HIV/AIDS as a Combat Injury?

My guess is yes, but I doubt you'll find something like that in print. The military doesn't like to publish that kind of thing. If you read the CDC reports, there have been rare cases cited of health care professionals seroconverting after exposure by blood on intact skin. Supposedly the sources verified that the person was not a closet homosexual, or using IV drugs etc etc, however how could someone retroactively prove that something never happened a year or two ago.

But, scientifically it is perfectly feasible that IF: person A who has HIV steps on a land mine and some of his leg bone becomes a projectile that gets embedded in person B, then person B might contract HIV in such a fashion.

Never say never, but it's a highly unlikely situation and I'd expect the Army to fight that one under the present don't ask, don't tell policy. Regular physicals would reveal the medical condition of a soldier if homosexuality was the source of the infection. However, I imagine the odds would be higher if the body that becomes the projectile was a civilian.

That said, everything is fair in fiction and most people would probably never question the plot...and it certainly adds a different twist.

I don't think it is at all DADT. HIV is a health condition with multiple causes including gay and straight contact and drug use. In a female it is almost certainly from heterosexual contact as lesbian sex is the lowest risk type.

To me this issue would be knowing where the HIV came from. With a young, sexually active person and given the incubation time it would be hard to be certain that it came from a freak occurence like this. The kind of tracing and typing needed to confirm the cause would rarely (never?) be done.

I would tell you, as someone who works for DOD public affairs, the answer is zero.

Gary said:

Never say never, but it's a highly unlikely situation and I'd expect the Army to fight that one under the present don't ask, don't tell policy. Regular physicals would reveal the medical condition of a soldier if homosexuality was the source of the infection. However, I imagine the odds would be higher if the body that becomes the projectile was a civilian.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading this wrong but it seems that the context of your post is that the only way a soldier could have contracted HIV is through homosexuality.

Which is entirely insulting since the premise would then be that the only way to contract HIV is homosexuality.

This is especially insulting to a guy who had two uncles - both hemophiliacs - die of AIDS related complications and both uncles were heterosexual.

If that was not your intent, good.

However, that's the way I read it.

Rabe...

Rabe said:

This is especially insulting to a guy who had two uncles - both hemophiliacs - die of AIDS related complications and both uncles were heterosexual.

If that was not your intent, good.

However, that's the way I read it.

Rabe...

Click to expand...

The post had to do with infection in the line of duty. Hemophiliacs can't serve active duty, so they were excluded from the question. I'm sure that there was no offense either suggested or implied.

Rabe said:

I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading this wrong but it seems that the context of your post is that the only way a soldier could have contracted HIV is through homosexuality.

Which is entirely insulting since the premise would then be that the only way to contract HIV is homosexuality.

This is especially insulting to a guy who had two uncles - both hemophiliacs - die of AIDS related complications and both uncles were heterosexual.

If that was not your intent, good.

However, that's the way I read it.

Rabe...

Click to expand...

Your thin skin is showing. Of course homosexuality isn't the only way to contract HIV, but it's the most common among younger people. Drug use with dirty needles is another common way, but that also doesn't apply in this case, since soldiers are drug tested.

As retired military, I was commenting on probability in this situation, not every possibility.

Rabe said:

I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading this wrong but it seems that the context of your post is that the only way a soldier could have contracted HIV is through homosexuality.

Which is entirely insulting since the premise would then be that the only way to contract HIV is homosexuality.

This is especially insulting to a guy who had two uncles - both hemophiliacs - die of AIDS related complications and both uncles were heterosexual.

If that was not your intent, good.

However, that's the way I read it.

Rabe...

Click to expand...

Rabe ... hemophiliacs are not accepted into the military.

Outside hemophilia's and blood transfusions (pre HIV testing of blood products), the main sources of infections in men are shared needles among IV drug users and homosexual sex.

The main sources of infection in women are shared needles and sex with infected men,

Actually that would be drug use, any reason for tranfusion during the period of poor screening, and sex. For females heterosexual sex is the most common vector and for males it currently runs about 50/50.

Given the demographics of front line military personal straight sex and drugs would be entirely possible if not rather more likely as a cause that gay sex--which is not in itself disallowed so long as one doesn't "tell".

The idea having HIV would count as "telling" seems rather far fetched and based on the very outmoded idea that it is a "gay disease".

Gary said:

Your thin skin is showing.

Click to expand...

You know--when people use the phrase "thin skin," it's usually more than a little Freudian.

However: Let's look at your original post, in which you said:

Gary said:

Regular physicals would reveal the medical condition of a soldier if homosexuality was the source of the infection.

Click to expand...

The odd "if homosexuality was the source of the infection" is sort of sitting there in a lovely radioactive Freudian pile. You do realize that HIV is HIV, no matter what the vector was, and that the vector is not typically going to be detected by a physician without actual non-physical data?

But then, we have:

Rabe said:

Which is entirely insulting since the premise would then be that the only way to contract HIV is homosexuality.

Click to expand...

Interesting thing that; the vector of the infection makes a difference?

Lovely. No really, your compassion is overwhelming. And revelatory.

Homesexuality=insulting

I'm not going to be thin-skinned and attempt to speak for my dead HIV infected queer friends; not even the ones who were in the military.

veinglory said:

For females heterosexual sex is the most common vector and for males it currently runs about 50/50.

Given the demographics of front line military personal straight sex and drugs would be entirely possible if not rather more likely as a cause that gay sex--which is not in itself disallowed so long as one doesn't "tell".

The idea having HIV would count as "telling" seems rather far fetched and based on the very outmoded idea that it is a "gay disease".

Click to expand...

This, and a few other posts from people like Jason, are actually informed and sensible:

Jason said:

I would tell you, as someone who works for DOD public affairs, the answer is zero.

Click to expand...

Depending on the time period you're writing in, transfusion is a viable source of the disease. In WWII my uncle got Hep. C that way. He went through the equivalent of two full blood exchanges and one of them was from an infected donor.

Fiancee's a molecular biologist/microbiologist, and she gives an adamant nod and "sure!" As long as there's blood and open wounds (you're injured and you carry someone else away, blood gets mixed), it's definitely possible.

It's happened in sports, so I'd say it's very feasible for it to happen in combat. [via this article from 1992]

So far, there has been only one published report of an athlete who apparently acquired an H.I.V. infection during a game. In December 1989, an Italian soccer player who was infected with H.I.V. collided with another player. Both men bled profusely from cuts on their eyebrows. The previously noninfected man developed H.I.V.

Click to expand...

Of course, I don't know if they do HIV tests as part of annual exams if you're in the military-- but whoever they catch it from could have been sleeping with the locals wherever they're stationed, and depending on where that is, the odds would go up.

And there you have your story. A hetrosexual soldier contracts a blood borne disease by immaculate infection. He's blown apart and a bone splinter infects his buddy, who spreads it thoughout the US Army because the Army doctors don't check for radioactive Freudian piles and they couldn't detect the infection anyway, despite 100 percent testing during physicals...which are done only because the lab techs are making work for themselves. Congress investigates and finds rampant military waste and abuse, disbands the military and there is finally peace on the planet.

Since nearly every thread manages to descend into a right-left, gay-straight, black-white, young-old, male-female, bitch session that manages to offend someone with a chip on their shoulder, I'll just return to my non-posting status...thank you.

quixote100104 said:

Greetings ,

I just rented "Body of Lies" over the weekend and it reminded me of something I wondered about when I first saw it, but never followed up on. Does anyone know if anyone has ever been infected with HIV or contracted AIDS as a result of a combat injury?

As the film graphically demonstrates, human bodies can become shrapnel under the influence of an explosion. In addition, in a really nasty hand-to-hand fight (or even putting bullets into someone in really close quarters) , even a survivor could come out of it rather heavily exposed to questionable body fluids, to put it delicately.

I worked in Security in a hospital for a decade or so and recall the extreme precautions that were taken in dealing with bloodborne pathogen risks, especially with known or suspected carriers. Yet I don't recall hearing any reports of this particular issue. Has it happened and, if not, is it plausible? It seems like the seed of a pretty interesting story.

Thanks ,

Click to expand...

I think the method of infection sounds entirely possible. The odds might be against being exposed to a carrier this way, but quite possible, I'd think. The prostitution angle is what I'd go with in a story to up the odds. The rates of infection for prostitutes can be astounding, and soldiers (guerillas, etc) + prostitutes also sounds rather plausible, IMHO.

quixote100104 said:

I envisioned a strong reaction of denial from the military, perhaps with some references (official or otherwise) to the possibilities of…other causes.

Click to expand...

It depends upon who is doing the denying and what time period that you are setting it in. Physicians are a subset of the population that have been to Medical School, even Military doctors. Today, Yes there will be some aholes who let their religion and politics cloud their medical training, but for the most part they are going to be thinking rationally. The cadre can be as political non-political as you want.

quixote100104 said:

.

Click to expand...

quixote100104 said:

I assumed, on the basis of my hospital experiences, that a soldier with a very clear bloodborne pathogen risk might be tested as a matter of routine while being treated for their wounds. Could HIV be detected in such a test process and, if so, how long would it take?

Click to expand...

They don't test for HIV. They test for antibodies against HIV. It can easily take the body 9 months to develop enough antibodies that they test positive. That's the "window" during which someone tests "negative" but might be infectious.

GeorgeK said:

[/color]
They don't test for HIV. They test for antibodies against HIV. It can easily take the body 9 months to develop enough antibodies that they test positive. That's the "window" during which someone tests "negative" but might be infectious.

Click to expand...

I may be misreading your statement, but, the DOD DOES test soldiers for HIV. It does this annually. The soldier knows the results in about a week. However, I cannot speak to how quickly HIV develops or does not. The DOD DOES test, however, and can test more frequently and with more veracity if it deems necessary. The tests are done at Brooks City Base in Texas (in San Antonio, though this may have changed from two years ago).

Important to know that soliders are as susceptible as anyone to the transmission of HIV. In fact, the statement could be made that because soldiers, both US and allied, are in areas where HIV is more prevelant (e.g., Africa and elsewhere), the chance of exposure is actually HIGHER than it would be for people who are not in the military.

Now, there is also the possibility that combat soldiers could come in to contact with blood from someone already infected, via combat or some other method. So, that exposure is actually raised even more for combat soliders -- those on the ground busting in doors and fighting the close-in battles. They could come in contact with the blood of enemy combatants more readily than someone else.

Now ...

I caveat ALL of this by saying that soldiers receive about a half dozen briefings, warnings and everything else each year about sexually transmitted diseases and the danger of HIV (among others). They get even more specific warnings before deploying into a war zone (e.g., don't touch this, don't go here and so on) especially regarding contact via prostitution. It is important in whatever text you might right to at least allude to the fact that this occurs.

Jason said:

I may be misreading your statement, but, the DOD DOES test soldiers for HIV. It does this annually. .

Click to expand...

I doubt that they have a direct test for HIV that they can perform on anything even remotely resembling an economic scale. I think I would have heard of that, despite being retired, but I could be wrong. Maybe they are no longer doing the ELISA then confirmed with a Western Blot. Science is advancing and they don't always send me a memo.

GeorgeK said:

I doubt that they have a direct test for HIV that they can perform on anything even remotely resembling an economic scale. I think I would have heard of that, despite being retired, but I could be wrong. Maybe they are no longer doing the ELISA then confirmed with a Western Blot. Science is advancing and they don't always send me a memo.

Click to expand...

In my MOS they DID test for HIV once every 6 months unless you deployed to Africa, in which case you were tested before your returned to CONUS, after you got to CONUS, at the 90 day mark, the 6 month mark, the 9 month mark, and the 12th month mark.

I knew two people who got HIV treating casualties in Africa. Since it was considered a conflict zone, it was considered a combat injury, and they were put out of the military with full honors and full pension.

With deployments to places like Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia, the military had to be able to test frequently and often. It really depended on the unit and your deployment listing as to how often you were tested.

But even the tankers got tested at least 1 time a year in West Germany.

interesting

I've been searching and apparently there are now commercially available direct HIV tests (as opposed to antibody testing) out there using PCR so that the window may be down to only one month. That should significantly help tracking. The sites I've found so far warn more against false positives moreso than false negatives.

Medievalist said:

Interesting thing that; the vector of the infection makes a difference?

Lovely. No really, your compassion is overwhelming. And revelatory.

Homesexuality=insulting

I'm not going to be thin-skinned and attempt to speak for my dead HIV infected queer friends; not even the ones who were in the military.

Click to expand...

The next time you decide to parse out a single statement from a post - parse it out correctly.

I am NOT saying homosexuality is insulting.

I'm saying that for someone to post the implication that the ONLY way a soldier can get AIDS is from homosexual sex is insulting. Because it means that AIDS is still - as another poster put it - a 'gay disease'. This was followed up with PERSONAL experience of two uncles who have died of AIDS related complications (BTW, my last uncle on my mother's side has yet to die of AIDS related complications - fortunately he hasn't developed from HIV into AIDS yet. And yes, again, through blood transfusion). Neither of my uncles were gay so that debunks the 'gay disease' part of the post.

I find it far more likely that a straight soldier in the armed forces would be more likely to contract HIV/AIDS through heterosexual sex than through homosexual sex. Considering the stories I've heard from my military friends - many soldiers become quite less discriminating about who their sexual partners are than they should be.

You also have my condolences on your friends. I am fortunate that thus far none of my gay friends have contracted the disease.

Rabe...