On the Record; #605; New Public Affairs / Aids Id Protection

the power examining issues of working on the record new jersey's health department is reaching out to try and identify and treat the estimated fifty to seventy thousand state residents who were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus which causes aids last week at this time we heard assistant health commissioner robert kamel describe the plan that includes the mandatory reporting of anyone who goes to a doctor or hospital and test positive for h it but because of the stigma that still a company's aids the army will collect numbers not names until estate enact legislation to protect the confidentiality of people with the disease the department says legislation introduced by essex county assemblywoman stephanie bush reflects what is needed someone and bushes with us today to talk about are billed as his dinner bell of the

highs and foundation in new brunswick eisen foundation provides support for people with it i thank you both for being with us and summer one and bush how exactly what your bill protect the confidentiality of someone who test positive for it as it will require that all cases reported to the department of health for the purposes of the diagnosis prevention and treatment but also establishes this confidentiality cannot be breached and less beer is a prior written consent of the person who is tested positive as well as some things may be needed by the facilities that are doing so what it does do it imposes a penalty for willful were negligent reaching of the confidentiality one being that if it is willful that the person who preaches will be found guilty of a disorderly person's offense and if it's willful negligence they will be required to pay to the person who was infected their actual losses for bodily economic on

injury and personal injury as a result of the breach <unk> spanish your reaction to that it's complicated we like the bill we like the part of the bill that stresses the need for confidentiality we have a lot of situations with clients for confidentiality has been breached and they have suffered repercussions but aren't we're a little bit concerned about the part that that encourages are mandates that names be released to the to the state farm people in our opinion in the opinion of the highest in the nation should have the right to remain anonymous to have anonymous testing and to just have their name an idea not be disclosed to anybody the bill dies you've got you know confidential protection to those people whose names are released but we think that the choice should be up the person and not a state that should be mandated so it's a complicated we do very much see the need for protection of confidentiality but we don't see that that it should forego anonymity the bottom line which are saying here is that you don't trust the

health department to keep getting confidential as that which is that there's a lot of people who work for the health department and there are a lot of opinions that have to do with eighteen people feel very strongly one way the idea that some people think that people they have no rights for people who've said out loud as people with aids have no rights they gave up that raven an infected to trust every single member of the state health department to keep track of them chanting no mom and a widow mistrust the health department but we understand that people with aids might write and people are people but that is the purpose of the legislation because even though it says that dion commissioner of the department of health will determine who has to report how reporting has to be done it indicates that if that his breed so even if it goes to the point of health and the secretary or someone who has not been what the rice to deal with this breaches that they're up for the liability that the legislation address and i understand that with all bits of legislation it's a balancing act as too they need to know the public's need to know if there is a need to

know as well as a person's rights of confidentiality which is why thing this bill was introduced in april nineteen eighty eight in the assembly and it has been amended a few times and try to deal with the various aspects of people bring forward as a beer with concerns and such i think also in being realistic we're going to have to come to some type of common ground it's not going to be fifty fifty but some type of common ground because we're also dealing with people that have to vote for this legislation if they will that or as you said fielded people who've become infected have no rights or not people they are those people you know never to be part of them yet but i understand your concerns as to what can happen but that is what will hopefully are addressing with this legislation as best we can with your legislation partly what i was hearing mr vallas was that people are reluctant to be

tested now because they're afraid that their identification make it out into the public and then they may suffer some ford and some form of discrimination even with a confidentiality legislation might that not discourage someone from being tested quite possibly because i think that people tend to feel that the system does not work for them and in many cases it does not i mean i have to be honest but i would hope that this would assist some people who would not go for testing to decide to do we'll take a chance and that if there is a breach because there's going to be breaches no matter what that at least they have some recourse which currently is it's not happening alicia go through a long court proceeding children can go to school for no viable reason but because they are infected so hopefully this will begin to address it as well as they are so many other bills that are pending that are frightening you know saying that you must test a baby at birth and then what you know it says tester

who's going up what we going to do saying that pregnant women can be tested just so many things that realtors would have to advise on purchases of a home if someone has died in the home because of aids i mean all of this is really breaching confidentiality it it's totally crazy and out there now so these were trying to find a safe and give people recourse and protect as many people as we can and try to balance on the whole low mr avello what do you think the impact of the selling woman's bill would be on someone who made who considers themselves at risk and wants to be tested you think the confidentiality statute if it were passed if it were signed would that be i'm not protection in someone's mind to go ahead have that it's difficult to assess arm for example our agency holds very strictly car passing confidentiality our clients' names we have a name but we do not disclose that anybody not to the state department not to family members of someone calls up and says he's john smith the

quiet there we say we're not allowed to get out the information we had to get a quote so that they can even tell gas when their clients iran support group for newcomers people who were new to the agency and iran support group for six months and every couple of weeks one person would show up who would say i'm not going to fill out that form i will not put my name an address on the form that i sent the nation has been in existence for four years we obviously feel very strongly about the rights of people with aids and that has been proven across time but there still people who would not give us their names if it were mandated that the anonymous tests eight become confidential test sites as opposed to anonymous test ates it might have that same effect it might not it's hard to determine some people just don't want people to know they just don't and that's the right height i believe an agency believe that that is the right of the present but the health department seems to feel that now with new treatments available for at least some of the symptoms of aids anyway

and earlier detection could help these people the way tesla's work now is it's anonymous testing and i tested fantastic and i have pre test counseling composed test counseling if i go and tell him a mickey mouse and my test comes back positive and i sit there and i get a half hour so sure they gave me all of the information if they identify me as jeanie marabella and that information goes to the state on in that office at that time not three weeks later in the state i seriously doubt is gonna come and find me in my home and give me the intensive counseling that i would get right there in the office so i don't but what i don't think that what's being said is that the state's going to come into your home to give you counseling but you know hopefully i believe that there will be jurors that are found and that it's important to have a centralized location where abiding people it can be filtered out of the people who have been identified and nothing is really going to prevent someone coming in saying i'm making now say i mean they're not going to put

up against the wall in our survey data while it out at all this absolutely innocent and as you went back to your example of your your agency what would happen in with this legislation becomes law is that if the person resists the phone he says john smith the quiet piano make a mistake and they say yes at least the person who is infected would have some recourse as opposed to i'm sorry i didn't mean to do it which is excellent and were totally in support of that because the negative things that happen to people and identities disclosed you know there are less now than they used to be but they still exist a natural born but we still think that it should be a person's choice what are some of the things that happened to people wonder what becomes known that there is a positive live from the person's perspective what are some of the experiences of that couple of examples and this is our identities changed in the patient's changed arm

there was one client who was found out to have aids and he was he had peace ep which his nemesis is the money is in the hospital and he was fine which is very common to then be finding tobia to work for a long period and he went back to the restaurant where he worked and his boss had found out because a lot of people have found out is that you can't work here and he fired him and meet the man at that point had nowhere to work because that was his job prior to that and he just you know a small town and it wasn't able to go other places that's that's a financial thing that happened the bomb is also psychological things which there can be no monetary reimbursement there was a client who had a son in the sun was about eight or nine years old he and his father died of aids and the neighborhood found out and they marked the father's grave in a row a diner in the row bad words in the kid went to see his father's grave and i talk to this kid and he was unless he

was very very upset and you can't really one of the main things that people say is i want people no because i have kids and i want my kids to be her well the kids will be her visit a kid jimmy and parents won't let the kids play with them and there was a quiet you got beat up he had a girlfriend and two of the girlfriend's friends found out that this guy had aids and they went to his house and beat him up but i think that what we're saying then it's not the state that's that's breaching it but its people its neighbors it's someone in the doctor's office that's doing it and what this legislation does would protect those same people that you're talking about so it's not the entity of the state that's doing anything to your units in place to help you know to help to provide something wright not the state leaders is not responsible for any of those things haven't happened what i'm saying is that with tears like that out there and with the reality like

a person with aids should have the right in our opinion to determine whether or not they're anonymous or n or not arm until you can absolutely guarantee that if the confidentiality is broken the person will be hurt and that person should have the right not to give their names or will this of course we can't guarantee in you're in this world that they may be hurt but to provide that they will have some recourse and also be forced determine as to who would be required to report on how the reporting would be done there would be hearings and the young commissioner of the department of health along with the council public health would be working together to decide just when does it need to be done and how should it be done to really be is still what i'm hearing it's not so much a fear where problem over at the state level where we have professionals knowing but if a person is going to be to their private doctor in a small town or problems of that sort but that's where the protection is needed and that's where the legislation would for their protection

how is this a really get a handle on just how did the problem is though unless unless you have some records and how many jet and happily get to people nor is offering them treatment which would be available under medicare committee without those things what really help get a handle on how big the problem is we have the numbers we know how big the problem is prompt huge to astronomical and we know that it's much larger in essex county we know that they you know the counties going certainly know where the people are armed and that comes from the demographic information which is currently being recorded the age the race the the geographic location of people a name isn't going to help that on in terms of the treatment in the availability of treatment once a person has either been tested positive or diagnosed as having aids that person nose fact at that tested positive or as a thing can be their choice to

go and look for the treatment or not you know i realize that there's a problem with aids in a lot of the party committees are people don't know the longer they don't they're not encouraged to look at the clinics are overcrowded but in that case what you can do is educate the public and educate everybody get the information out to all of the people because having the names in and sending a letter going to people's house it's not going to it's not going to make that big of a different it's i think if you do a cost benefit analysis how may people this will help as opposed to how many people the reporting might hurt i don't think that we're the point now where we should make that decision to mandate the names being reported liking it goes beyond just the reporting and i think that once we put that into it that i think it definitely will hurt more people than it will help more people than it would hurt if we put the entire you know situation is not just reporting to the public health which will help that if there is a cure discovered or treatment and such to be able to hone in right when one into the people that had been found to be infected but

i feel that even at the other level of people knowing what's what's going on with them that they're going to be at the local agencies they're going to be dealing with the local clinics are or where ever and that's where much of the problem of confidentiality can come into place if in your hometown that it hurts not so much if it's in trenton you know and then even if people in trenton are talking about it has been reported there i mean that would be actionable but it's not going to hurt anyone as much as it is to being at home that is someone by mistake picked up the phone said guess who was in here with eight even if they walked in and they didn't say hi i'm jill below which you know joe blow absolutist for tax evasion well exceptional necessary is the fine is the punishment is it big enough he said it's up to a minimal minimum of a thousand dollars enough to have a ten thousand illegitimate it from the air and now it is the um would be a disorderly person's offense on the quayside criminal side but it would be the actual injury occurred in

regards to money of course that if their bodily injury injured psychologically and physically harmed arm initially it did have a thousand to ten thousand then as i mentioned earlier when you're trying to get legislation passed you have to deal with the number of people who may think totally out there and there were some comments made about all well i could see where these people would go and make it where a doctor would breach the confidentiality so that they could be paid and then they would go to another doctor and julia would become a business with someone who is is basically dying so that was amended out but let's get it would be if there was a bodily harm psychological or physical damage that they would receive compensation for in the in the copy of the bill like i read a couple of days ago said this is before they men and it said that there will be would be criminal fines and then the option of

additional civil charges to be taken to the quiet themselves often does this mean that there would be no that would be a prison with aides and you were you're my god i knew to tell you with this the copy store is not the current one and it was amended months ago would there be any criminal charges of disorderly person which is what that would mean on you could be incarcerated for up to a year and there could be a fine but it would not be paid directly to the person who had been agreed however with the other aspect on the civil side way they would receive monetary compensation will be both a criminal charge and an option for so much we will just early persons considered quaint like right right right and i think what's most important within it is that the person who has been agreed will receive compensation under what circumstances would someone's identification be made public or when it waste away they released their when you're saying a public will elevate any collateral be made public but there are instances in as i said would be the department of health and the

commissioner of health and the public health council based upon hearings and what they feel is being willfully an expert you know group to determine when and when and how we would be required every case of sexual assault where it's suspected that the person who did the assault may be a job because doesn't the person who was assaulted the way is there to know whether or not that person was a fairly public enemies now that is it is some reason for that would substantiate a first degree crime than it would be dealt with in in that way although it could not be used to charge someone with a new crime whatsoever and i would i would tend to think that if it is determined by the department of health the regulations that the person should know which i would feel that these dead a victim should be advised if not the identifying information at least the fact that they should be tested that that be done but it's not necessarily saying the way it's right now that identifying information would be provided to the victim you know but

i would say that definitely based the victim should be advised that they should be tested and there has been discussions of a full advice was isis reaction to that again it's complicated it's always we believe a person's right to decide if they should or should not be tested the person is raped or sexually assaulted and they're concerned about aids at all and they might decide to be tested and the person who raped her might test negative to the positive right can test negative and positive so that passed in and of itself if if a woman is raped testing her rapist will not determine whether or not he was positive he was negative whether or not she became positive way she was exposed as a whole lot of criteria if she's that emotionally upset by then it can become her choice to be tested or not tested and raping somebody although it's a very terrible thing does not take away from that person the range his right to decide whether or not he wants to be tested on but i don't mind just another question was not if the assailant would be

tested as mandatory requirement but morse so the defeat if it was known back here she was infected by so this is not so navy force to be tested but if it is already known that he or she is infected should they are the hypotheticals are probably not going to work if the person knows if the person has been tested over a difference a person as tested positive and eight person sexually assaults someone ranked as and the person who has been assaulted and there's a record within the health department doesn't person who has been assaulted desire to know whether or not this person is a chevy positive would be someone that's tough on now on now they don't have the right now they have a right to be advised about the risk of a chevy with sexual assault they have a right to have somebody tell them that testing might be an option but if i know so if a woman those who her rapist is

to tell her that that man is also at the positive or has a business britain has confidentiality you know in a way that you know at its heart i mean this is the italian ices and so i don't know how i don't know and if you don't like that i did it but did you know if the department of health would say that they are strong reasons to believe that you should be tested now in six months now and all of that on i think it would be important i mean what if that waving and i think at some point it has to happen is a very small small percentage it is not the norm both cases the war that as it were people who are infected and angela go out sometimes and infect someone a very very very big for that person who is worried pinochet's immediate

needs to be treated separately and i think that that is what that is and i do and i can imagine that the seller woman bush you're going to get a better legislation an argument for or against your legislation that because sam was in my concealed rejecting you're protecting two you're protecting the wrong person here if you will influence know not necessarily because as i said he did reach that the commissioner and it will still be decided in other cases the regulation as to when the negro leagues this will still talking about identifying information i see that in the incident which were discussing possibly be identifying information would not be needed to tell the victim did you need to be tested you know for the department of health to say you need to be tested they don't have to say before you were sexually assaulted by whomever whatever date and is a security numbers those are so they could say our records indicate you should be tested just to make the person aware because it's also a situation where the victim you may not be

nervous and therefore he may not even think and i think that they have a right to know and i think that if the state has information to provide to them the information should be you should be tested you may not need to know who the person is and if they can figure it out then and then i think that that'll willing go but i think they have a right to to know that they should be tested with or without the identifying information or rather than saying you should be tense didn't work what would make more sense as to say you should be concerned about testing nobody should be told whether they should or should not passed it's a personal decision whether slager should well this is now sam dragging down here to be testifying it gets its that it puts that i think in an outlying much more important and be listened to much more intently as you say you should be tested on but they might not want to know a lot of people you know if they're positive don't wanna know but it's a new show is not saying that you are required that you are mandated by bed you should be tested and they can take it from their

potentially if you're not saying you should be tested because joe blow sexually assaulted two on july twelfth and he is known to happen i mean we have to balance that i think we have got to be realistic and protect rights in cases where it should be you know protected was strictly on the confidentiality aereo this only woman still doesn't go far enough i'm protecting confidentiality are you satisfied that everything is in that bill as is there is still a criminal charge and not one i was a crime of it and that it's not just like that civil om yeah i mean as long as it is a misdemeanor or a disorderly certainly present om formally known as misdemeanors for iraqis to disclose that information yeah eight eight means that those people will be punished to disclose but again i don't think that that's an hour i think and this has nothing to do with your bill i think it has to do with the way of the world i think that what

needs to happen is that there needs to be a massive amounts of public education and that people's attitudes need to be candid on legislating in the world and the civil rights and then that didn't stop racism so this is not going to stop prejudice and discrimination against people with aids and as long as that pregnancy discrimination which is rampant is continuing then people should have the right to be anonymous if they so choose come we can't create a world that perfect although we would like to arm but as long as the world not perfect and as long as they're still is homophobia and discrimination against drug use isn't discrimination against people with aids and people are being seriously abused a person should have the right to say it i don't want you know that i have it was the future of the automotive well that is actually in the hands of the speaker of the assembly ideally point it could be posted for a vote at which point i would hope that it will pass senator levin has sponsored the same bill in the senate and it has passed in the senate so we're now waiting and

hoping that i speak or we will post it and that we will get the forty one votes are necessary to pass you have any sense of the support in your house and also from the governor says he ultimately episode not from the governor as of yet because it has changed a bit now i know the department of health is in agreement with that and i think that i'm being a body of you know the governor and that that would mean that he would be in agreement hopefully with their arms this is one of the issues that people really don't address until they're forced to address such as the abortion issue will be you know everyone will talk and this really won't know until it is time to push the button but i do have long view this was a merger of two bills an assemblyman klein who is a republican is also one the bill and so hopefully that will help to get some sort of you know green in and support from both sides of the aisle in together forty one votes our eye on that note will have a rapid up will be watching to see what the fate of the legislation is some woman stephanie bush cheney marabella license foundation thanks for being with

us today thank you for joining us yes it is ah ha ha ha ha a reduced level at the american continent with a late fee at the help of a volunteer a membership

organization to the lawyers and therefore he didn't want the united states canada mexico and bermuda as for