heres a recent article on a virus that fights HIV

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994742

Call me cold and heartless, but there is a cure for AIDS. Its called don't let anyone with it fuck anybody else.

I know it's cruel and unusual, but don't allow anyone with the disease to spread it to anyone else. In only a few generations we will have virtually eliminated the disease. It may be inhumane to not allow those with the disease to procreate, but I consider the passing on of the disease, and the disease itself to be even more inhumane. Call me a facist or heartless, but we spend millions looking for a cure that may never come, when we can get rid of AIDS/HIV through testing and sterilization. And yes, there are non-sexually transmitted AIDS cases as well, but these too would drop over time with the same meausres. Desperate times call for desperate actions, and I would volunteer to lose my procreating "abilities" if it meant no one else had to carry the same horrible disease that I had.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Call me cold and heartless, but there is a cure for AIDS. Its called don't let anyone with it fuck anybody else. I know it's cruel and unusual, but don't allow anyone with the disease to spread it to anyone else. In only a few generations we will have virtually eliminated the disease. It may be inhumane to not allow those with the disease to procreate, but I consider the passing on of the disease, and the disease itself to be even more inhumane. Call me a facist or heartless, but we spend millions looking for a cure that may never come, when we can get rid of AIDS/HIV through testing and sterilization. And yes, there are non-sexually transmitted AIDS cases as well, but these too would drop over time with the same meausres. Desperate times call for desperate actions, and I would volunteer to lose my procreating "abilities" if it meant no one else had to carry the same horrible disease that I had.

This would of been a good idea when AIDS first appeared, GOOD FUCKING JOB REAGAN YOU ASSHAT! However today, it's much harder to do especially when people are to scared or don't bother to get tested for AIDS.

Yea! I'm all for isolating those people with AIDS! As a matter of fact, whenever ANY new disease pops up, we should immediately take action and put everybody in these summer camps so they don't infect anyone else! That way all of us will be disease free, and they'll have plenty of time to concentrate, disease each other, and do some of the other stuff they like to do. What could possibly go wrong?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yea! I'm all for isolating those people with AIDS! As a matter of fact, whenever ANY new disease pops up, we should immediately take action and put everybody in these summer camps so they don't infect anyone else! That way all of us will be disease free, and they'll have plenty of time to concentrate, disease each other, and do some of the other stuff they like to do. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, that's actually already done. Its called a quarantine. I think you'll remember that when SARS hit Asia, that exact same thing was done. When you have a contagious, non-hereditary disease, quarantine is a very acceptable course of action. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to find a cure, but you should also act to stop preventable infection.

how do you quarantine anyone in this day and age?



no one can go to Africa anymore?

its not inhumane per se to limit or remove sexual contact. it would suck to be sure, but not as much as AIDS. frankly HIV AIDS is a sign of things to come. the US should be investigating it - because the problem is exponentially growing in places like China and Russia, where no one will foot the bill for any research much less containment|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

HIV/AIDS testing is far less expensive then AIDS treatment, at least in terms of a large scale population that in all reality can afford neither. I'm for the wide scale testing for AIDS/HIV, especially in countries where the disease is rampant. I'm not going to say we should force sterilzation, but it should be an option for those individuals who want it. I know it would be a logistical nightmare, but at this point so is having virtually every citizen of a country infected with a communicable disease. Right now the choice seems to be to keep working towards a cure (which in 20+ years we have gotten virtually nowhere) while millions more become infected every year, or take steps to make sure the millions that have the disease do not continue spreading it. Which is more inhumane?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, that's actually already done. Its called a quarantine. I think you'll remember that when SARS hit Asia, that exact same thing was done. When you have a contagious, non-hereditary disease, quarantine is a very acceptable course of action. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to find a cure, but you should also act to stop preventable infection.

Heh, I would place the quarantine of a SARS paitent in a COMPLETELY different realm than the quarantine of an AIDS patient. First of all, I recognize that an inalienable right is not always an absolute right. While the right to travel is a basic liberty, it is only a prima facie right whereby if a person is carrying a dangerous and highly contagious disease, there is a moral justification for temporarily overriding their right to travel to protect others by putting them in quarantine. You know that saying ... my rights end where yours begin. Therefore, society has an obligation to protect citizens who, through no fault of their own (you can probably see where I'm going with this), are at risk from exposure to SARS patients, TB patients, etc.

Patients of indefinite diseases communacable by choice on the other hand are a whole new ball park. Since there is no reciprosity on society's part, there is simply no moral justification to quarantine patients to protect society's right to practice risky behaviour. Society is WELL aware of the risks of unprotected sex, therefore when an individual chooses to engage in risky sexual activity, they assume the burden of responsibility for their choice. So in effect, your solution to this problem is to punish all socially responsible and irresponsible AIDS victims to protect the socially irresponsible public? No, in my opinion the correct course of action is that the responsible public do not get the disease, and the irresponsible public continue their behaviour with willing acceptance of the risks involved.

Furthermore, a quarantine on diseases such as AIDS fails my second test of ethical action: it would not be effective. How are you going to quarantine all AIDs patients? How are you going to prevent them from procreating? How are you going to keep them separate from society? How are you going to determine who has AIDS? How do you make sure society is cleansed of AIDS and miscreants do not run wild knowingly or unknowingly spreading the disease? How do you deal with society's knee jerk response to a "clean" dating pool when they have massive orgies because sex isn't killing you anymore? What do you do when other STDs rise? Where do we draw the line with other diseases? What about genetic disorders? I mean the concept gives rise to so many other ethical dilemmas that it boggles the mind. Mandatory testing of society, mandatory sterlization, eugenics, etc.

C'mon, you're a libertarian

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Mar-04-2004 at 22:29

quote:

Originally posted by occrider C'mon, you're a libertarian

Okay, here goes...

I am a libertarian as far as the rights of others do not affect to a direct, traceable and recognizable degree the rights and privelages of others. However, along with the rights I would be willing to give others, I also expect those individuals to have personal responbility in accordance to their rights, and also their personal actions. This being said, I would expect someone with a communicable disease to take it upon themselves to do what it takes to make sure they do not spread a disease they knowingly have. If this requires that an individual no longer has sex, until a cure is found or other reasonable measures, then I would expect the person to do just that.

As I said before, I would be very willing to use my tax dollars to pay for wide scale testing for AIDS/HIV. After an individual knows that s/he is a carrier, I would expect them to no longer have sex with uninfected individuals. If they want to continue having sex with others that are also carriers, I have no problems, as long as they are not doing so in hopes of procreating, for a variety of reasons.

I believe that people should know if they do or do not have AIDS/HIV. If they are knowing carriers of the virus, it is their responsiblity to no longer have sex, at least with uninfected individuals, in order to protect others from the disease. If an individual choses to violate this responsiblity, he should be punished, and if a group continually violates their responsiblity, then it needs to be enforced. Africa is a perfect example of this. Whereas in America, with testing and prevention, new AIDS cases continue to fall, they only increase in heavily affected African nations. It has gotten to the point where I only see two options (short of a cure, which is unlikely). Allow everyone to get AIDS and die off, or forecably prevent its spread. We cannot treat everyone in Africa for AIDS that has AIDS, but we can test them, and prevent them from spreading it.

Although not perfectly analagous, I liken in to a persons "right" to drive. If you become blind, you should take it upon yourself to no longer drive, due to the fact you may injure others. Since many would not be responsible enough to do this, the state checks your vision when you renew your licsence. Although blindness is not contagious, this is an example where I see a need for personal responsiblity, backed by the state having to enforce it. (In a perfect world, my world, enforcement would not be needed.)

Rights *with* responsibility.

Sorry this post is so jumbled, it was written at work in pieces.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Okay, here goes... I am a libertarian as far as the rights of others do not affect to a direct, traceable and recognizable degree the rights and privelages of others. However, along with the rights I would be willing to give others, I also expect those individuals to have personal responbility in accordance to their rights, and also their personal actions. This being said, I would expect someone with a communicable disease to take it upon themselves to do what it takes to make sure they do not spread a disease they knowingly have. If this requires that an individual no longer has sex, until a cure is found or other reasonable measures, then I would expect the person to do just that. As I said before, I would be very willing to use my tax dollars to pay for wide scale testing for AIDS/HIV. After an individual knows that s/he is a carrier, I would expect them to no longer have sex with uninfected individuals. If they want to continue having sex with others that are also carriers, I have no problems, as long as they are not doing so in hopes of procreating, for a variety of reasons. I believe that people should know if they do or do not have AIDS/HIV. If they are knowing carriers of the virus, it is their responsiblity to no longer have sex, at least with uninfected individuals, in order to protect others from the disease. If an individual choses to violate this responsiblity, he should be punished, and if a group continually violates their responsiblity, then it needs to be enforced. Africa is a perfect example of this. Whereas in America, with testing and prevention, new AIDS cases continue to fall, they only increase in heavily affected African nations. It has gotten to the point where I only see two options (short of a cure, which is unlikely). Allow everyone to get AIDS and die off, or forecably prevent its spread. We cannot treat everyone in Africa for AIDS that has AIDS, but we can test them, and prevent them from spreading it. Although not perfectly analagous, I liken in to a persons "right" to drive. If you become blind, you should take it upon yourself to no longer drive, due to the fact you may injure others. Since many would not be responsible enough to do this, the state checks your vision when you renew your licsence. Although blindness is not contagious, this is an example where I see a need for personal responsiblity, backed by the state having to enforce it. (In a perfect world, my world, enforcement would not be needed.) Rights *with* responsibility. Sorry this post is so jumbled, it was written at work in pieces.

Well Ok, I agree with many of the things you've said above. An Aids patient should bear responsiblity for their disease, a patient should take preventative measures to prevent the spread of their disease, a patient should restrict some of their social activities, and so on and so forth. What you are professing however, is government pre-emption to invade the privacy of people's lives and remove basic civil liberties by assuming they are incapable of bearing that responsibility. Not only that, but you are advocating that we should eliminate an inalienable right to privacy and freedom for an activity that bears joint responsibility by both parties. You mentioned before that aids patients have a responsiblity to limit the spread of the disease, well what of the responsiblities of the healthy individual to be aware of the risks of sex and to take precaution to ensure that their partner is not afflicted with a disease?

As I mentioned before, there needs to be a system of reciprocity whereby a just, equitable distribution of the burden falls upon society as a whole ... not simply the minority. Otherwise, why place any ethical limitations on anything so long as it accomplishes the "greater good"? In this case, we are permenantly suspending the bill of rights for a segment of the population in order to alleviate the proportionate burden of responsibility that is assigned to the majority. Society doesn't like wearing a rubber or getting tested before they stick it in, so their response to this grave injustice is to remove the civil liberties of a popluation afflicted with a terrible disease? I'm sorry, but that decision doesn't seem very ethical to me. Well why don't we increase education of the public towards the risks they are taking, increase the frequency and ease of use of testing facilities, interject a cultural acceptance and attitude for the need to be sexually knowledgeable of your partner's history, i mean there are a million of things that can be done that are far more acceptable than sick camps where you keep all the ill. You stated that you are all for increased funding to help cure the disease, well how would you price the value of your civil liberties?

With respect to your analogy, I would say that it is somewhat flawed in that driving is not a right ... it is a privelidge. The freedom to travel, maintain privacy, etc., are rights.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well Ok, I agree with many of the things you've said above. An Aids patient should bear responsiblity for their disease, a patient should take preventative measures to prevent the spread of their disease, a patient should restrict some of their social activities, and so on and so forth. What you are professing however, is government pre-emption to invade the privacy of people's lives and remove basic civil liberties by assuming they are incapable of bearing that responsibility. Not only that, but you are advocating that we should eliminate an inalienable right to privacy and freedom for an activity that bears joint responsibility by both parties. You mentioned before that aids patients have a responsiblity to limit the spread of the disease, well what of the responsiblities of the healthy individual to be aware of the risks of sex and to take precaution to ensure that their partner is not afflicted with a disease? As I mentioned before, there needs to be a system of reciprocity whereby a just, equitable distribution of the burden falls upon society as a whole ... not simply the minority. Otherwise, why place any ethical limitations on anything so long as it accomplishes the "greater good"? In this case, we are permenantly suspending the bill of rights for a segment of the population in order to alleviate the proportionate burden of responsibility that is assigned to the majority. Society doesn't like wearing a rubber or getting tested before they stick it in, so their response to this grave injustice is to remove the civil liberties of a popluation afflicted with a terrible disease? I'm sorry, but that decision doesn't seem very ethical to me. Well why don't we increase education of the public towards the risks they are taking, increase the frequency and ease of use of testing facilities, interject a cultural acceptance and attitude for the need to be sexually knowledgeable of your partner's history, i mean there are a million of things that can be done that are far more acceptable than sick camps where you keep all the ill. You stated that you are all for increased funding to help cure the disease, well how would you price the value of your civil liberties? With respect to your analogy, I would say that it is somewhat flawed in that driving is not a right ... it is a privelidge. The freedom to travel, maintain privacy, etc., are rights.

I agree with what you have said in your first paragraph, for the most part, and under normal circumstances. I would also like to clarify that I am talking about the AIDS/HIV epidemic in Africa, not the United States. I believe that here, with education and the prevention techniques available, for the most part the spread of AIDS is (relatively speaking) under control.

In some areas of Africa however, this is most definately not the case. There you have situations where the majority of individuals carry HIV/AIDS and the number continues to grow. At that point you have to ask yourself what good the government, or the rights it protects would be if every member of that society was dead. In that case I think it has none. What I'm getting at is the government is, in my opinion, in the business of insuring rights as well as life, as in times of war, famine and disease. If it gets to the point that the only way to insure survival is to remove the rights of some, in order to guarantee the survival of a society/culture, then that is what, in my opinion, needs to be done.

In times of war, we have rationing, the draft, etc. all set in place to remove some rights/civil liberties, in order to help insure the survival of the group. If I were the part of the governing body of an African nation that could foresee its own demise, as well as a way to circumvent said destruction, I believe the only ethical thing to do would be to suspend the liberties of some in order to ensure the survival of the whole.

I am a libertarian, and I am very much opposed to ANYONE who would choose to take away my, or any other individuals, freedoms. However, I also realize that without anyone to enjoy those freedoms, they are useless.