8% of football fans would stop watching their team if a player 'came out'

[caytonmiller]

Can't edit via phone. I actually said. If it was me. I would inform my employer. Not that he should have

[millmoormagic]

I had a discussion with someone on another thread about
He was taking his employer to a tribunal about snooping into his medical records.
He was gay and contracted HIV. The law stated he didn't need to reveal his condition (he didn't). I said imo he should be informing the employer or first aid man/woman incase of a emergency
After several verbal attacks calling me ignorant. Living in the 50s. Homophobic ect I just didn't bother replying..

That's the same with any illness (HIV, NOT BEING GAY BEFORE ANYONE JUMPS ON) Cayton, i'm a first aider at work, and you'd think that as first aiders we should be told who has inherent risk in terms of any treatment they might need or indeed risk to any first aider, but if anyone doesn't want to declare it, they don't have to, protected by law, it's up to the individual not the company.

[frogmiller]

That's the same with any illness (HIV, NOT BEING GAY BEFORE ANYONE JUMPS ON) Cayton, i'm a first aider at work, and you'd think that as first aiders we should be told who has inherent risk in terms of any treatment they might need or indeed risk to any first aider, but if anyone doesn't want to declare it, they don't have to, protected by law, it's up to the individual not the company.

WOW! Who is the law protecting there?

[millertop]

It should be strictly confidential by the employer at all costs but they should be aware of any illness especially if you need to protect yourself and others.

It wouldn't stop me watching any football if their player/s were gay but it's up to them if they want to come out and shouldn't be pressured into it

[brassgnat]

It's 8% too many, but it also means 92% wouldn't, which I doubt would be the case a generation or so ago.

[millmoormagic]

Of course, if someone came to me with an ilness they can specify if they only want me to know, and i'd be duty bound to honour that, but they don't have to tell me or anyone.

[millertop]

Of course, if someone came to me with an ilness they can specify if they only want me to know, and i'd be duty bound to honour that, but they don't have to tell me or anyone.

Yes but in an emergency do you delay seeing to them until you have protective gloves/clothing?

[millmoormagic]

Yes but in an emergency do you delay seeing to them until you have protective gloves/clothing?

Entirely upto the individual, i could absolutely refuse to treat someone with say HIV if they required CPR and i didn't have a mouth shield.

[John2]

Yes but in an emergency do you delay seeing to them until you have protective gloves/clothing?

I've done extensive first aid training, but only in the US, I don't know the difference here.

However the first aid training basic insists you ALWAYS use protective gloves and never make contact with any blood borne pathogens. It's the same reason "magic sponges" were outlawed. If you administer first aid without protection you're choosing to take on a risk.

I worked with groups affected by HIV/AIDS while I was in the US... children, adults, all walks of life, they look just the same as anyone else and deserve to be treated just like anyone else.

HIV these days is a lot less serious of a condition than it was, and the social stigma is in many cases bigger than the illness itself. It is perfectly within anyone's rights to keep their medical conditions private, and I assume most if actively bleeding would advise people to take the appropriate precautions.

I once had to treat a child with a nose bleed who was with one of the groups, I had cuts all over my hand from a boating incident, I used gloves as I always would, and I was fine.

[Archiemiller]

Its about time he came out that full back at Newcastle, Anita. well its obvious int it.!!!!