Originally posted by AThousandYoungUnfortunately, the logic whereby those figures were arrived at is faulty.
What I described is what the police do with drunk driving. First, the breathalyzer, then a blood test. I don't remember having heard your concern with respect to that.
In fact, they already use this sort of idea:
[i]Tests used for the diagnosis of HIV infection in a particular person require a high degree of both sensitivity and specificity. In ...[text shortened]... ore accurate figures. The earlier example assumed the tests were less effective than they are.
There are no good figures on how accurate HIV tests are.
Originally posted by MikeBruceThere was a good series of adverts in South Africa along the lines of "The worst symptom of HIV is blindness".
He also said he does not want to know if he has aids so he can enjoy himself.
I have met many people who suspect they could have it and therefore either deny its existence or simply refuse to think about it.
In Africa, many prominent politicians are in this situation of denial making it very difficult to get the message across to the average person.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThe important issue here is the innocents who get affected by the behavior of others. For example someone who infects an innocent spouse who is not aware of their risky behavior and thus does not have 'only themselves to blame'. All the innocent children who get infected by their mothers. Shouldn't it be mandatory for all pregnant mothers to take a test?
The natural objection is that those of us who aren't so foolish resent the time and bother spent on testing. I prefer to treat people as adults. Those who go to such parties know what they're risking. If they get an STD, they have no one to blame but themself.
What about protecting people from themselves? Surely the situation is similar to anti-drug laws and even anti-smoking laws?
Originally posted by twhiteheadLaws that "protect people from themselves" are inherently immoral.
The important issue here is the innocents who get affected by the behavior of others. For example someone who infects an innocent spouse who is not aware of their risky behavior and thus does not have 'only themselves to blame'. All the innocent children who get infected by their mothers. Shouldn't it be mandatory for all pregnant mothers to take a test? ...[text shortened]... rom themselves? Surely the situation is similar to anti-drug laws and even anti-smoking laws?
An interesting solution: Cuba already quarantines people living with AIDs and HIV. Consequently, they have the lowest infected rate in our hemisphere. What if we expanded the quarantine in Cuba to encompass the whole island and anyone, anywhere in the world with AIDs and HIV had to relocate to the island? I think this would be a great idea because it would keep the rest of us from being exposed and those infected would be able to, as Prince says, "Party like it's 1999."
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe risk of infecting others is not the only reason for testing. Once you know you are positive, adjusting your lifestyle including diet and proper treatment can significantly increase your life expectancy.
I don't know. How about "gaining power over a disease" instead of using the word 'epidemic'?
However the same applies to many other non-infectious diseases such as cancer and we do not enforce mandatory testing for that.
What about other infectious diseases? In Africa malaria is still as big a killer a HIV. It is spread by infected people (via the mosquito) so should we also insist on mandatory testing for malaria?
How about mandatory use of Condoms?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadMarriage is risky. Even when you think you know someone, they may surprise you. It is unfortunate that some people abuse the trust of their spouse, but mandatory HIV testing is not going to solve that.
The important issue here is the innocents who get affected by the behavior of others. For example someone who infects an innocent spouse who is not aware of their risky behavior and thus does not have 'only themselves to blame'. All the innocent children who get infected by their mothers. Shouldn't it be mandatory for all pregnant mothers to take a test? ...[text shortened]... rom themselves? Surely the situation is similar to anti-drug laws and even anti-smoking laws?
How can we force HIV testing on pregnant mothers when they are still allowed to drink alcohol while pregnant? What will we do if she tests positive for HIV? Force treatment on her and/or her fetus/child?
I only support smoking laws for the protection of others, and only in public buildings.
Most people can easily commit suicide if they wish. The idea of saving people from themselves is ultimately futile.
Originally posted by MikeBruceThis is a good plan. Those found to have The High Five can be deported to work farms to live out their lives in relative productive comfort.
There is some guy at my work that is always talking about his sex parties. The guy is a major swinger obviously. I asked him one day "What about aids? Dont your worry about that?" he said he doesnt worry. he also siad that he did not know if he had aids.
He also said he does not want to know if he has aids so he can enjoy himself.
This is when I cam ...[text shortened]... hey gave me a aids test.
I want to learn what others thinks on this idea.
Let me know
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's your life, you should assess the risks.
The important issue here is the innocents who get affected by the behavior of others. For example someone who infects an innocent spouse who is not aware of their risky behavior and thus does not have 'only themselves to blame'. All the innocent children who get infected by their mothers. Shouldn't it be mandatory for all pregnant mothers to take a test? ...[text shortened]... rom themselves? Surely the situation is similar to anti-drug laws and even anti-smoking laws?
If someone asserts they are not infected when they know that they are. They would ber guilty of a type of fraud and the law should come down hard on them. If they pass it onto an innocent person (while knowing that they themselves are infected) they would also be guilty of some kind of assault and the law should come down as hard on them as if they had deliberately poisoned the innocent person.
Mandatory testing? No
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure how this post follows from mine.
The risk of infecting others is not the only reason for testing. Once you know you are positive, adjusting your lifestyle including diet and proper treatment can significantly increase your life expectancy.
However the same applies to many other non-infectious diseases such as cancer and we do not enforce mandatory testing for that.
What about other inf ...[text shortened]... so should we also insist on mandatory testing for malaria?
How about mandatory use of Condoms?