Peace Corps Fires AIDs Positive PCV
April 21st, 2008 by dece.The article is here. I thought that they should have at least offered him choice of assignments world wide. PC is supposed to be liable for diseases caught during service for life, but it doesn’t sound like they are paying. Yes, the house just passed the 50 billion dollar Global Aids budget and PC has a big part in the five year budgets and hiring PCVs.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
‘Foreign Policy’ has an article on PC. It’s more of an excuse for the five year budget versus the five year employment law and the other games PC is playing: ‘They’re not that smart’ argument. I’m not sue how much money that makes him.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4295
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:40 pm
sure, not sue
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Peace Corps should be eliminated from H.R.5501 and PEPFAR.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Peace Corps seems to be playing a game. They are saying they have no policy regarding AIDs, but the policy is to do it case by case, which is not a policy, but a way to discriminate.
The doctors Peace Corps has hired and waived the five year opportunity law for based on classification; will not address the issue. The doctors would probably be for a person continuing their career. Medication and treatment is available in Peace Corps countries and at home if necessary. The PCV could have stayed in country, unless it is illegal to have AIDs and be in country.
Peace Corps policy is evolving?’ Individualized assessments are how Peace Corps discriminates. A policy equal for all PCVs would have these AIDs positive PCVs working. Medical separation really isn’t an option for most AIDs positive PCVs. They can work and get treatment. PC can’t commit to a reassignment? PC committed to a reassignment if the PCV was evacuated. Automatic separation? AIDs is the same as an evacuation and reassignment? PC stopped allowing re assignments to country of choice after evacuation and now can’t reassign an AIDs positive PCV?
45 days or your fired? I broke a hand. I couldn’t get to a doctor and it healed. I now need micro surgery. This problem never was solved and it is a problem outside of 45 days like most problems in PC. PC kept PCV records for fifty years precisely because of these things that happened during service. Clinton had the records changed to something like 25 years or 5 years from 50 years. Microsurgery is always an option as long as the record is there. 45 days?
I wonder if PC is paying the AIDs positive PCVs insurance? PC is liable for life for medical things that happen during service. Whether they were fired for medical reason or not, PC has to pay their medical. Allowing them to work makes more sense.
PC has allot of excuses, but that is all they are doing, seeing if you know your shit. Well, I know my shit and they should be sued in court and pay the PCVs they fired. PC should also be removed from PEPFAR and any legislation that allows them to work with AIDs. They can’t even treat their own people with AIDs right and should not be allowed to work with AIDs until they know how to treat an AIDs positive person.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=38405
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
IG study of OMS.
The report is at the IG office and can be asked for; NPCA summary:
http://www.rpcv.org/pages/sitepage.cfm?id=1868
This is a standard report without any mention of publishing the requirements for PC service. ‘What disqualifies.’
There is no standard published. Everyone is considered unique and therefor can be disqualified or qualified based on the assessment.
The five year ‘opportunity’ law is mentioned here. The IG lobbied Congress to have this changed. Doctors at OMS are classified and the five year opportunity law is no longer applied to them. The five year opportunity law was also the excuse for the two AIDs postive PCVs being separated. The IG lobbying is intended to have the nurses classified as well and then the other Peace Corps staff employees have the five year ‘opportunity’ law waived.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:46 am
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/28826/
June 25th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
As a former PCV, I’ve just gotta chime in here.
When I was in PC (2001-2004), there was a very clear rule about people who were HIV+ not being allowed to serve. Volunteers who test postive during service are sent home because it is a condition that cannot be cured within the 45-day period.
As someone who currently works with newly HIV+ individuals, I can assure you that many of them would CHOOSE to come home after learning that they have contracted an incurable, communicable disease while living abroad. The psychological effects alone are immense and often limit an individual’s ability to properly respond to everyday stressors (being a PCV is something more than ordinary stress). Added to that there are many health concerns for a person with a comprimised immune system living without running water and funtioning sewage systems. Further, there are often logistical concerns for vols living in isolated areas having to make quarterly trips into the med clinic to get labs drawn to monitor vira load and t-cell count (this is the standard of care for HIV+ individuals).
As far as discrimination goes, that argument totally fails.
Doctors, nurses, dentists and others in the medical field are required by law to report their HIV status because they do pose a risk of transmission to their patients. Non-medical personnel (the average person) is only required to share their status with their sex or needle sharing partners. This is not seen as discrimination. Telling someone that it will be too burdensome for the organization and the volunteer to adhere to the standards of care for HIV+ individuals is not discriminatory. Added to that, people are routinely denied the chance to serve for chronic conditions such as diabetes and chronic leukemia because the office feels that its something that they may not be able to deal with properly.
And I assure you, if something were to happen to that volunteer (extreme illness or harrassment/physical violence because of stigma) PC would be held liable. If they are going to be held liable, they get to make a decision about the level of liabiltiy they will assume.
Lastly, the PC rule about liability is like worker’s comp in the states. If you work for a construction company and a steel beam falls on you and breaks your back while you were on duty, you get compensated (with some exceptions). If you decide that you are going to bring your date to the construction site and have sex there while everyone is gone and that beam falls on you, your company is NOT liable. You were doing something that had nothing to do with your job. Same thing here. If you were working in a med clinic and someone stuck you with a needle and you contracted HIV: compensated. You have (consensual) unprotected sex and contract HIV: not compensated.
Is it time for PC to review its policies in light of the advance in HIV/AIDS care? Perhaps. Is PC wrong for stating that it is a burden that they choose not to assume? Nope.
And finally, finally, he is HIV+. Not AIDS positive. There is a major difference between the two.
And now I’ll stop being that prissy know-it-all that everyone in school wanted slap… ;-)
June 28th, 2008 at 7:01 am
test