LIVING HELL CAME AT NEEDLE'S STING

A regional police officer went through emotional hell after being pricked
by a blood-covered syringe during an arrest -- an ordeal she says could
have been avoided.

And Const. Isobel Anderson wants the feds to come up with legislation to
allow front-line workers the authority to get blood samples from suspects.

Anderson, a five-year police officer, raised the issue after being pricked
last October as she arrested a suspect for the armed robbery of a pharmacy.

Despite taking all the precautions during her search of the suspect -- a
known drug user who lied when asked whether he was carrying any needles --
Anderson was pricked in the hand by a syringe he had in his coat pocket.

When the mother of three asked the suspect to give a blood sample to ensure
she hadn't been infected with any diseases, the man refused, which is his
within his rights.

Anderson was shocked to learn that a police officer -- and any other
front-line worker -- has no power under the law to compel a suspect to give
a blood sample if the officer has been exposed to risk.

She was also shocked to discover the lack of urgency surrounding the issue,
after she and Chief Brian Ford wrote Justice Minister Anne McLellan and
Anderson's MP John Manley last October.

Solicitor General Andy Scott didn't reply to Anderson's letter.

"No one can imagine the emotional trauma, the helplessness, the anger and
the frustration of going through such an ordeal unless they have lived it,"
Anderson wrote to Manley.

The hardest part, she said, was trying to explain to her three children the
danger to which she had been exposed.

"I had to tell them there was a chance that I may have contracted something
that could kill me," Anderson said. "How do you say that to kids without
scaring them?"

In her case the suspect finally agreed to a blood test, and although he
tested negative for HIV he was positive for hepatitis C, an incurable
disease that attacks the liver.

It took more than three months before Anderson learned she was not infected
with either disease. But if the suspect had not agreed to the blood test,
Anderson would have had to go through more than a year of testing to find
out whether she was infected with the HIV virus.

Her experience made her realize how vulnerable police officers are because
a suspect has the right to refuse a blood sample.

"I feel that such a law could potentially save millions of health care
dollars now being spent on testing that would have been unnecessary had an
individual simply consented to a blood test or been compelled to do so by
the courts," she said.

This year, six regional police officers have been exposed to potentially
tainted blood. In 1997, there were 11 cases reported to the department's
occupational health nurse.

But officers contacted by the Sun say those stats don't reflect the real
problem. Officers get pricked by syringes frequently and are often exposed
to blood on a daily basis.

"Her (McLellan's) response really disappointed me," said Anderson.

"That is where our support is as police officers. This shouldn't be an
issue at all. I was shocked that nothing was in place to safeguard us."

In Ford's letter to McLellan dated Oct. 30, 1997, he said Anderson was,
"outlining a serious concern of many police officers across Canada" and he
considered it a serious matter. He requested an update on any government
measures.

It wasn't until July 3, 1998, that McLennan wrote back stating that
mandatory testing had been studied by the government's Interdepartmental
Committee on Human Rights and AIDS.

"Mandatory testing raises specific issues relating to individual autonomy,
confidentiality, the presumption of innocence and the power of the state to
protect public health," McLellan wrote, adding that until the law is
changed those exposed should take an HIV test.

Copyright (c) 1998, Canoe Limited Partnership.

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)