The Education of A.I.D.S Discrimination

Employees are being discriminated against for their infectious illness
known as A.I.D.S. They are labeled incapable of performing the tasks they
pursued before they were recognized as being infected. The confidentiality of
an employee is a private matter and very personal. There aremany different
kinds of prejudice but not one as deadly as A.I.D.S Discrimination. The
emotional trauma and future ofemployment play a giant role in the inflicted.
Health policies through job-related fields must learn to recognize that like
other illnesses, A.I.D.S does not forbid an employee of performing his or her
duties. It is the most altering form of discrimination because of the fact that
every time a person finds out they are positive, the opinions of those who
surround them are likely to change. The working class is the most susceptible to
this form of discrimination. The every day environment of an employee with
A.I.D.S is also the work grounds for someone who isn\'tinfected with A.I.D.S.
A.I.D.S Discrimination in a job-related atmosphere is due to lack of education
and sensitivity.
The infection of HIV does not reduce an employee\'sefficiency from
satisfactory to intolerable. An employee should not be denied employment or
promotion if they are not flawed by HIV. Some employees are not stripped of
their capacities to perform even though they are infected with HIV(Lewy 2). Why
should the employee health benefits be altered because of the nature of the
disease. The majority of employee policies offered cover catastrophic illness
with only ten percent covering A.I.D.S. One particular policy states that
people do not become infected through usual behavior in a working environment.
This illustrates that A.I.D.S patients are protected under disability law and
are entitled to the same medical benefits (Karr A1). Policies must be issued to
protect the inflicted. A Department of Health and Human Services review board
has ruled "discrimination against someone who\'s HIV-positive is illegal" (Kolasa
63). Where does it say that unless the infected is under employment? The main
to understand is that it doesn\'t. Eileen Kolasa reminds us of a law ofdirect
meaning "HIV is a handicap protected under federal law" (66). The American
justice system is what decides the fate of the infected. The challenge of
bringing an A.I.D.S discrimination case in court has become very common in the
United States. Such actions have been victorious and have helped pass revised
Disability Acts which applies to all diseases (Annas 592).
Even though the infected are defended under law, it still violates a
person\'s human rights of personal health secrecy. This discrimination has not
received attention as aform of human-rights violation. The government and court
systems have helped essentially, but discrimination also affects medical care.
Physicians and lawyers should promote the interests of the sick as well (Annas
592). Revealing this condition is a serious decision to make. The
possibilities of acceptance will differ in the lives of many HIV-positive
employees. Helen Lippman, senior editor of RN magazine replies:

If legislation were passed requiring health-care
providers to report their HIV status, nearly
four in ten respondents say that they would report
a suspected violation. (32)

The tutelage of A.I.D.S at a job can considerably change attitudes of
credibility. The Americans With Disability Actgoverns to any company with
twenty-five or more employees. This legislation forbids discrimination against
any disability or chronic disease. The interesting fine print is that it
specifically mentions A.I.D.S. within its text(Pogash 77). The policies do mot
automatically make the routines of companies more likely to accept them. Wyatt
John Bunker explains from Karrs article "the gold standard isn\'t whether
companies have a policy, but how they handle A.I.D.S. on a day to day basis"
(A1). One of the first A.I.D.S. discrimination cases that was filed was against
United Airlines. Two pilots were prohibited from flying due to the fact that
they were HIV-positive. James F. Peltz and Stuart Silverstein, Los Angeles
Times writers, explain that "the case extends the already-sensitive subject of
A.I.D.S. in the workplace to another group of professionals whose jobs include
protecting the
safety of others" (D1). Bunker\'s theory does make sense in the employee
situations where the general public becomes a dynamic participant in the matter.
Robert Lewy shares his view of determining if an employee is able to perform his
or her obligation of employment by a series of guidelines:

HIV-infected workers should be treated the same
as persons with any other non-work-related
injuries or illnesses, such as diabetes or
epilepsy. They are entited to equal rights
and benefits of employment, including
available medical services. (9)

One possible solution is