The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Two stories lead the news of this day, the release of Benjamin Weir, one of the seven kidnapped Americans in Lebanon, and the Soviets' expulsion of six more Britons for alleged spying. We'll have the details and the rest of the news in a moment. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: Tonight we focus in depth on the latest AIDS controversy. Should children with AIDS go to school? We'll discuss the medical evidence, then the moral and ethical questions the AIDS epidemic is forcing on society. Our final focus tonight is the Philippines and part three in our week-long documentary series, "The Islands of Discontent." Tonight, the U.S. role. News Summary

MacNEIL: The Reverend Benjamin Weir, who was kidnapped in Lebanon 16 months ago, has been freed and is back in the United States. The 61-year-old Presbyterian missionary, abducted by gunmen in Beirut, was released to U.S. authorities there on Saturday. The Presbyterian Church said he was in good health. He was taken to a Navy hospital in Norfolk, Virginia, and will appear at a press conference in Washington tomorrow. President Reagan announced Weir's release at the end of a speech on tax reform in Concord, New Hampshire.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I am pleased to inform you, if you haven't heard, that Reverend Benjamin Weir, who was held hostage for 18 months in Lebanon has now been released. I talked with Reverend Weir on Air Force One this morning, and I'm happy for him and his family, but I will not be satisfied and will not cease our efforts until all the hostages, the other six, are released.

MacNEIL: White House spokesmen said they had hoped that the other six hostages would be released, but it became clear last night that only Weir was to be freed. The other six Americans held in Lebanon are Terry Anderson, Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press; William Buckley, a U.S. Embassy political officer; Peter Kilburn, librarian at the American University; the Reverend Lawrence Jenco, a Roman Catholic priest; David Jacobson, director of the American University Hospital; and Thomas Sutherland, head of agriculture at the university. Relatives of some of the remaining hostages said they hoped the Reverend Weir would have some news of them.

PEGGY SAY, hostage Anderson's sister: I'm really desperately hoping that Ben will at least have seen Terry or had talked to somebody that had seen him. I've gone more or less on faith that Terry is alive and well, but it would certainly be reassuring to have that word from somebody that had been with him. I would imagine all of the families, that we're probably going to put Ben through more than the media is going to, if that's possible. But I know myself I have a hundred questions that I want to ask him.

MAE MIHELICH, Father Jenco's sister: It's great news, and it's a step that we've been waiting for through ourselves with all our awareness that we had made one more step to release another hostage, and since we became the forgotten seven we feel that we initiated this awareness and it is paying to be very, very fruitful. One is down and we've got six to go, and we hope that when we meet in Washington this week that Reverend Weir can tell us how our brothers are.

MacNEIL: The White House said that absolutely no deal with terrorists had been made to free Weir, but gave no more details on how his release was obtained. Jim?

LEHRER: The great ping-pong spy game ended today with one last pong from the Soviets. They expelled six more British citizens as alleged spies. That tied the score at 31 expelled by each side, and caused the British to call a truce. The back-and-forths were triggered last week by the defection of the KGB station chief in London. Today's expellees were five employees of the British Embassy in Moscow and a British journalist. Afterward, a spokesman for the Foreign Office in London said the Thatcher government would play no more, expel no more. "We wish to draw a line under this affair," he said.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Weinberger said today the Soviets are getting thousands of U.S. secrets without having to even spy for them. He said technological information is going freely to the Soviets at an alarming rate, and it is subsidizing the Soviet military buildup. The secretary released a report on the matter at a Pentagon briefing this morning.

CASPAR WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense: It is really, I think it's fair to say, a far more serious problem than we have previously realized. Recent revelations from Europe have also made clear that similar Soviet bloc intelligence and other efforts continue in full force in allied and friendly countries as well. This report pinpoints, I think, one statistic that reveals the astounding level of Soviet absorption of Western technology. By their own estimate, more than 5,000 Soviet military research projects each year are benefiting significantly from Western-acquired technology.

LEHRER: Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle also told reporters today he did not believe scientific exchange should be a part of the upcoming Reagan-Gorbachev summit because, he said, such exchanges are always one way, from here to there.

MacNEIL: In economic news, the government reported the highest rate of new housing starts in five months. Construction of new homes and apartments was up 6.2 in August, the biggest increase since last March. Meanwhile, debate over trade imbalances continued. The President's trade representative, Clayton Yeutter, urged Japan to open its markets "pretty darn fast" or face retaliation from a nervous Congress. The Japanese ambassador, Nobuo Matsunaga, told reporters in Washington, "We are quite aware of the seriousness of the present situation," but he said that U.S. trade protectionism could have a snowballing effect with other trading nations.

LEHRER: A new report on the reading ability of young Americans was out today, and the results were mixed. Seventeen-year-olds did better than those tested four years ago, but nine- and 13-year-olds did not. Blacks and hispanics improved their reading skills at a better rate than ever before, but still remained way behind whites. The average black and hispanic 17-year-old, for instance, can read only slightly better than the average white 13-year-old. The report is called "The Reading Report Card," and is based on the testing of some 250,000 young people over the last 14 years. It was released today in Washington by Education Secretary William Bennett.

Also in Washington today, the Food and Drug Administration said it had approved human tests in this country for the anti-AIDS drug used by actor Rock Hudson in France. The drug is called HPA-23.

MacNEIL: There were more clashes between South African police and anti-apartheid demonstrators today. Police shot dead three non-whites, including a 10-year-old child. One incident took place at a police station near Cape Town when the wives of five men who'd been arrested tried to deliver messages to their husbands. Here's a report from Michael Buerke of the BBC.

MICHAEL BUERKE, BBC [voice-over]: The wives of prominent detainees took a message to the Caladan police station, calling on the commissioner to release their husbands. Five of them wanted to go inside with the petition.

POLICE OFFICIAL: I decide three.

WIFE: Five.

WIFE: No, we decided on five.

POLICE OFFICIAL: I'm not interested in what you decide.

WIFE: You could reach outside.

POLICE OFFICIAL: You can choose. Which three?

WIFE: Which five shall go? Which five?

POLICE OFFICIAL: Which three shall go?

WIFE: We need five.

POLICE OFFICIAL: Three.

WIFE: Shall we take five or three?

CROWD: Five. Five.

BUERKE [voice-over]: Finally they agreed that only three should deliver the message.

POLICE OFFICIAL: All right. The rest of you --

WIFE: We can't disperse. We have to wait for them. They can't do anything --

POLICE OFFICIAL: You're getting a demonstration here is illegal. Is illegal. I'm going to give you two minutes to disperse. Otherwise you will be arrested. Is that clear?! The count starts from now.

WIFE: So you people are causing this gathering to be illegal here, and we want to go inside a public office --

POLICE OFFICIAL: All right, your two minutes is up. Charge and, arrest them!

BUERKE [voice-over]: Many of the wives managed to escape down Cape Town side streets, pursued by policemen wielding their whips. The pursuit didn't last long, and the women they caught did after all get into the police station -- to be charged with holding an illegal gathering.

LEHRER: And finally in the news of this day, a new plan was announced to provide 250 more trucks to bring famine aid to victims in Ethiopia and the Sudan. The U.S. government will provide 150 of the trucks; the music charity groups Live Aid and Band Aid, 100. All will be part of a United Nations fleet that will distribute some one million tons of food now on docks in Ethiopia.

MacNEIL: That's our news summary. Coming up, a major discussion on children with AIDS and schools, the medical debate and the moral dilemma. And part three of our documentary series on the Philippines. Tonight, the American role in the "Islands of Discontent." AIDS and Schools: What's Right?

MacNEIL: We devote the major part of our program tonight to the growing concern about children with AIDS and the debate over whether they should be allowed in public schools. In New York the issue has reached the state supreme court, where a hearing was held today in a bitter dispute between parents and the New York City school board over the admission of a seven-year-old AIDS victim to a city school, and a similar hearing is scheduled tomorrow in Kokomo, Indiana. Lawyers for 13-year-old Ryan White, another AIDS victim, have filed suit to force school officials to readmit him after he was barred from the classroom. Last night, President Reagan offered his own views on what's become a highly emotional dilemma.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I can well understand the plight of the parents and how they feel about it. I also have compassion, and I think we all do, for the child that has this and doesn't know and can't have it explained to him why somehow he is now an outcast and can no longer associate with his playmates and schoolmates. On the other hand, I can understand the problem of the parents. It is true that some medical sources have said that this cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know, and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, "This we know for a fact, that it is safe." And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it.

MacNEIL: In New York today the state supreme court was asked to decide whether the city school board must reveal the identity of a young AIDS victim who was admitted to a city school this month. This is how it reached this point. Just three weeks ago, Mayor Ed Koch held a press conference to announce the Board of Education's new policy on AIDS.

Mayor ED KOCH [August 30, 1985]: Before a child with AIDS would be permitted to enter the regular classroom, that child will be examined to determine whether that is appropriate for the child, whether that's appropriate for the child's classmates.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: On September 7th, just two days before school opened, the city's central board of education ruled that a second grader with AIDS could attend class, but the student's name and the school the child is attending were not revealed. The central board's decision and the uncertainty over which school the AIDS student was in caused concern among parents, especially in local School District 27 in Queens.

PARENT: Why do they want to push it upon us and put the fear of death into our children and the fear of AIDS into our children?

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Many of the parents there are keeping their children home from school and are picketing the local elementary school. The District 27 school board decided to go even further.

GEORGE RUSSO, District 27 board member: We the board met in emergency session after the decision of the central board, after their panel, which was convened, decided to place a child in the classroom, or to leave a child in the classroom who had diagnosed AIDS syndrome. The board met and among some of our options were legal ones, and we decided to take a legal action, go into court, and attempt to enjoin the city from doing just that -- placing or leaving that child with AIDS in the classroom.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Robert Sullivan, the local board's attorney, questions not only the city's decision, but how it was made.

ROBERT SULLIVAN, District 27 attorney: Why couldn't they have made this decision a month ago so we could have gone about this in an orderly procedure? They had to wait until Saturday night at 9 o'clock when school opens Monday morning at 8 o'clock. No one runs any business organization or anything like that.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: But Mayor Koch says parents and District 27 board members are overreacting to the situation.

Mayor KOCH: I believe in justice. I believe that if that child posed a danger that the child should not be here. But the doctors say the child poses no danger.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Despite that assurance, parents here remain unconvinced.

PARENT: Why don't the officials who are supposedly so well read up on this, everything that I've heard is, "I don't know," "I don't think," "as far as we know,' "we don't think it is." When they can say, "we know definitely," maybe then we won't be so hysterical, as they call us. We're not hysterical. We're concerned. I have four children. If any one of them get it, they could pass it on to the other ones. How would we feel? It's something -- it's not like chicken pox, two weeks or a month later they're going to be fine. They're going to die.

PARENT: And the doctors -- I don't think they know as much as they claim to know. What I know about it is what they tell me, and they tell me nothing. And that's what the children know. So they just -- the children only read the bottom line -- "I'm going to get sick and die." And it's frightening. It's frightening for them. It's frightening for me. It's frightening for everyone here.

LEHRER: A medical response now to parents' concerns like those. It comes from Dr. Henry Masur, who believes AIDS victims do belong in school. He is an AIDS researcher at the federal government's National Institutes of Health here in Washington.

Doctor, why? You've heard what those people say. What can you say to them to allay their fears?

Dr. HENRY MASUR: I think that parents and other individuals in the community have an appropriate concen about a disease that has the kind of mortality that AIDS has, but at the same time we're now seven years into this epidemic. We have a lot of experience with who has developed AIDS and who doesn't. We've done a lot of blood testing. I think after these seven years and these intensive studies we can say that the only people who have gotten AIDS are those who've had have sexual contact with someone else who was infected or someone who has received an infected blood product either through transfusion or a polluted blood product. We can't point to a single case of someone who has gotten AIDS from any other route. So at this point I think that we can be quite confidant, based on these seven years of experience, based on extensive studies done by universities, done by the Centers for Disease Control, done by the National Institutes of Health that, in fact this disease has not been transmitted by any route other than sex or blood products.

LEHRER: So it's impossible, in your opinion, for one child in a schoolroom or at a school to get AIDS from another child who in fact has AIDS?

Dr. MASUR: I don't think it would be fair to say it is impossible. I think what we can say is that we have a tremendous amount of evidence over these seven years, based both on who has gotten AIDS and on the blood tests, and nobody has gotten the disease by other than sex or blood so far. And I think that's important to recognize that we have studied very intensively both family members who have taken care of AIDS patients and hospital employees who, certainly during the first few years of the AIDS epidemic, did not take any special precautions. Despite the fact that these family members and health care professionals have had very intensive exposure over many years, not a single one has converted his blood test, not a single one has gotten the disease. So I think that this gives us a tremendous amount of evidence, which admittedly is not 100 complete, but it gives us really I think a very high level of confidence that we know how this disease is transmitted.

LEHRER: Dr. Jose Hirone, who we had hoped to have with us tonight, testified before the judge today in New York. The judge then told him -- he didn't finish his testimony. The judge advised him not to talk to the press until he had finished his testimony. Anyhow, Dr. Hirone told the judge in New York today -- he is an infectious disease man at the Flushing Hospital in New York, and the doctor said that his fear was that there could be bleeding. A child could, an AIDS victim, for instance, could cut his or her hand and it could be transmitted that way to another child. Do you agree?

Dr. MASUR: I think that would be conceivable, although extraordinarily unlikely. I think that each individual --

LEHRER: What about biting? That was another possibility.

Dr. MASUR: Well, I think each individual child has to be taken as a special situation. If the child is responsible, he is not belligerent and aggressive, I think that these children can be made to understand what is and is not desirable behavior. But I think even if there were some accidental blood spill, even if there were a bite, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the disease could be transmitted. And the reason I say that, is that you look at the medical community, you look at the hundreds of people who have had deep needle sticks from AIDS patients, you look at the hundreds of people who have had splashes on their mouths, on their eyes, accidentally during medical procedures, and not one single individual has either converted his blood test or developed anything suggestive of the disease. So that I think at this point we can say that, although there are many scenarios that are conceivable, it's extraordinarily unlikely that even if those unlikely things happen, it would transmit the disease.

LEHRER: You keep understandably saying "at this point". Dr. Hirone made the point to the judge today that if you're going to fault, or if you're going to err, err on the side of caution.

Dr. MASUR: Well, I can tell you what the medical evidence is. I think it's important that public administrators and politicians listen to the medical advice and then make the decision that they think is appropriate. What I can tell you is that in the seven years of experience so far, we have not been able to recognize anybody getting the disease by a route other than sex or blood. And I can tell you what I myself do and what almost all other individuals in the medical community do; that is, we do not take unusual precautions when we are simply seeing a patient in the clinic or the hospital. We don't take any kind of special precautions unless we know that we're going to have contact with saliva or blood in a very intense way. And we don't have any particular desire to die at this point. We'd like to protect ourselves and our co-workers. We're at least convinced enough that we act in a certain way, and I think we can simply present the evidence, we can present our opinions, and then it's up to parents and other public officials to decide how they want to use this evidence.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: With us is one of the concerned parents from Queens, New York, Mr. Dennis Stanton, who is keeping his three children home from school. Why are you boycotting the school, Mr. Stanton?

DENNIS STANTON: It's not so much a case of boycotting the school but rather that since the school hasn't told me that my children are going to be safe, or as safe as they would have been without this disease, I feel that it's necessary for me to wait a bit.

MacNEIL: Now, you don't know whether in fact this seven-year-old child, unidentified child, is in your school?

Mr. STANTON: No, I don't. But I have a seven-year-old child in school.

MacNEIL: And you think your children are in some danger?

Mr. STANTON: By everything that I've heard in the three days in court, each doctor that has spoken has said there is a danger, we have to take extreme precautions in hospitals. We don't touch any of liquids that are coming out of the bodies of these people. We take extra care in handling anything that they've touched. When I hear this is court and then I hear the doctor say we can't pinpoint the location or the origin of 10 of these people, the 10 of the people with the disease, then I'm too afraid.

MacNEIL: What will satisfy you and reassure you enough to send your children back to school?

Mr. STANTON: I think the first thing that has to come is a concerted effort by the medical profession in conjunction with the government to step up their attempts to find a cause for the AIDS disease, for the AIDS virus, and they also have to provide the same sort of checks and balances that they are currently providing for all the other childhood diseases.

MacNEIL: If you discovered that the one child that the school board has admitted to the New York schools is not in fact in your school, would that relieve your anxiety and then you would send your children back to school?

Mr. STANTON: I think it would relieve it to a degree. I would certainly not be worried about that individual child. But I also have to wonder about the remaining children and the remaining employees of the Board of Health -- the Board of Education that are going to be visiting my children.

MacNEIL: You've just been listening to Dr. Masur, who is an authority on this subject, and he says that over -- well, you heard what he said. Over seven years of medical people not even taking any special precautions with AIDS victims, they haven't come up with a single case of anyone contracting the disease except by the two routes he mentioned, being stuck with a needle or through sexual contact, and that does not reassure you?

Mr. STANTON: Well, I think Dr. Hirone in court today made mention of three cases that he knows of in this country where needle pricks -- needle sticks, I believe, was the phrase he used -- were responsible for bringing on AIDS in people which did not fit the AIDS profile.

MacNEIL: I see.

Mr. STANTON: And these are medical personnel working in hospitals.

MacNEIL: I see. And who do you hold responsible for this at present, for this situation which you and the parents of Queens have got yourselves into?

Mr. STANTON: Well, I don't think we can point a finger at any one individual. Certainly the rights of a person with a disease have to be considered, but at the same time the rights of my child have to be stood up for. Who can -- what six-year-old or seven-year-old child can make decisions that are going to affect their life? Can the Board of Education come to me five or six years down the road, or seven years down the road and say to me, "Well, we were wrong. We're sorry, but your child is dead." That is not a good enough answer to me.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Doctor, is there anything you can say to Mr. Stanton that would reassure him, do you think? Did you hear anything he said that is just totally off the wall that you would like to correct?

Dr. MASUR: No, I think his concerns, again, are very realistic, and parents and school officials have to listen to the information and decide how cautious they wish to be. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some health care professionals who, because of a deep needle stick at some point converted their blood test or perhaps developed the disease. That, of course --

LEHRER: Converted their blood test. What does that mean?

Dr. MASUR: Converted their blood test, indicating that they had been infected with the virus and perhaps they would eventually get the disease. But we think that that is extraordinarily unlikely to happen, because we have several hundred people who have had needle sticks or other splashes and they haven't gotten the disease so far, or shown evidence in their blood tests that they were positive. But the one issue is, yes, a needle stick could conceivably transmit the disease, but we don't anticipate in school that children are going to be stuck with needles from one individual to another. So I don't think that that's a realistic concern.

LEHRER: Mr. Stanton, what about that?

Mr. STANTON: Well, I'd like to pose a question to the doctor. In court this morning, Dr. Pauline Thomas, who was the only doctor that had anything to say whether this child would go or would not go into the school system, she told me, or she told the court, more correctly, that children don't bite and they don't fight. This is a woman who says she's a mother. Can you tell me that children are not going to bite and fight?

Dr. MASUR: Again, I would think that every individual child has to be looked at as a special case. If the child is unusually belligerent or aggressive, if he is fighting, then I think that child probably needs special supervision. But I think --

LEHRER: You mean if that child has AIDS as well?

Dr. MASUR: That's correct. If he has AIDS and he's scratching and biting, then I think that child probably needs special supervision. But I think that for most children who are well behaved, if they understand they have a problem, ifthe school officials understand how this child should be supervised, I don't anticipate that there would be a problem in most situations. I think even if there were a bite or a scratch it is still quite unlikely, very unlikely, that that would transmit the disease, because again that's very much like the situation in a medical setting where there is a deep needle stick or a splash, and we know that so far there has not been good evidence that there has been transmission, although, again, I wouldn't be surprised at some point if we had evidence that an occasional health care professional did become infected.

LEHRER: Do you know anything about these three cases that Dr. Hirone mentioned, that Mr. Stanton just quoted?

Dr. MASUR: I don't have any primary information about that. There have been rumors for the past several years about individual cases. I think until they're thoroughly worked up, until they're interviewed by the Centers for Disease Control, it's always very difficult to know whether their health care profession is their only risk. But again I think that a deep needle stick is a much different situation from what is likely to happen in a school setting.

LEHRER: Mr. Stanton, he's right about that, is he not? I mean, a deep needle stick in a school setting would be a rarity, would it not, or an impossibility, even?

Mr. STANTON: Well, I'd say it definitely is a rare possibility. We have, in the particular school that my children are going to, we only have a nurse two hours a week. So I do think that a needle stick would be a very strange occurrence in the school.

LEHRER: You think it probably is not going to happen in your school, right?

Mr. STANTON: No, I would not think that that would happen.

LEHRER: But what do you say, then, if the doctor says that that is really the only way this disease could be transmitted is through a deep needle stick.

Mr. STANTON: I think all of the doctors that have been testifying last week and this week have all come up with one answer that is the only thing that I keep on hearing. I hear it 10 or 15 times a day. When they're asked for specifics, their answer is, "There's not enough data in."

LEHRER: And you're -- yeah, go ahead.

Mr. STANTON: I was just going to say, if the Board of Education cannot listen to its own Dr. Thomas and it cannot listen to doctors who are supposedly the most knowledgeable people in the field, then who can we listen to? If they say it's not enough data, how can the Board of Education make a decision like this?

LEHRER: Dr. Masur, that raises a question that President Reagan in another part of his -- he was asked about AIDS two or three times last night at his news conference. He said that he felt the federal government was doing enough in its search for a cure or the cause of AIDS, and of course you're involved in that research. And Mr. Stanton told Robin a moment ago that he felt that should be a bigger priority. What's your view of this? Do you want more money? Could you do more if you had more money and more resources?

Dr. MASUR: Well, I think you probably need to ask people who are outside tity, there's a large amount of money being spent. I think it's for somebody who has more expertise in public policy to decide whether a large enough fraction of the health care dollar is being allocated to this. All I can say is that there are many, many projects around the country, there are many projects within the federal government and a large number of people who are expending a tremendous amount of energy trying to solve this problem.

LEHRER: But from the working end, from your end, as somebody who is actively involved in trying to find out about this disease, do you believe that it is a top priority within the federal government, from your point of view?

Dr. MASUR: I think there is no doubt that it is a top priority. I mean, not only do you need only listen to what the top officials say, but if you look at the amount of activity that's going on within the National Institutes of Health, within the Centers for Disease Control and the number of projects that are funded at universities and other medical centers throughout the country, it is a tremendous priority. Again, whether there are enough resources is for somebody else to decide.

LEHRER: And your perspective from Queens, Mr. Stanton, is what?

Mr. STANTON: I am very happy to see the number of people that are involving themselves in this. I'm glad to see that there are a number of people in the medical community. I don't know if more doctors would do. I don't know if more money would be the way to solve the problem. What I know is, there is no resolution just yet, and that has got me worried.

LEHRER: Yes, sir. Robin?

MacNEIL: Also with us is a man disturbed by the school boycott. He is Dr. Thomas Murray, a specialist in medical ethics at the University of Texas medical branch in Galveston. He joins us in Houston. What is it that bothers you about the boycott, Dr. Murray?

Dr. THOMAS MURRAY: Well, there are two sets of interests we have to weigh here. One is the interests of the kids themselves, the children who have AIDS. And I think their interests have not been adequately represented most of the time in this controversy. They're few in number, and we're suspicious of them and we may even be suspicious of their family, since about 70 of the kids who have AIDS have gotten it passed down from their mother during the prenatal period. There is also the interests of -- I think it's important to say why those kids ought to be in school, and there are at least two reasons. One is that I understand the concerns of people like Mr. Stanton who have children of that age. I have three children in school myself right now, and I would not be thrilled at the thought of them having a classmate with AIDS, but I wouldn't be worried that they would be in danger of contracting it if they did. There's an important distinction to be made between when scientists will not say that absolutely, once and for all, there is no danger of contracting a disease about which we may know a lot, as we do know about AIDS, but we don't have decades and centuries of experience with. They will be cautious and they will say that from everything we know, and we have, actually, abundant evidence that suggests that AIDS is not transmissable by casual contact. But they won't say that it's absolutely impossible. That's because scientists are trained not to talk that way. They don't talk about absolute impossibility.

MacNEIL: But you mean that you should take their assurance that the probability is so little to be the equivalent of some civilian's assurance that there's no probability? Is that what you're saying?

Dr. MURRAY: They're at least as certain as the lieutenant in the army who, when the commanding officer says, "I need you to do this," says, "Can do, sir." He's quite confident he can do it, and these physicians are quite confident.

MacNEIL: Let me come back to the children for a moment. You said you should also consider the children who have AIDS and -- being in school. One doctor we've talked to said maybe they're at greater risk than the children in the schools themselves because, with their immune systems being so vulnerable they will be exposed to the viruses that normal children have, and therefore that's an argument perhaps for not putting them in school with normal children.

Dr. MURRAY: It is. It's an argument on behalf of the children with AIDS that says that they run some increased risk by going to school.

MacNEIL: But the net effect is an argument to keep them out of school.

Dr. MURRAY: Well, the net effect is to ask, if we were to leave it, say, up to those children and their parents whether to try to enroll in the regular school, it would be, I think to leave the decision with those people, not -- but in any case, it doesn't come from the parents of the children who don't have AIDS and who worry about their kids being exposed to AIDS.

MacNEIL: What would be the ethical position, if this controversy continues to grow, of providing special education facilities for children who have AIDS as they are provided for, or have been in the past, separate special facilities for children with certain handicaps?

Dr. MURRAY: Well, it wouldn't meet the objections, I think, of the parents who want their children to be in school with other kids for as long as they can be. Their view is that their kids, the kids who have AIDS, have a big strike against them aleady, and they don't want to make their life even more miserable and more isolated by taking them out of whatever activities they could otherwise have as a regular student. Now, I'm sympathetic to this. I think there is an argument, first of all, from the facts, that these kids, from everything we know, don't pose a danger to other children. Is that an absolute certainty? No. But it's probably -- look at it this way. Your child in a school is probably much more likely to die in a school bus accident or, should they, say, play football at a high school -- much, much more likely to die from that -- than they are to die from AIDS, from everything we know right now.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Stanton, do you look at it that way?

Mr. STANTON: I look at it from a parent's point of view. My feeling is that no, I do not want to ostracize this one child or, if there are more than one child. I don't want to ostracize the child. But by the same token, if they're going to put children who have been classified as having something like hepatitis or emotional problems or physical learning disabilities, if they're going to give them special education, then I think that by categorizing the child as a special education child, we are not saying to this child you can no longer talk to anybody. A child cannot live in a bubble.

LEHRER: Doctor, what's your view of how the child with AIDS should be treated, and how that child could be affected by going to school in a regular school?

Dr. MASUR: Well, I'm not either educator or a sociologist. What I can tell you in terms of how the child should be treated is that I would presume that in a school they should take the same kind of precautions that we take in a hospital. Specifically, when we're going to see the child in the clinic we do not take any special precautions. We allow the child or adult-aged patients to use the same cafeteria, the same restrooms, all the same common facilities in the hospitals that the medical staff uses, the nursing staff uses. So that we are confident that in those casual interactions there is going to be no transmission of the virus. So I would think that in a school situation the child should be treated in the same way on the assumption that the child is not unusually aggressive or belligerent and that the child can control its saliva and its other secretions and excretions. So I think with a well-behaved child who doesn't drool, who is not incontinent, there is no reason that that child cannot have a normal relationship with other children in school.

LEHRER: What about the point that Robin raised, though, that the AIDS victim might be more susceptible to disease? In other words, it may be harmful to the child medically to be in that situation. Do you disagree with that?

Dr. MASUR: No, I think that's conceivable. It depends, of course, on a number of factors such as whether the child has been exposed to chicken pox in the past or not. But I think that's a decision that the parent has to make. If you have a child with Hodgkins disease, if you have a child with a kidney transplant, the parents decide whether or not that child should go to school, along with the school authorities, and in most situations, I presume, they decide that the benefits are probably greater than the risks of the child acquiring an infection. But that is an issue that I think that the child's physician, the parents, have to together make to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

LEHRER: Mr. Stanton, from your point of view, if the AIDS victim was completly isolated but was still educated in a public school, you would have no objection to that, would you not? As long as it wasn't in the classroom of your child? Is that right? If it was in somebody else's, say, if the AIDS victim was in a classroom, say, with children who were already isolated for other reasons -- emotional disturbances, emotional problems or something like that -- is that correct?

Mr. STANTON: Well, if the AIDS child is not put into serious danger, no, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I would also have to consider the special needs of the other children that were in that classroom.

LEHRER: Well, that was the point I was trying to get at, not very well. Do you think that would create a whole other set of problems? In other words, it would be another parent sitting here the next time we did the program on that situation? It would be a parent, say, of a child who suffered from another kind of disease and who now was in a classroom -- that person's child was in a classroom with an AIDS victim? I mean, where does it end, is what I'm really getting at, once you start isolating them?

Mr. STANTON: I don't know if it's possible to end it in that way. In New York here recently the mayor made a big hullaballoo and opened up a school for 14 gay children. The reason he opened up the school was because he felt that emotionally these children could not deal with the hetero children that they were in school with. Now, if the mayor can open up an entirely separate school for 14 children in a city that is already strapped for its tax dollar and the city currently has, by testimony that I've heard, 128 children with AIDS, could they not fit into another small school?

LEHRER: Dr. Murray in Houston, Mr. Stanton makes a good point, does he not?

Dr. MURRAY: Well, he's making a point about New York's taxes, and I don't have much to say about that. But I think there is -- I think even if -- I think the children should be permitted into school as long as it is not an overwhelming danger to them and if parents feel that it's the right thing to do, and they are not special cases like the aggressive or the biting child. But even then we have problems. We have, for example, the problem of who do we tell that this child in this public school, or whatever school, has AIDS? Should we tell -- does the principal of that school know? Does the teacher know? Even being very conservative about protecting the non-infected kids against AIDS, should we let teachers know so that the child with AIDS, for example, vomits or has a cut and starts bleeding. Should the teacher know so that they can steer the other kids away from that? You see, I think in a way the New York City schools in trying to be responsible have created an enormous problem for themselves. They want to let the public know how they're dealing with kids with AIDS, but they want to protect the confidentiality of the kids with AIDS. Both of them understandable. But the problem is now parents, as Mr. Stanton and some of the parents in Queens, don't know who to be afraid of. And I'm worried about the impact this is going to have, since we have an anonymous child in the schools. Are we going now to tell children that they should stay away from all kids who might, say, have hemophilia, all kids who come back from a long stay in the hospital?

LEHRER: All right, with your questions, we have to leave it. Dr. Murray in Houston, thank you very much, Mr. Stanton in New York; Dr. Masur, thank you. Islands of Discontent: Strategic Dilemma

MacNEIL: Finally tonight, the third installment in our week-long series on the Philippines, "Islands of Discontent," by correspondent Charles Krause and producer Susan Mills.

Growing political and military opposition besets the 20-year rule of President Ferdinand Marcos. It also threatens key U.S. military bases on the strategically placed islands. Policymakers in Washington want President Marcos to reform his rule. They're hoping to ensure continuation of a pro-U.S. government in the Philippines and undercut increasing support for communist-led guerrillas.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: Just three years ago, Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda made a triumphant state visit to Washington. They were given a warm welcome at the White House. President Reagan praised President Marcos as a loyal and trusted ally in the Pacific.

Pres. REAGAN: Our two peoples enjoy a close friendship, one forged in shared history and common ideals.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Today it's one state visit the U.S. government would like to forget. Policymakers at the White House and at the State Department no longer consider Marcos an asset. On Capitol Hill his continued control over the Philippines is viewed with less caution.

Rep. STEPHEN SOLARZ, (D) New York, Asian and Pacific Subcommittee: I think that the Philippines is shaping up as the Vietnam of the 1990s in the sense that, unless fundamental changes are made in that country, there is a very real possibility that at some time in the 1990s the Philippines could be the next major Southeast Asian country to fall under the control of the communists. And if it does, I think it would have far more severe and significant consequences for the United States than the fall of Vietnam did a decade ago.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: In the Philippines there are demonstrations against the Marcos government at least once a week. The American Embassy in Manila is usually a target because the left has exploited U.S. support for the Marcos regime. The left calls it the U.S.-Marcos dictatorship. The Philippines' worsening economic condition has led to more and more strikes; again, the left has infiltrated some labor unions and exploited low wages and growing unemployment. Poverty and hunger are blamed on the Marcos government and U.S. corporations doing business here.

In the countryside, an estimated 15,000 guerrillas belong to the communist-led New Peoples, Army. They're now active in virtually all the country's 73 provinces. According to U.S. intelligence, the guerrillas do not receive outside help. Their arms come from raids and from corrupt Philippine army officers. Their money comes from businessmen forced to pay what the guerrillas call "revolutionary taxes." Reportedly, the NPA has encountered some resistance in recent months, but communist strength is growing in rural areas and in the cities.

STEVEN BOSWORTH, U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines: If one examines the growth of the insurgency over the last year or two and projects those growth trends out into the future, then I think it's quite reasonable to reach the conclusion that within three to five years the situation here could be very serious indeed.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: The nightmare for Ambassador Bosworth and the U.S. government, of course, is that a communist takeover would adversely affect very important U.S. interests in the Philippines.

Amb. BOSWORTH: I think our primary interest, long term, is a political interest. It drives from the fact that this was our only former large colony. Now, beyond that, of course, we have an enormous strategic interest here as well.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: The Philippines became a U.S. colony during the Spanish-American War at the turn of the century. The Japanese bombed the islands during World War II and forced General Douglas MacArthur to evacuate. In Australia, MacArthur repeated a pledge that's as revered by Filipinos as it is by Americans.

Gen. DOUGLAS MacARTHUR: When I landed on your soil I said to the people of the Philippines whence I came, I shall return. Tonight, I repeat those words. I shall return.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: In 1944, MacArthur landed on Leyte, and within a few months, U.S. forces had recaptured Manila.

Gen. MacARTHUR: I see that the old flagstaff still stands. Have your peak, hoist the colors to its troops, and let no enemy every haul them down.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Shortly after World War II, the Philippines was given independence, but the United States kept important military facilities, principally at Subic Bay and at Clark Air Force Base nearby. Today, their location and their well-trained Filipino workers make the bases vital to U.S. strategic interests from Hawaii to the Middle East. There is no disagreement about that. Congressman Solarz.

Rep. SOLARZ: At the end of the day, if we were ever to lose our access to Clark and Subic, we would have to spend billions of dollars to develop alternative facilities in other parts of the region, and even then we would not be as well off as we are at Clark and Subic today.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: For most of the past 20 years the United States has relied on Ferdinand Marcos to guarantee continued access to the bases. Because he was a good friend, Washington looked the other way when he ruled by martial law from 1972 until 1981. He rewrote the constitution and continues to rule in an authoritarian manner. Simmering opposition to Marcos finally boiled over when his chief political rival, Senator Benigno Aquino, was gunned down at the Manila airport two years ago. As the opposition continued to grow, the Reagan administration changed course, beginning to talk about the need for reform. The idea: to end years of government corruption, growing poverty, political repression and military brutality. The goal: to save the Philippines from a communist takeover, to save Clark and Subic Bay for the United States. At the heart of U.S. policyis the view that within two years the Philippines should have its first open and honest presidential election since 1969. Ambassador Bosworth denies reports that the U.S. government expects and would like Marcos to lose that election.

Amb. BOSWORTH: I think that the analysis from Washington, and indeed an analysis which is shared here is that, in order to provide for the long-term political stability of this country, the fundamentally required ingredient is a strengthening of these institutions, these democratic institutions. But I don't think that it is accurate to speculate that somehow we have concluded that we should see -- that we would prefer to see another president of the Republic of the Philippines or we would not. That's a choice which can only be made by the Filipino people. Our task is to assist this political process in ensuring that the Filipino people have an opportunity to make their votes known.

Rep. SOLARZ: The problem here is that the political, military and economic reforms we're asking the government of the Philippines to make, if they are made, would inevitably diminish the power of President Marcos. And so far as I can determine, he seems to be far more interested in preserving his own power than he is in advancing the interests of the Filipino people.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Jose Diokno was jailed by Marcos a decade ago. Today he's often mentioned as a possible opposition candidate in the next presidential election.

[interviewing] Do you see any sign that President Marcos is going to allow free and fair elections in the next year or two that would allow an opposition candidate to become the next president of the Philippines?

JOSE DIOKNO, opposition leader: Candidly, no.

JIMMY ONGPIN, Benguet Corporation: Not voluntarily, no. I don't see it at all.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Jimmy Ongpin is an opposition business leader who heads the only Philippine corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

[interviewing] How is U.S. policy perceived by those of you who are attempting to change the government?

Mr. ONGPIN: Oh, I guess it varies on the individual, but in my case I am constantly frustrated with U.S. policy because the State Department seems to feel that they cannot impose conditionality to the economic and military aid that's being given to the Philippines. And for my money, which it is not -- you know, it's your money -- I think that you are throwing good money after bad when you continue, willy-nilly, and repeatedly to give money to this administration without insisting as a prior precondition that certain reforms first be delivered.

Mr. DIOKNO: When the chips are down, you see the image behind the mask, and that's the reality behind it, and that's exactly how the United States is viewed. It is viewed here as helping Marcos and yet trying to appear as if it's not helping Marcos.

Mr. ONGPIN: I guess I'm saying they can't have their cake and eat it, too. I believe that for as long as those bases are an issue, the U.S. will not be able to act freely and in a manner in which it would not be held hostage. And that's literally what's happening at the moment. They are held hostage by the fact that Marcos can unilaterally abrogate that bases treaty, and I guess every time he threatens to do it, the U.S. backs off.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: The United States has a five-year commitment to provide $900 million worth of economic and military aid to the Philippines in return for use of the military bases. The Reagan administration fears that any attempt to put restrictions on the aid could cause Marcos to cancel the bases agreement and refuse to hold elections. But critics say that because the administration has not used U.S. aid as leverage, Marcos has not felt the need to make reforms. In the House, some Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to persuade Congress to reduce military aid to Marcos and to increase economic aid.

Rep. SOLARZ: It would enable us to send the very strong signal to the people of the Philippines that we're more interested in helping the Filipino people than in propping up a corrupt and discredited regime.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: The failure to send that kind of signal has led some Filipinos to conclude that once again the U.S. appears unable to make up its mind about an unpopular but pro-American regime.

Mr. ONGPIN: I think we are very different from Iran. In the same way, I think that we are very different from Nicaragua. But we do have one thing in common, and that is that the protracted embrace by the U.S. government of this particular dictator may in the end, you know, result in the same cataclysms. I hope not, and I think we are far from that stage. I think there clearly is still a lot of time. But if they don't move soon enough and firmly and dramatically enough to disengage that embrace, I think it's a matter of time.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Ambassador Bosworth says U.S. policy is to urge Marcos to make reforms, but that U.S. influence is limited.

Amb. BOSWORTH: There are a lot of uncertainties and a lot of variables in this very complicated situation. But I think if we continue to base our policies on these fundamental objectives and these fundamental national values, that we as a country can have some degree of satisfaction that we've given it our best shot.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Even now, at 68, and in the twilight of his presidency, Ferdinand Marcos retains enough power to determine his country's future, at least for the next few years. Optimists say a combination of U.S. pressure and his own sense of history will lead Marcos to arrange an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratically elected government. Pessimists fear Marcos will hold on too long, until a communist-led takeover of the Philippines becomes inevitable. Either way, the outcome will be of enormous importance to U.S. interests in Asia and throughout the world.

MacNEIL: Our special series on the Philippines continues tomorrow night with part one of an exclusive interview with President Marcos. Jim?

LEHRER: Again, the major story of this day, the Reverend Benjamin Weir is free. The Presbyterian minister was one of seven kidnapped Americans being held in Lebanon. Weir is said to be back in the United States and in good mental and physical health. Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.