Should the Army and Air Force change their policies regarding HIV+ personnel?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 May 2018 09:06:48 -0400

The Navy and Marine Corps recently changed their policies to allow HIV+ personnel to deploy.

https://www.stripes.com/news/navy-opens-more-assignments-to-hiv-positive-sailors-marines-1.250403

That has raised some interesting questions regarding the policies of the Army and the Air Force. There was recently a master's thesis at the Command and General Staff College.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1038568.pdf

So, I'm wondering why these services aren't following suit.

Now, before you comment on this issue, I'd encourage you to research the "undetectable equals untransmittable" campaign that's been started by various HIV advocacy groups and endorsed by the CDC.

https://www.positivelyaware.com/articles/undetectable-equals-untransmittable

With modern medicine, people are taking pills and its making it so that you can't even detect the virus in their blood anymore. It's not a bar to work in the food service or healthcare industries. It's not a bar to federal law enforcement or foreign service positions. HIV+ contractors are already deploying right alongside servicemembers.

Navy opens more assignments to HIV-positive sailors, Marines

The Navy says it has begun assigning HIV-positive sailors and Marines to overseas and large-ship-platform assignments.

Response by SGT Joseph Gunderson made May 5 at 2018 9:49 AM

SGT Joseph Gunderson — Sat, 05 May 2018 09:49:32 -0400

If the policy i still what it was when I was still in the Army (HIV Pos personnel are authorized to finish their contract but are barred from reenlisting) then I think it is fine the way that it is. The thing about being in the military is that part of our job deals with bleeding... A lot of people gush blood all over one another. Until there is a no bullshit cure for HIV/AIDs then I think it is important to keep those people away from every opportunity that there may be to infect some person who wasn't a moron and got themselves infected. Even with it being 'undetectable', and make note that I am no researcher or doctor, that isn't cured and it could possibly come back and that means it could possible infect someone. I'm not willing to take that chance, I don't think that we should ask for every service member to take that chance.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made May 5 at 2018 10:05 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sat, 05 May 2018 10:05:02 -0400

Tough call, I had a brother that contracted HIV while he was in during the late '80's, before they started testing blood for the disease.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made May 5 at 2018 12:21 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Sat, 05 May 2018 12:21:00 -0400

Unless the SM is tagged and known to have HIV so that all those that may come in contact with blood or other body fluids is allowed to know the additional risks and protective measures to take... I do not feel putting the force at risk by deploying those with HIV is a wise move, and I think it is a abuse of trust to subject service members to the additional risk.

Response by SGM Billy Herrington made May 5 at 2018 12:35 PM

SGM Billy Herrington — Sat, 05 May 2018 12:35:32 -0400

I think they should. While the logistics of being on an initial invasion force would preclude it due to availability of their medicine, I see nothing wrong with normal OCONUS tours.

The new generations of medicines that people take render them undetectable, that means they can't transmit the virus because it is not active in blood or semin. It lies dormant in the latent reserves, the medicine prevents replication along three fronts. Those fronts depend on the class of medication someone is taking. They're called a cocktail or combo, however most are a single pill containing all three. By preventing viral replication the person is non-infectious. Stopping medication will allow the viruse to begin replication; my chief reason for saying no to forward type deployments. I was in Iraq in 2005, at that time, I'd say no due to the issues we had at our FOB. Baghdad or Balad, sure. In 2010 I was at Balad. No reason a positive undetectable person couldn't serve there.

The problem lies in how we look at HIV as a society. It's not worth the risk, ahhhhhhh the blood. It's understandable due to the campaign in the 80's and early 90's. It was a death sentence and people needed that fear to help keep them alive. Perfectly understandable. We know that and must look at it from different perspectives. It's easy to say no and stomp off knowing what one knows. Research and informing yourself is a difficult task, but one well worth it.

I've done the homework and used to feel the same. Since working with and being friends with persons who are positive it changed my whole perception. HIV is pretty hard to transmit in reality. The virus dies in less than a minute or so outside the body. It must enter your body and then find the appropriate cell to infect. There is also something called post exposure prophylaxis. That's just 28 day cycle of Truvada and Isentress that prevents the virus from taking hold if it does manage to get where it can infect.

I say all that to say this: people should do their own personal research to make an informed opinion. We all have bias, just remember them when we are evaluating something. This applies for everything not just this topic.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2018 2:18 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 May 2018 14:18:32 -0400

Well each service is different. I mean the Navy extended maternity leave to 18 weeks - and no one else seemed to follow until the DoD made maternity leave 12 weeks across the services. You'd have to ask those in charge of the Army and Air Force what their plans are about it.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made May 5 at 2018 6:55 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Sat, 05 May 2018 18:55:51 -0400

Sgt. Harrison, many years ago I got a near miss when I was working in a hospital to having an accidental exposure. I can't tell you what that felt like, but I can tell you no one should ever have to go through that. This was in the days when HIV was a certain death sentence. Treatments are out there I know, but why expose someone needlessly if you don't have to. Are we so short on service people we are now sending people with HIV and other diseases to combat areas?