Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KT2000

(20,544 posts)
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:26 PM Apr 2013

On HIV testing

An earlier post concerned a federal panel concluding that everyone between certain ages be tested for HIV. The response from many was that they did not engage in practices that could put them at risk. What about going to the dentist.

I just learned that the dentist I went to for years did not adhere to safety measures for the prevention of HIV and Hepatitis spread. He is currently under investigation by the state.

Surely most dentists strictly follow the rules but how do you know? This bible-thumping dentist had a caring demeanor but turned out to be a total narcissist.

HIV - it's not just about sex and drugs.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

still_one

(91,949 posts)
1. Of course it isn't, however, cases that you are presenting are a violation/crime that has been
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:45 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Tue Apr 30, 2013, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Committed, and in those cases the patients are encouraged to get tested. They should also be tested for hepa, b, and c in those cases. Advised but not forced

Also, as the case in Oaklahoma, the dentist is not only being precuted, but those people possibly affected are being told, not everyone in the country

KT2000

(20,544 posts)
4. I don't think anyone is talking about
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 04:42 PM
Apr 2013

being forced.
What this dentist has done and not done is not common knowledge. I only know about it because I 'know someone."
The dentist in OK was caught because someone developed HIV and it was traced back to the dentist. In this case, the dentist's practices were observed by an employee. Whether or not the state is able to find proof is not known. Certainly upon inspection he would do things properly. If they do find proof, will they wait to see if random HIV cases can be connected to him, call for some to be tested, or will they quietly deal with it - reprimand or loss of license?

My point is - protecting oneself involves looking at all possible sources because you never know.

still_one

(91,949 posts)
6. Of course, good points, and being informed is vital. I know this is not being forced, but I do have
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 06:41 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Tue Apr 30, 2013, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Concerns that some in the government may move that direction

Frankly, they have a database on all of us with a lot of things, and how that information is used could be troublesome

KT2000

(20,544 posts)
5. Amen to that!
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 04:43 PM
Apr 2013

If he had a fish on his door - I never would have gone there. Guess I should have looked at his car first.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
3. So wouldn't it be ultimately a lot cheaper
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:49 PM
Apr 2013

and protect a lot more people if dentists were inspected regularly?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»On HIV testing