HIV Child rejected

[freedfromsin]

A couple who checked into a recreational vehicle park with their 2-year-old foster son were told the boy couldn't use the showers, pool or other common areas because he has the HIV virus.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3355418...=1&GMA=true

How would you handle this? Was the park owners correct? More important how would your church handle this or how do you hope that they handle this type of situation if the child's parents wanted to leave him/her in your church day care with other children?

You can read the full story at the link above, but here is what the CDC says;

The HIV virus is not transmitted through day-to-day activities such as shaking hands, hugging or a casual kiss, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Now here is my take on this. This disease while difficult to transmit still can be transmitted under certain circumstances such a cut and blood. Knowing how children play and interact If there is ANY possible way for another child to get this in daily contact then I would not want any child to be in direct contact with one who has HIV. This includes church day care and church nurseries. I don't even want my child in the same room with another child with a cold, much less one that has HIV! In my opinion it is totally selfish and uncaring for the health of others when any parent brings a child to be in contact with other children when there is ANY possibility of contacting that or any other disease! I feel that the park owners did correctly. I am not against making a separate place to handle such a child where there is no contact with others who do not already have this disease and allow anyone who wants to care for them to be allowed, but never in with the regular population of children. Like I said even if there is only one chance on a million I would not want them with my child in a day setting. How should the church deal with these things and does your church have a policy on such?

What do you say?

[Guest Biblicist]

Poor kid!

[Scarletprayers]

I think its a shame, I've been around people who have full blown HIV, they are desperate for a hug or touch, just plan old human contact. My children and grandchildren have been around them, I've eaten with them, hugged them and loved them. They already have a death sentence, you just want to treat them like they are already dead. How sad!

[Leonard]

And I've been with AIDS victims too. I've hugged them, kissed them on the cheek, held hands and prayed with them.

Still, THAT WAS MY DECISION. I wouldn't make that mandatory for everyone.

The French equivalent of our CDC says AIDS CAN BE spread by kissing, or close contact sneezing and coughing. The Homosexual Lobby is so powerful in the U.S. that you never hear about this.

So, I think it is right and proper for these facilities to err on the side of caution for all their guests, who would not KNOW who showered before them in the stall.

[Afal]

Well, I suppose we could build little HIV colonies with all the facilities of a small town where people suffering from this virus could go and lead a 'normal' life away from the rest of the population who don't have this virus

or

....

we could show love and compassion.

Now I realise that we need to do the best in regards to health and safety for EVERYBODY involved, but I can not accept that this means total exclusion to a HIV sufferer.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Afal

[hmh]

HIV is such a fragile virus outside of the body. It dies very quickly when exposed to any kind of heat, light, and chemicals. It's hepatitis that is the most dangerous. Hep B can last from 2 to 3 weeks outside of the body.

[Scarletprayers]

And I've been with AIDS victims too. I've hugged them, kissed them on the cheek, held hands and prayed with them.

Still, THAT WAS MY DECISION. I wouldn't make that mandatory for everyone.

The French equivalent of our CDC says AIDS CAN BE spread by kissing, or close contact sneezing and coughing. The Homosexual Lobby is so powerful in the U.S. that you never hear about this.

So, I think it is right and proper for these facilities to err on the side of caution for all their guests, who would not KNOW who showered before them in the stall.

Leonard, I'll concede you probably know more about this than I do..........but I just find it, interesting, that the families of HIV victims, living in the same home in almost constant contact, do NOT contract the disease as well.

(except for possibly the sexual partner)

[forrestkc]

Now here is my take on this. This disease while difficult to transmit still can be transmitted under certain circumstances such a cut and blood. Knowing how children play and interact If there is ANY possible way for another child to get this in daily contact then I would not want any child to be in direct contact with one who has HIV. This includes church day care and church nurseries. I don't even want my child in the same room with another child with a cold, much less one that has HIV! In my opinion it is totally selfish and uncaring for the health of others when any parent brings a child to be in contact with other children when there is ANY possibility of contacting that or any other disease! I feel that the park owners did correctly. I am not against making a separate place to handle such a child where there is no contact with others who do not already have this disease and allow anyone who wants to care for them to be allowed, but never in with the regular population of children. Like I said even if there is only one chance on a million I would not want them with my child in a day setting. How should the church deal with these things and does your church have a policy on such?

What do you say?

There has never been even a single recorded instance of anyone passing HIV to another individual by casual contact. There has never been a single instance of children passing it between themselves through any type of play.

So its not selfish on the part of the foster parents, its simply ignorance on the part of others and the park owners.

There was no reason at all for the child's foster parents to tell anyone other than the child's doctor that the child was HIV positive, so they really just brought this on themselves.

[Scarletprayers]

Now here is my take on this. This disease while difficult to transmit still can be transmitted under certain circumstances such a cut and blood. Knowing how children play and interact If there is ANY possible way for another child to get this in daily contact then I would not want any child to be in direct contact with one who has HIV. This includes church day care and church nurseries. I don't even want my child in the same room with another child with a cold, much less one that has HIV! In my opinion it is totally selfish and uncaring for the health of others when any parent brings a child to be in contact with other children when there is ANY possibility of contacting that or any other disease! I feel that the park owners did correctly. I am not against making a separate place to handle such a child where there is no contact with others who do not already have this disease and allow anyone who wants to care for them to be allowed, but never in with the regular population of children. Like I said even if there is only one chance on a million I would not want them with my child in a day setting. How should the church deal with these things and does your church have a policy on such?

What do you say?

There has never been even a single recorded instance of anyone passing HIV to another individual by casual contact. There has never been a single instance of children passing it between themselves through any type of play.

So its not selfish on the part of the foster parents, its simply ignorance on the part of others and the park owners.

There was no reason at all for the child's foster parents to tell anyone other than the child's doctor that the child was HIV positive, so they really just brought this on themselves.

While I agree with you forrest, that they didn't have to tell anybody, but, could you imagine the stink that would have been raised if somebody found out later...................endangering innocent lives..........blah, blah, blah.........as you said ignorance.

[forrestkc]

The following passage comes to mind:

" Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, "Why this waste? It could have been sold for much, and the money given to the poor." Since Jesus knew this, he said to them, "Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me. The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me."

Matthew 26:6-11

Now look at that passage. Jesus and the disciples are in the home of a leper, a social outcast at the time with a highly contagious disease. He then told the disciples that the poor you will always have with you. He did not mean just that poverty was a condition of society that would never be fully overcome. He also meant that Christians would always be with the poor and would never make outcasts out of others. The point was the poor and the sick you will always have with you because Christians will always be with the poor and the sick.

As Christians we ought not be in the business of making outcasts out of children with HIV or other diseases that which simple precautions can be taken to prevent their transmission. If Jesus and the disciples could dine with lepers 2000 years ago, then we can certainly allow our children to play with other children who might be HIV positive.