Posted By Swis Just a moral duty maybe noting legal.

Posted By Swis forgot to mention that BBV do not spread by using infected person's cutlery/utensils. Like any other virus, it needs a host (living cells to remain live), so transmission would be through fluid transfers rather than cutlery etc. I’m not sure why would any health professional suggested that there are any risk of contamination in this way.

Posted By teaboy thanks for the response, the person involved was told by NHS direct that the virus could remain alive for several days, and therefore she was very worried. I've just found out that we are talking about Hep C

Posted By Ian Blenkharn Hep C can be transmitted by transfer via some contaminated inanimate object, and indeed on hard surfaces the virus can survive for some time, up to 4 - 7 days if the conditions are right (detergents, dessication, exposure to sunlight and temperature are the main determinants for survival). My pro bono work with one of the UK Hepatitis C support groups makes me particularly aware of the considerable stresses faced by those with Hep C, magnified greatly during therapy which can be especially difficult to endure. A great many of those suffering with Hep C will be fastidious about personal hygiene and particularly about the protection of others from inadvertent exposure. You may have stumbled into this situation quite by chance, but please do respect the privacy of the individual involved, and try to be supportive. You may ask them to consider the British Lover Trust or one of the two support groups, though its quite likely they already know of these. They can contact me through the support groups if they want a specific microbiological opinion. This is not the place for that discussion, though I will say that the risk will, in general, be exceptionally small. Swis - where on earth do you get your ideas about viral transmission? Perhaps it is just the way that you describe the need for a host cell, which is essential for replication, but that host cell is not required for transmission. Naked virus particles can and do survive on surfaces and elsewhere for prolonged periods (differing with the type of virus under consideration, from hours or days to many years).

Posted By Swis Ian, Yes, I meant the virus needs a host in order to replicate (breed). However, I do not agree with the fact that hepatitis C disease can be transmitted through cutlery etc. As I mentioned earlier, it is transmitted through fluid transfusion. Same as HIV, mainly through blood . (minute chances of transmission through kissing (saliva). There’re numerous publications available on the web confirming this. Swis

Posted By Swis Further guide from HSE. http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/diseases/bbv.pdf Ian - i'm still waiting for your source suggesting 'cutlery transmission'.

Posted By Swis Phil, Sorry missing ‘h’. In response to your post; ‘How great that duty is in the circumstances outlines is another matter, but a duty must surely exist? Doesn't it?’ What do you mean by duty of care? He’s not injecting (making transfusions) fluids into fellow colleagues, is he?. What can he do in order to convey this sp called duty of care??? As I said earlier its the moral DUTY only (maybe). There is no other legislation commanding people to take care of other should they suffer from BBV.

Posted By Phil Rose I should add that the fact that there isn't any legislation, doesn't mean that there isn't a legal duty. Hence common law duties and common law offences.

Posted By Ian Blenkharn Swis I have no intention of providing you with the 'evidence' that you seem to expect. If a transmissible virus were to contaminate a utensil, however that may happen, then transmission is possible. You have some ridiculous ideas of virology, and seem to rely on the web for your information, but we all know that that the web is full of some very dubious "information" that isn't worth the electrons its written with. Please be very careful with your data sources. You might find somewhere on the web information to show Hep C virus survival for around 4 - 18 hours on inanimate surfaces. Please check it out, but try to use an authoratitive information source such as a peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal or reputable textbook. Don't just skim the web. It's a recipe for disaster. You may know already, though it may well be news to you, that Hep C transmission has been proven to occur by sharing tooth brushes, cosmetic items such as depilators, even £5 notes (as drug straws). Transmission by shared utensils is extremely unlikely, but don't be fooled into thinking that it could not happen. Most common (that is, formost among a very small incidence) would be those with active gingivitis, herpetic lesions of the lips (oozing serous fluid and thus carrying 2 different viruses), recent dental treatment, even a recently bitten lip. This would require both source and recipient to have some lesion to complete parenteral transfer but that is by no means impossible.

Posted By Phil Rose Indeed! I remember a hep b case some years ago, in which a group of runners were out for a run (strange but true lol). One of the lead runners had hep b and ran through some spiky shrubs, gorse or similar, and some of the subsequent runners also became infected as a result. In the scenario presented above, there is a risk albeit in this case I would suggest pretty minimal and pretty easily mitigated by the infected person exercising their common law duty of care and (dare i say) their common sense. My post was not so much about hep c transmission , but more in answer to the question of whether a duty of care was owed. I am of the firm belief that a duty of care is owed. That is very basic stuff in my book. In most cases it is absolutely unnecessary for people to 'convey' that they have complied with their duty of care, they just do it, as most of us do it dozens of times each and every day, without having or needing to 'convey' to anyone that we have done so.

Posted By teaboy thanks swis so if a blood wound is the most likely route of infection, should this individual inform their line manager of his position in order for risk assessments and other procedures to be considered to cover this eventuality?

Posted By martinw teaboy There is no obligation to inform, and I reckon that the work circumstances determine in practice whether you would have to inform employer. If you were a nurse you would have to inform, but what would the info that someone has Hep C inform a risk assessment in an office environment? How is it a hazard to be removed or reduced in normal circumstances? What is the risk?

Posted By Ian Blenkharn It's a very difficult ethical issue that isn't going to be resolved by a few bullish comments here. Those with Hepatitis C may not know much about the risks involved - they may not have been told and have no reason to find out. Those who have the disease but remain undiagnosed are even less able to deal with what some believe to be a Duty of Care. The imposition of some perceived 'legal responsibility' smacks of lepers and others with bells round their neck. It's simply unacceptable to single out individuals in that way, and I have every expectation that no Court in the land would uphold such a proposition. The great risk is that by taking such a blunt and heavy handed view, the consequences to public health will be to suppress all information about disease status and to dissuade those at risk from seeking healthcare and testing. We had the same situation with HIV when the insurance companies had a similar sort of knee-jerk reaction that fortunately has now resolved. And for the individual, the difficult challenge faced by one with Hepatitis C infection will be made much much worse, and constructive dismissal is then on the horizon. Swis - you've got it all badly mixed up, perhaps by referring to a text on molecular biology when you need information on matters of clinical virology, infectious diseases and epidemiology.

Posted By Peter F. Wonder if section 7 HEalth and Safety at Work act would apply?

Posted By Peter F. What if the person wanted to pursue a personal injury claim?

Posted By Phil Rose Glad to see recognition of the existence of a duty of care! Continue to be surprised (worried) at the suggestion that someone with a BBV doesn't owe any more of a duty of care than someone without a BBV. I must have got it very very wrong.

Posted By Phil Rose I am well aware of the contents of INDG342, but disclosure or non disclosure of a BBV and the exercising a duty of care to others if you have a BBV are two TOTALLY different things. You DON'T have to or necessarily NEED to disclose the presence of a BBV, or 'convey' to others what you have done, in order to exercise your duty of care to others! What a strange assertion!

Posted By Phil Rose Swis - I really must confess that I must have totally missed the point. I most certainly did not get the connection between 'disclosure/non disclosure' and duty of care. People exercise their duty of care many times a day, every day without the need to disclose or convey. I will concede defeat as my understanding of the duty of care is obviously so very wrong.

Posted By Peter F. Section 7(1) HSAWA, 'Take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of others who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work' The person may not need to disclose his illness but surely he needs to protect others by his acts or omissions, i.e. by removing his cutlery from an area that other persons may use. You would expect him/her to ensure that others would not use it if there was a chance of someone getting the infection, although I doubt there was any real chance of anyone contracting the illness.

Posted By Swis "The person may not need to disclose his illness but surely he needs to protect others by his acts or omissions, i.e. by removing his cutlery from an area that other persons may use". Acts or omissions?? How could someone do that??? I'm sure person with BBV doesn't smoke viruses through an exhaust. And if the cutlery doesn't cause the transmission of disease, why would he remove it from other?