|
I would make a wild guess that this blood test business is being proposed and justified on the ground that, in the event of an accident, any rescue/medical people should be alerted that the victim (the driver) has a blood-borne disease. Except, of course, that requiring an ANNUAL test for AIDS, when the DLs are renewable on a four or five year interval, is a totally pointless (and expensive) burden on the driver and public in general. Additionally, some people - notably Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists - will have scruples against this testing and a great many others are simply squeamish about getting jabbed. It's not even clear if someone with AIDS, who presents a medical report to that effect, would be allowed to drive; an unreasonable discrimination based on handicapping condition.
You'll notice they aren't proposing (and really can't propose) any sort of medical documentation of AIDS status for the passengers (or pedestrians). These people are just as likely (perhaps, statistically, even more likely) to be hurt in road accidents and require medical attention, and the rescue/medical people who approach them will have no clue about their AIDS status. The result, if drivers are known to be AIDS-free and passengers and pedestrians are a question mark, is that the rescue people will tend to focus on the driver and neglect everyone else who needs attention.
What's more, there are plenty of other blood-borne or communicable diseases (hepatitis and TB, to name two) that a driver or passenger might have, even if they don't have AIDS.
|
