of it. There's no reason to panic. It's a disease we understand and can deal with. People like you are fearmongering and it's ridiculous.

I wonder that there hasn't been some sort of violation of HIPPA since the school has disclosed that they rejected a 13 year old honor student solely because he was HIV positive - any one that knows he applied and was rejected now also knows that he's HIV positive.

Brian, if your partner's employer has 15 or more employees, please have him file a complaint with the EEOC. Despite what other people incorrectly say, the law is clear that people who have HIV positive status (not just AIDS) are protected under the ADA. It is 2011, not 1980, we should have evolved by now but clearly some of us haven't.

I smell a wrongful termination lawsuit, and a discrimination lawsuit!

"we should have evolved by now but clearly some of us haven't."

The ones who haven't don't believe in evolution either.

tomorrowsnews, you are too much. "Sprayed other students." You live in a horror movie. You have shown you know nothing about HIV and continuing to repeat nonsense just makes everyone sure you know nothing. No one needs to stay with this student 24 hours a day. I'm sure there are housemasters who live with the students whether they have HIV, meningitis, measles, etc., all of which are far easier to transmit than HIV and despite what you believe can all be fatal.

This particular post was about an employer terminating an employee for being HIV positive, not even about the school, yet you continue to spout nonsense. I expect you believe this employer was legally and morally correct to terminate him.

Caplan mentions the need for a seminar to address neanderthals who continue to believe there is a risk which like the bogeyman doesn't exist. The school is in violation of the ADA. You can't seem to admit that despite the mountain of evidence.