Summary

Senate floor debate on doctors with AIDS.

Source CONUS Archive
Record ID 336862
Story Slug Doctors With Aids Senate Debate (1991)
Location WASHINGTON, DC
Format TVD
Date 7-18-1991
Archive Time 7:20
TRT 4:42
Supers Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Sen. Dave Durenberger (R-MN) Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS)
Video Description Sound from the Senate floor
Description Senate floor debate on doctors with AIDS.
Script (SUGGESTED TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO) Unknown Speaker 00:01 Don't talk to me any senator or anybody else that 10 years is too severe. This is crime. This is a criminal offense if there ever was one. 00:17 I helped him the patient safety if it raises false hopes and provides only false security and comfort, AIDS is already threatening HIV positive doctors with capital punishment. What good does the helms amendment do to threaten them but 10 years in prison? We know what harm it'll do. The most predictable effect is to put our patients at a greater risk than they are today. What health professionals will want to take a test if jail is at the end of a test failure to helms amendment provides no all the first requirements of the health profession and of any doctor is to do no harm. That should also be the requirement for any action by Congress on this critical and highly charged emotional issue. Do no harm. Let us make no mistake, the helms amendment would do more harm than good. It would do nothing to protect the health of the American people. Worse, it could seriously undermine the willingness of health care workers to seek HIV testing when they know that they have been placed at risk. To vote for this care workers followed universal precautions, none. Prevention and precautions eliminate risks, fines and jail terms do not. 01:32 by the positive impose upon their patients. The health the helms amendment would apply to those health professionals who one know they are HIV positive two who perform invasive procedures, and three who do not inform their patients. Such healthcare professionals are as rare as they may be, are guilty of intentionally inflicting harm. They are intentionally exposing their patient to the risk of death, death, there is no cure, it could have been prevented. That kind of behavior deserves indeed requires criminal sanctions. 02:14 us. However, having said this, I think the best method of dealing with health care providers is not through the criminal justice system, at least at this point. Not with criminal penalties, but rather through the state licensing process. The impact of losing one's license is in fact, in most cases, a far more frightening prospect for many as it can mean permanent loss of one's livelihood. So I wanted to before the vote make it clear they'd be voting first origins 02:45 for the reasons that I've outlined here. And the helms amendment is basically the ideological, emotional and actually a counterproductive and the leadership amendment is based on sound public health policy. I would urge that the senator from North Carolina 03:05 and then showed his bear arms and they were covered with sores and somebody asked him what Oh, sores on your arm doctor. And he said, Oh, it's just an allergic reaction. On top of everything, he was adaptable, who are. This man knew he had AIDS for he delivered that baby. And one of his patients told one of the publication's quote, he took an oath to save lives not to give a death sentence. That sums it up pretty well. So don't talk to me any senator or anybody else that 10 years is too severe.
Not everything listed in the CONUS Archive is necessarily licensable. Reporter sound/image is not licensable
}