Should we cure HIV+ who didn't use condom?

[blackbeltninja]

I do wonder how many of us here would go unprotected all the time if there was suddenly a 100% effective cure for HIV.

Anyone care to answer that?

I do feel sorry for people who are ill, because I don't like to see people suffer. But if you insist on not protecting yourself, or don't have the willpower to say no when you really should because you don't have a condom... I'll have as much sympathy for you as I do for the drunk driver who kills himself in a car wreck. There are consequences.

If people would take the time and effort to protect themselves and each other, we could have pumped the billions spent on AIDS (approx US$40 billion in 2005-2006 in the US alone) into so many other equally worthwhile problems.

People who fuck around without protection should think about the greater good for a second instead of the quick thrill of an orgasm.

-d-

 

[treanir]

I do wonder how many of us here would go unprotected all the time if there was suddenly a 100% effective cure for HIV.

Anyone care to answer that?

STD's still aren't fun to have, none of them. Let's take a random example: gonnorhoea. No painful symptoms if you're lucky (though if you're not, heaven help you). Curable with a little jab. Which then makes you feel like shit for a couple of days. At least it did with a mate of mine.

Of course I'd still wrap up if HIV were curable. It's not just about HIV - there are more little bugs out there that, while they may not kill you, are very unpleasant to have. What a sudden cure for HIV would do is take the sting out of it.

 

[blackbeltninja]

^But they're all curable, usually, or surviveable.

We go into malaria areas on our vacations with prophylactic tabs, knowing that they might fail and we might further treatment but we do it anyway. Same like we would run around with wet clothes on as kids, or without a jersey or whatever.

Yeah, you'd get a cold, and your mom would tell you that, but you knew it wouldn't kill you so you did it anyway and were prepared to feel shitty when you got a bit sick later on.

I fear that this is how we think - if people are still willing to take risks with a killer virus like HIV around, how willing will they be with an instant effective cure available?

-d-

 

[treanir]

I'm only answering for myself in this case. I agree with you completely - I too believe barebacking will be next great thing once HIV is curable. Chances are, we'd go back to the sexual revolution of the 70's: so many men, so little time. Shagshagshag and who needs condoms? One trip to the doctor and you're cured of whatever bug this or that trick gave you.

Oh, and I rarely lie down 'cause of a cold.

 

[Paws]

HIV can be cured?

 

[EwanSF]

2. I come from a socialist-basis (European meaning of it, the concept is different in English language... in E we mean that the the ones who can have more give a little amount of their money to the State, which uses this money for programs to help less lucky people + The state controls in different ways from country to country some point of economics... for example general public services as health, railways, post are partially or totally state's business) I DON'T MEAN COMMUNISM or DICTATORSHIP or anything connected to this!

There is no differing concept over there, just a staggering degree of ignorance with regards to it. Socialism is universal as a general concept.

 

[new86]

There is no differing concept over there, just a staggering degree of ignorance with regards to it. Socialism is universal as a general concept.

Sorry if I wrote obvious things... in European newspaper i read the article of an expert of politics who said in the USA the concept of socialism as word has bad meaning, so that no real socialist party exists and the welfare state is weaker. I trusted the words of this expert. (also being aware of the religious reasons that say everyone must make himself alone)

So guys, I see my hipotetical question got unanimous "no" as answer, most of you ponited out that life is so important that the guilt should be forgotten when dealing with giving an helping hand.

So another question: why do you accept death when dealing with criminals? I mean, I consider human life so important that i cannot accept the State being allowed to kill someone... but I know that the US policy about that is different.
I know that the health care system in the US is different.
I see a difference between what you'd like and what things are in reality.

(I'd like to share opinions about that in the meaning of a richness in getting to know better US society - Mine is not a critique

 

[bankside]

This is not an immoral question at all.

Justice is the idea of matching the consequence to the action. It doesn't seem right for people to impose the costs of their irresponsibility on others.

However, let us look at war for the moment. Even when trying to destroy another enemy country there are rules. Even the enemy gets medical care. Enemy injuries are treated.

So if you are going to provide care for enemies of the state in war, then you're going to provide care for your own citizens, no matter how they became ill.

Aren't you?

 

[timmeh]

But take two doctors with liver disease so severe that they will die very soon if they do not receive liver transplants. One has liver disease from drinking alcohol. The other has liver disease from a medication that had been prescribed to treat another condition the patient once had. A donor liver becomes available, but only one of the two can receive it. Who should receive the transplant? Should a coin be flipped? Or should the causes of their liver disease be taken into account in making the decision?

Chronic ongoing substance abuse either past or present is an exclusion factor in organ transplant programs in many countries including Canada, Australia and most of EU (basically countries that have tax payer funded medical systems).

Whether it's morally questionable to debate whether one person deserves a life saving transplant over another person, I'm not going to get into, the cause of the liver disease in your example though WOULD be taken into account in many places.

 

[EwanSF]

This thread is a rancid pile of shite. The OP, for even startin' a thread like this is a fuckin' twat. Fuck you.

I don't give a fuck if I get another infraction, it's a fair observation, fuck you if you disagree.

 

[Fucker29]

This thread is a rancid pile of shite. The OP, for even startin' a thread like this is a fuckin' twat. Fuck you.

I don't give a fuck if I get another infraction, it's a fair observation, fuck you if you disagree.

Even considering such a thing is ridiculous. The "eye for an eye" logic is greatly why the world is so fucked up.
There are certain foods that contain certain elements that are believed to be carcinogen...does that mean that people who eat those foods don't deserve treatment?

 

[bankside]

Perhaps a better analogy would be found by considering the standard of providing medical treatment to prisoners who are on death row.

(1) Deathrow inmates have been sentenced to death row as punishment for having committed socially irresponsible (and usually selfish) acts.

(2) Most people would never commit such an act and, as a result, would never find themselves sentenced to death row, so the reason for providing life-prolonging medical care to deathrow inmates is generally NOT out of a fear of "there but for the grace of God go I" (as it is in the case of the wounded soldier behind enemy lines), but rather because it is felt to be inhumane to allow people to needlessly suffer. In the case of the United States, the use of cruelty as a punishment for crimes is actually forbidden by the Constitution. Withholding life-prolonging medical care is considered cruel.

Except that the idea of "death row" is itself utterly without morality, and has no lessons to teach us in other fields.

 

[3nipples]

HIV can be cured?

The OP is translating from Italian. He means cure in the sense of give treatment.

My way of thinking, the circumstances don't really matter. They need help, you help.

 

[star-warrior]

A cure of HIV isn't available yet, but treatment is available to keep the symptoms at bay.

If treatment is available, it should be open to all who seek it.

On the other hand, any venereal disease can be caught if you're not careful, so singling out HIV is pointless, to my mind. Would you cure someone who caught gonorrhea if they had unprotected sex? If yes, why not HIV?

If anything, a socialised health system is funded by all, and it should be accessible to all, IMO.

 

[TickTockMan]

I think this is a very interesting question.

At one time I worked at MASS (Mid-Oregon Aids Support Services) and met many “bug chasers”. Obviously it doesn’t make much sense to only cure some while not others, but for those that don’t care, why should we? With that said there can be made a large argument that “barebackers” are probably the ones we need to cure the most.