The Wisconsin State Senate passed a bill Oct. 1 that would add teachers, school-district employees and social workers to the list of medical and emergency personnel who can have any blood they come in contact with while working tested for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
The bill, which passed the Senate 30-3, will now be sent to the state Assembly. If passed in the Assembly, it will grant teachers these rights, currently reserved for health-care professionals who come in contact with bodily fluids.
Senators in support of this legislation have said that more professionals should be able to require that blood be tested to avoid the trauma of not knowing whether they had been exposed to HIV.
Sen. Carol Roessler, R-Oshkosh, said she introduced the bill after being sought out by a teacher in Oshkosh, Wis., and other education workers from her district voicing concerns. A student became violent and smashed furniture, which resulted in the teacher from Oshkosh exposed to a substantial amount of blood. She later endured a long court battle in order to get the blood tested and the results disclosed, according to Roessler.
“What this bill does is provide for the persons who have been victimized in this instance,” Roessler explained. “It allows them, one, to require testing and have themselves tested, and two, to know the results of those tests. Someone who is put in the line of deadly exposure should have the right to know if they’ve been exposed to the virus.”
UW associate professor of medicine James M. Sosman thinks that although to the average person this bill may not seem controversial, there are a lot of issues the general public may not consider.
“There wasn’t a lot of politically negative spin toward the bill,” Sosman said. “It was overwhelmingly supported.”
Sosman also said increased testing is good as a general caveat; however, he does not agree that this is necessary in this case.
“The means, not just the ends, are important. The end is more testing. I don’t support the bill because, epidemiologically, HIV in schools is rare. It’s not zero, but it’s rare,” Sosman said. “The other reason is that school staff, especially school health staff, should follow universal health precautions, which should prevent infections by blood-borne pathogens. Epidemiologically, the data doesn’t support this.”
In his own experience, Sosman said he has rarely run into a case where mandatory testing, such as that provided for medical and emergency personnel, has been necessary.
“My bias is against mandatory testing,” he said, adding that the source of the blood is almost always willing to give blood. “Testing should be universal and voluntary.”
UW associate professor of educational administration Julie F. Mead sees the question as a tricky one.
“The question is (whether) knowing earlier if you’ve been exposed (is) worth the tradeoff of students taking a test that they may not want to take and having to disclose that to their teacher or school,” Mead said. “It’s taking a step down a slippery slope.”
Some strongly believe this slippery slope is one to stay clear of.
“This is not adding to the safety of teachers, and it is stigmatizing and inflammatory,” Sosman said. “The greater good is not served by developing this kind of mandatory testing program.”
