Editorial

Editorial

The AIDS question

The Rappahannock County School Board is to be commended for its straightforward, reasonable approach to the problem of contagious and infectious diseases - especially those which have more serious consequences than the relatively mundane -childhood maladies like chicken pox and mumps.

At its last meeting, the board adopted a policy to cover the possibilty that, in the future, the county may have a student or an employee who carries a blood-borne infectious disease.

Although the policies adopted were designed to cover all infectious diseases, including Hepatitis B, the real focus is AIDS. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, invariably . fatal, and in other school districts hysteria has greeted the announcement, or even the rumor, that a child infected with the disease is enrolled in the system.

Although the fears of parents about the well-being of their children is understandable, all medical evidence to date indicates that AIDS cannot be transmitted through casnalcontact - the type which a child would experience in the school environment.

Yes, there are questions. What if the infected child bites another; or infected blood splashes on another child? Again, the research indicates that such contact would not be likely to transfer the virus.

The questions are valid, and parents deserve to have their children — their most precious possession — protected.

But the victims of the disease have rights, too. They have the right to privacy; and to not be the butt of the terrible cruelties which children are capable of inflicting on each other.

Fairfax County has given us an example of how not to address the question. Its policy provides that “general notice” will be given to the “school community’' when a student who has tested positive for the AIDS antibody has been enrolled in a county school. The student’s identity would be kept secret, but given the circumstances it would be a thin shroud of anonymity at best.

That notice provision was adopted by the county’s school board against the recommendation of its advisory committee.

Rappahannock’s policy is sensible both on the question of protecting other students and staff; and in ensuring the rights of the victim. It provides that a student or staff member may be excluded from school until the case is reviewed by an advisory panel — including medical professionals—and a recommendation is made to the School Board.

The School Board and the superintendent would make the final decision, based on the facts of the case. If an employee is affected, the same rules apply, but the superintendent alone would make the determination to allow them to return.

In all instances, regardless of whether the victim is a student or an employee of the schools, Rappahannock’s policy specifically states that the privacy rights of the individual shall be protected, and to that end, that the number of individuals aware of the situation will be kept to a minimum.

Rappahannock’s educators have acted wisely in this matter.