STD's/Med school admissions

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
scaredofbears

scaredofbears

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
do medical schools ask if you have any STD's before allowing you to matriculate?
Members don't see this ad.
 
scaredofbears said:
do medical schools ask if you have any STD's before allowing you to matriculate?
Click to expand...

Every med school requires that you submit personal medical records and most schools will conduct their own physical exams and blood tests. They will surely find out if you have an STD. Medicine just seems like a poor career choice for someone with an STD...sorry to say. At some point this will create barriers for your progress in the profession because most hospitals give physical exams and blood tests before hiring someone. Perhaps someone else can shed more light on the issue.
 
Even if someone does, the only way it would be a barrier to admission would be if it were so physically debilitating that he would be unable to perform his duties. Otherwise, it would not prevent him from entering the profession.

If I am misinformed, someone please correct me.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
MacBook Pro said:
Every med school requires that you submit personal medical records and most schools will conduct their own physical exams and blood tests. They will surely find out if you have an STD. Medicine just seems like a poor career choice for someone with an STD...sorry to say. At some point this will create barriers for your progress in the profession because most hospitals give physical exams and blood tests before hiring someone. Perhaps someone else can shed more light on the issue.
Click to expand...

That may be a bit of a blanket statement... If you have gonorrhea it's a little bit different then if you have HIV, but realistically, if you have anything serious they will probably find out and deal accordingly. This doesn't necessarily make it a poor career choice.
 
I'm sure there are plenty of doctors who have STDs. IMHO it's no different than doctors who are overweight, smoke, drink too much, abuse drugs, etc. Just because they know better doesn't mean they actually follow the advice they dispense.

I'm sure it wouldn't be a hindrance in matriculating. Besides, I thought it was against the law to discriminate in this manner (unless, as Humid pointed out, it was somehow debilitating and caused you to be unable to perform all of your duties).
 
bcat85 said:
That may be a bit of a blanket statement... If you have gonorrhea it's a little bit different then if you have HIV, but realistically, if you have anything serious they will probably find out and deal accordingly. This doesn't necessarily make it a poor career choice.
Click to expand...

isnt that discrimination? if i had herpes, speaking hypothetically of course, and i wanted to go to medical school, how would they have legal justification to reject me?
 
Is HIV/AIDS considered an STD? Would having it keep someone out of medical school?
 
I wasn't trying to shatter his/her dreams. By that statement, I just meant that you're entering a profession where your employer will be very aware of your STD and will probably care about it, which at some point may create a barrier. Even if the OP gets into medical school, I just think he/she will have a tough road ahead because of the STD. This would not be the case if you were going into law, business, etc.
 
i had aids (now cured) and was accepted into a US allopathic school.
 
flip26 said:
Is HIV/AIDS considered an STD? Would having it keep someone out of medical school?
Click to expand...

lol. Yes, HIV is an STD.

I don't know if it would keep everyone out, but several med schools have an ambiguous policy that says "if you have HIV, consider the potential of your medical career before applying"

If that sounds wrong, give me a minute... i'll look it up

Edit:

Depending on stage of HIV infection, those who are positive for HIV may wish to reconsider their career goals due to:

the prolonged period of medical education and significant possibility that they may become disabled during their training or early in their career;

the infectious hazards of portions of medical education;

barriers to certain invasive clinical activities and fields because of hazards to patients; and

the financial cost of medical education today.
 
Last edited:
flip26 said:
Is HIV/AIDS considered an STD? Would having it keep someone out of medical school?
Click to expand...

is that supposed to be philosophical or something? if not its a really stupid question.
 
I think what flip meant is that there are obviously other ways of contracting HIV. But yeah, I imagine it's very rarely contracted in non-sexual ways, to the best of my knowledge.

You'd think STDs would be treated similarly to other diseases, as chad suggested. Is there something about the word "sexual" that somehow makes them worse?
 
I'd be surprised if a sexually transmitted disease would prevent someone from practicing medicine for obvious reasons. However, if something can be spread to a patient through blood contact, then yes, I could see it as a potential barrier. But I really can't imagine something like what a previous post mentioned about herpes being a reason since I can't think of any modern medical procedure in which a patient could come into contact with that region of a doctor's body*!

*Unless of course medicine is exactly like Nip/Tuck :laugh:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Obviously an STD is not going to stop you from getting into medical school. Terrible thread.
 
tdittyx2x3 said:
Obviously an STD is not going to stop you from getting into medical school. Terrible thread.
Click to expand...

obviously it isn't that obvious, judging from the range of responses on this thread.
 
MacBook Pro said:
Every med school requires that you submit personal medical records and most schools will conduct their own physical exams and blood tests. They will surely find out if you have an STD. Medicine just seems like a poor career choice for someone with an STD...sorry to say. At some point this will create barriers for your progress in the profession because most hospitals give physical exams and blood tests before hiring someone. Perhaps someone else can shed more light on the issue.
Click to expand...

This response is the perfect example of someone giving advice on SDN about something they no clue about. I am going into my second year of medical school, I have not had any blood test done. All medical schools require your immunization records, and most will require a physical exam which in my case was basically a check up. There is no way that any school can determine your STD status. Having an STD will not prohibit you from attending medical school. Having a blood borne pathogen e.g. HIV, Hep B, may make your road more difficult.
 
What do you mean by STD? Gonorrhea/Chlamydia? Curable with a single IM shot. HepB? Can become chronic but most of the time resolves on its own. HPV/HSV? Don't see how these would keep you out of med school... they are not a risk to your patients.

IMHO HIV or HepB/C are the only ones schools would have reservations about, for the reasons posted above, but, as I post below, I don't know how they would find out.

alphaholic06 said:
This response is the perfect example of someone giving advice on SDN about something they no clue about. I am going into my second year of medical school, I have not had any blood test done. All medical schools require your immunization records, and most will require a physical exam which in my case was basically a check up. There is no way that any school can determine your STD status. Having an STD will not prohibit you from attending medical school. Having a blood borne pathogen e.g. HIV, Hep B, may make your road more difficult.
Click to expand...

Agreed. My med school does not have access to my medical records, and quite honestly I would be quite wary if they required me disclose them. The only blood work I had done prior to matriculation were titers for varicella and HepB immunity and a lipid panel. I had to have my PCP sign off that I have received the usual immunizations (TDAP, MMR, etc) and had to have a TB TST. Usual stuff for the health care field.
 
Last edited:
Breakdown of answers

Just because something is sexually transmitted, it won't prevent matriculation, licensing, or performance of duties. Having sex with patients is not part of the physicians duties.

Carrying a blood borne pathogen may prevent a person from partaking in some procedures and reduce his options for practice. It will not prevent him from matriculating.

Any infirmity that prevents one from meeting the physically capabilities required by the school may prevent them matriculating. Alternately, even though a person is capable at the time of matriculation, if he becomes unable to perform those functions, it will be difficult to impossible to complete the course of training.
 
Last edited:
pianola said:
I think what flip meant is that there are obviously other ways of contracting HIV. But yeah, I imagine it's very rarely contracted in non-sexual ways, to the best of my knowledge.
Click to expand...

Not to get to far off topic, but AIDS is frequently contracted in non-sexual ways...
Something like 35% of cases in America are related to injection drug users.
 
foster033 said:
Not to get to far off topic, but AIDS is frequently contracted in non-sexual ways...
Something like 35% of cases in America are related to injection drug users.
Click to expand...

And we all know how medical students have a much higher chance of doing drugs than getting laid.
 
MacBook Pro said:
Every med school requires that you submit personal medical records and most schools will conduct their own physical exams and blood tests. They will surely find out if you have an STD. Medicine just seems like a poor career choice for someone with an STD...sorry to say. At some point this will create barriers for your progress in the profession because most hospitals give physical exams and blood tests before hiring someone. Perhaps someone else can shed more light on the issue.
Click to expand...

Umm, my school just required that I submit paperwork detailing my immunization record and my previous TB skin test results. They didn't even ask that I take a physical specifically as part of my matriculation requirements. Seems like the scenario you are describing might border on illegal?
 
ZagDoc said:
IMHO HIV or HepB/C are the only ones schools would have reservations about, for the reasons posted above, but, as I post below, I don't know how they would find out.
Click to expand...

Hep B they would find out because you have to provide evidence of vaccination (or a reason why not) for most med schools.

The others you mentioned they probably wouldn't find out before matriculation, but it is relevant for the safety of your patients because a small percentage of students get nicked during surgical/procedural rotations and your blood could make a patient sick just as easily as a patient's blood could make a healthy med student sick. Additionally, somebody with a diminished immune system count might want to limit exposure to certain viruses and microbes that don't make folks with normal immune systems sick. You are going to be handling infectious disease patients. The hospital is the easiest place to catch something.
 
HumidBeing said:
Breakdown of answers

Just because something is sexually transmitted, it won't prevent matriculation, licensing, or performance of duties. Having sex with patients is not part of the physicians duties.

Carrying a blood borne pathogen may prevent a person from partaking in some procedures and reduce his options for practice. It will not prevent him from matriculating.

Any infirmity that prevents one from meeting the physically capabilities required by the school may prevent them matriculating. Alternately, even though a person is capable at the time of matriculation, if he becomes unable to perform those functions, it will be difficult to impossible to complete the course of training.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to medical school.
 
HumidBeing said:
Having sex with patients is not part of the physicians duties.
Click to expand...

So it turns out that I haven't been seeing a legitimate doctor after all. Moral of the story: always review the credentials of your physician. Thank you for opening my eyes, HumidBeing!
 
no medical school would ever subject itself to the ethical and/or legal battle that would ensue following post-aceptance rejection based on almost any medical condition.

luckily for americans, the ADA and the rehab act prevent discrimintation based on disability, real or percieved, preventable or not. a lawyer would argue that the practice of medicine does not require much beyond a good brain: a parapalegic could make a great psychiatrist and someone with AIDS might make a great ME. that's exactly why schools discourage people with hiv/AIDS from applying but can't exclude them.

the law requires that medical schools make reasonable accomodations.

further, last i heard, medical records were generally protected in this country and kept on a need to know basis. i can't imagine that there are many docs out there willing to divulge test results to medical school deans who have no ethical reason to have them.

you can expect to have things done like a regular ppd test, but that's only to make sure that YOU get treated for TB if you're possitive, since working in a hospital is a high risk environment.
 
itsallthesame said:
luckily for americans, the ADA and the rehab act prevent discrimintation based on disability, real or percieved, preventable or not. a lawyer would argue that the practice of medicine does not require much beyond a good brain: a parapalegic could make a great psychiatrist and someone with AIDS might make a great ME. that's exactly why schools discourage people with hiv/AIDS from applying but can't exclude them.
Click to expand...

Go to any medical school website and read their legal statement concerning 'technical standards.' They each state, in so many words, that medical students MUST be physically able to participate in clinical aspect of their training ... and, in accordance with this, medical schools can only admit students who meet these standards. Both sides can pull in lawyers on this issue, but if the school states that these are our technical standards, then those are the standards. I know I'm probably being a little broad and harsh with the explanations, but check them out yourself. I'm fairly certain they don't base acceptances off the fact that someone with a physical limitation COULD potentially want to enter a field of medicine where they could practice, more that they can't admit students who won't be able to complete requirements for graduation.
 
JaggerPlate said:
Go to any medical school website and read their legal statement concerning 'technical standards.' They each state, in so many words, that medical students MUST be physically able to participate in clinical aspect of their training ... and, in accordance with this, medical schools can only admit students who meet these standards. Both sides can pull in lawyers on this issue, but if the school states that these are our technical standards, then those are the standards. I know I'm probably being a little broad and harsh with the explanations, but check them out yourself. I'm fairly certain they don't base acceptances off the fact that someone with a physical limitation COULD potentially want to enter a field of medicine where they could practice, more that they can't admit students who won't be able to complete requirements for graduation.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The "reasonable accommodation" that is legally required is frequently quite nominal -- if you physically aren't capable of participating in substantially all aspects of the training and profession deemed essential, you may legally be denied. Much like a blind person doesn't get to go to flight school, a person who can't, with modest accommodation, perform physical exams or do the clinical procedures deemed basic and necessary by a med school won't get the kind of protection under the law that itsallthesame seems to be suggesting. I have no idea what this has to do with STDs though.
 
itsallthesame said:
further, last i heard, medical records were generally protected in this country and kept on a need to know basis. i can't imagine that there are many docs out there willing to divulge test results to medical school deans who have no ethical reason to have them.
Click to expand...

Safety is a pretty good "need to know". ALL med schools make you provide vaccination records because it is simply not safe for folks to work in the wards without being immune from certain things. Similarly schools make you get TB tests regularly (and will know of the results) because there is a need for you not to be spreading this around the hospital.
Blood borne illnesses are harder, but since some percentage of med students will get stuck during surgeries/procedures (this can be minimized, but not eradicated), and there is huge liability to the hospital, let alone safety issues for both patients and student, there is certainly some arguable need to know this as well. I'm not aware of med schools that inquire about bloodborne illnesses other than Hep B, but certainly wouldn't put much stock on a "need to know" defense.
 
I have all sorts of STDs. Actually, some of them came from the interviewers.
 
bcat85 said:
That may be a bit of a blanket statement... If you have gonorrhea it's a little bit different then if you have HIV, but realistically, if you have anything serious they will probably find out and deal accordingly. This doesn't necessarily make it a poor career choice.
Click to expand...

Hey, didn't you know that HIV is not a sexually transmitted disease? Apparently, you can only get it from a low-risk, monogamous, conservative lifestyle and not all of that "Men Who Have Sex With Men" stuff or multi-partner orgies with "low" women.
 
Sorry, I know this is a little off-topic, but the profession that is the most discriminatory is performing arts, where you can be rejected because of your height, weight, hair color, skin color, etc.
 
ok so what if you do have HepB. Are you limited on which field of medicine you go in?
i.e. you wouldn't be able to become a surgeon?
 
Seems that it would be unethical to bar surgeons with HepB/C from practicing when they are forced to take on a far greater risk of acquiring those diseases by the nature of their specialty. A surgeon cannot deny treatment to a patient with HepB/C, so the reverse should legally and ethically apply.

The American College of Surgeons doesn't recommend any restrictions beyond the standard precautions for practitioners with bloodborne diseases, except for HepB positive surgeons who are also positive for the e antigen.
http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-13.html
http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-22.html

krayon said:
ok so what if you do have HepB. Are you limited on which field of medicine you go in?
i.e. you wouldn't be able to become a surgeon?
Click to expand...
 
chad5871 said:
Sorry, I know this is a little off-topic, but the profession that is the most discriminatory is performing arts, where you can be rejected because of your height, weight, hair color, skin color, etc.
Click to expand...

This is so true. I find it to be especially ironic considering how so many of the people I know involved in the performing arts tend to be such bleeding hearts when it comes to political correctness for everyone else.
 
I should also point out that I'm not trying to insult fine arts because I am very much a fan. The point that chad5871 made, however, I find to be an interesting point.
 
Law2Doc said:
Agreed. The "reasonable accommodation" that is legally required is frequently quite nominal -- if you physically aren't capable of participating in substantially all aspects of the training and profession deemed essential, you may legally be denied. Much like a blind person doesn't get to go to flight school, a person who can't, with modest accommodation, perform physical exams or do the clinical procedures deemed basic and necessary by a med school won't get the kind of protection under the law that itsallthesame seems to be suggesting. I have no idea what this has to do with STDs though.
Click to expand...

I feel smart when you agree with me .... 👍
 
Panda Bear said:
Hey, didn't you know that HIV is not a sexually transmitted disease? Apparently, you can only get it from a low-risk, monogamous, conservative lifestyle and not all of that "Men Who Have Sex With Men" stuff or multi-partner orgies with "low" women.
Click to expand...
👍:laugh:
 
krayon said:
ok so what if you do have HepB. Are you limited on which field of medicine you go in?
i.e. you wouldn't be able to become a surgeon?
Click to expand...

that sounds silly. I wonder what are the chances that a surgeon will cut himself and let his own blood mingle with that of the patient. not to mention even if that happened, the chances of the Hep B transmitting is pretty low.

Also, you can take interferon therapy if you have HepB. As long as you are compliant with the treatment, your cure rate is looking pretty good.
 
EpiPEN said:
that sounds silly. I wonder what are the chances that a surgeon will cut himself and let his own blood mingle with that of the patient. not to mention even if that happened, the chances of the Hep B transmitting is pretty low.
Click to expand...

Chances of a surgeon cutting himself over the course of his career, given the number of procedures a surgeon does each week = 100%. Most surgeons just call it "occupational hazard". Chances of a patient getting infected with a bloodborne virus from a surgeon, well under 1%. (Nearly negligible).

But while surgeons assume the risk of contracting bloodborne diseases every time they agree to do a procedure on a patient, I don't think the typical patient agrees to assume the risk of contracting hepatitis or AIDS from his surgeon. It's certainly never written on the consent forms they sign, and not one of the risks explained to the patients before surgery. Certainly he would sue the hospital significantly if that happened. Which means the hospital, and the surgeon's insurance carrier would have a legitimate need to know about these kinds of things ahead of time.
 
Law2Doc said:
Chances of a surgeon cutting himself over the course of his career, given the number of procedures a surgeon does each week = 100%. Most surgeons just call it "occupational hazard". Chances of a patient getting infected with a bloodborne virus from a surgeon, well under 1%. (Nearly negligible).

But while surgeons assume the risk of contracting bloodborne diseases every time they agree to do a procedure on a patient, I don't think the typical patient agrees to assume the risk of contracting hepatitis or AIDS from his surgeon. It's certainly never written on the consent forms they sign, and not one of the risks explained to the patients before surgery. Certainly he would sue the hospital significantly if that happened. Which means the hospital, and the surgeon's insurance carrier would have a legitimate need to know about these kinds of things ahead of time.
Click to expand...

Well in the world of evidence-based medicine, I don't think people hav actually done studies to see how many patients contract Hepatitis from their surgeons. Even if someone has done it, I'm doubtful that it's actually statistically significant. Besides, there's always the risk of catching all kinds of diseases from medical personnels in a hospital. So I still don't see why we would give hepatitis B the royal treatemement when it comes to preventing physicians from being surgeons. It's not like it's a disease that would hinder the surgeon's performance. And like I said before, the physician can always undergo anti-viral therapy.
 
EpiPEN said:
Well in the world of evidence-based medicine, I don't think people hav actually done studies to see how many patients contract Hepatitis from their surgeons. Even if someone has done it, I'm doubtful that it's actually statistically significant. Besides, there's always the risk of catching all kinds of diseases from medical personnels in a hospital. So I still don't see why we would give hepatitis B the royal treatemement when it comes to preventing physicians from being surgeons. It's not like it's a disease that would hinder the surgeon's performance. And like I said before, the physician can always undergo anti-viral therapy.
Click to expand...

Hep B gets special treatment because it's theoretically preventable with a good vaccine. All med schools ask for vaccine proof or titers.

As for hindering a surgeon's performance, infection is considered a big issue in terms of the success rate of surgery. It's a real problem in hospitals, and is a known risk of surgery that you need to try and minimize. So yeah, if you risk infecting your patients because you yourself carry an infectious organsm, that hinders your performance.
 
Law2Doc said:
Hep B gets special treatment because it's theoretically preventable with a good vaccine. All med schools ask for vaccine proof or titers.

As for hindering a surgeon's performance, infection is considered a big issue in terms of the success rate of surgery. It's a real problem in hospitals, and is a known risk of surgery that you need to try and minimize. So yeah, if you risk infecting your patients because you yourself carry an infectious organsm, that hinders your performance.
Click to expand...

wait, so you are agreeing with that physicians with hep B shouldn't be surgeons?
 
I can easily pull up a dozen studies on pubmed investigating physician-patient (and dentist-patient) transmission of Hep B and other blood-borne pathogens including Hep C and HIV. There are actually some places that will consider the level of HBV DNA in a health-care workers blood when considering their eligibililty to perform certain procedures/tasks. PubMed it. While the risk is still generally low, there have been some well-documented cases of physicians/dentists passing infection to their patients and policies at individual institutions regarding what known HBV positive surgeons are eligible to perform are evolving. Let's not forget that standard precautions as we know them today haven't been around that long.

While HBV status will not affect your admission or matriculation to medical school, I would venture to guess that policies affecting HBV+ surgeons and other physicians performing higher-risk procedures will continue to evolve by the time you and I enter practice as attendings and in the future. Your infection status IS something to consider because it may affect your career in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheDeadrok
My idea for med school admissions - critique me
Replies
17
Views
2K
Hollow Knight
Hollow Knight
A
reapp school list advice? pls
Replies
1
Views
114
Faha
F
H
Attorneys Who Have Gone to Medical School: Admissions Questions
Replies
3
Views
728
thefirerisen
thefirerisen
K
Fulbright ETA vs Med School
Replies
1
Views
479
Real_Eyes
Real_Eyes
C
How does a W affect my chances when applying to a competitive med school?
Replies
5
Views
906
YellowSalamander
Y
Top