If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
With all of the diseases circulating in today's society, one would think that prevention would be a focal point in our fight against disease progression. Unfortunately anonymity has become more important. If a person contracts HIV and tests positive, medical staff is not allowed to release any identifying information to the CDC. Doctors are restricted to informing only their current partner. That means none of their past or future partners will find out unless the person is kind enough to tell them.
There are notification systems in place for many other infectious diseases, yet HIV tests results remain confidential.
What does everyone else think? Should you be notified if your partner tested positive? Why are other diseases reported while HIV is not? Or should patient privacy be paramount?
__________________
A wise man once told me...
You should never rob Peter to pay Paul.
Because this will make Peter sore.
And we all know you can't do business with a sore Peter.
While I'm an advocate for privacy - this is a touchy subject.
I don't think I'd put myself in a situation to contract a STD (not anymore at least) so it's a matter of personal responsibility. If you are engaging in risky behavior, you should have the responsiblity of ensuring your safety. This means getting tests done yourself.
Take for example, riding your sportbike. Gear is available out there - buy it and use it. Insurance is available too. Same story there.
It's not quite the same comparison, but there's too much "WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL ME" attitudes out there. My contention is always, "Why didn't you ask?" or "Why didn't you find out for yourself? I did."
After one finds out they have a disease, then it's their personal responsibility to let others that may be infected know, as well.
Ah what a lovely world that would be.
I may be wrong here - but I'm pretty sure you can thank the "gay rights" crazy folk for the secrecy in this infectious disease reporting procedure.
Let's take it a step further: If you can have a registry for sex offenders, and it is legal to post the offender's address and picture (as it is in WI), would the registry of HIV carriers also not be legal? I'm not questioning the legality of publication, I'm asking more of a hypothetical question. If the former is valid, I'm surprised they haven't challenged the latter yet.
Speaking of which, has anybody looked at the offender sites? I'm surprised how many reside in my area...and it's a tiny town, not a major metropolitan area.
It hasn't been declared illegal to contract HIV. Unless you're a priest or a politician, it's still illegal to molest kids, rape women, or pull yer weiner out on a bus.
"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
Posting data about people with HIV would be an erosion of freedoms in my book, by taking a little shot at privacy laws. I agree with posting those who commited criminal acts, because when you commit a crime, you forfeit certain freedoms. I do not support taking privacy away from those who did not commit a crime.
I also agree with bzbatl. I have no diseases because of the choices I made. If you want to stay diseae free, practice safe sex. The only true form of safe sex is the marriage bed (not saying I waited, but this is still a true statement). Any risk involved with sex, whether it be unwanted pregnancy or std's, is assumed when the choice is made to have sex.
If you got HIV, you chose to. You might not have known that was the choice you were making when you chose to have sex with them, but you were choosing all of the consequenses of haveing sex with them. If this was not a consequense you were willing to bear, you should not have chosen to have sex.
Eroding freedoms is no substitute for personal responsibility.
The only safe sex isn't marriage sex. You're obviously not married. What happens if/when the wife cheats?
I hate the term "safer" sex. It's safe if you do things that aren't risky. Just like skydiving is safe, or riding your motorcycle is safe, or jumping off a cliff is safe. Make sure it's over deep water, wear your gear, bring a parachute that you tested out, and wrap that shit up before dippin it in.
No one chooses to get HIV. One chooses not to protect against it (or herpes, or crabs, or anal invasion - shoulda checked for that homo hiding in the closet!). That's like saying you chose to wreck your bike.
What kind of crazy talk is that? You can choose a choice that you don't know about... that's not a choice. Choice is Diet Coke or Mr. Pibb. Use a condom or don't. Just because you choose to not use a condom, doesn't mean the bitch got teh AIDZ, and that you're choosing to get it from her even though she doesn't have it.
I just confused myself trying to figure that one out.
up here in Canada, if you test positive for a contagious disease, the goverment REQUIRES your sexual partners to be contacted. unfortunalty, this law does not require you to advise future partners---BUT, if you do not advise them, and they get infected, YOU WILL BE CHARGED. And thats a good thing.
Posting a pic/name is not a good idea, imho.
up here in Canada, if you test positive for a contagious disease, the goverment REQUIRES your sexual partners to be contacted. unfortunalty, this law does not require you to advise future partners---BUT, if you do not advise them, and they get infected, YOU WILL BE CHARGED. And thats a good thing.
Posting a pic/name is not a good idea, imho.
Well yeah, but in Canada, you have to get on a waiting list for that, so by the time you find out, you probably have full blown AIDs and will die before notifying anyone, anyway.
I would be amenable to that type of notification. It doesn't affect me either way, really... but it kind of forces the personal responsibility with a clear financial/freedom consequence.
Where does it stop though? Influenza is contagious. Is it only STDs? How do they know you have presented all your sexual partners to them? What if there's some random hookup you forgot? Does your ass still go to jail when they find out cuz the bitch went to Springer?
Well yeah, but in Canada, you have to get on a waiting list for that, so by the time you find out, you probably have full blown AIDs and will die before notifying anyone, anyway.
I would be amenable to that type of notification. It doesn't affect me either way, really... but it kind of forces the personal responsibility with a clear financial/freedom consequence.
Where does it stop though? Influenza is contagious. Is it only STDs? How do they know you have presented all your sexual partners to them? What if there's some random hookup you forgot? Does your ass still go to jail when they find out cuz the bitch went to Springer?
yeah, only for STD's {and hepatitis}. They cant know that you presented all yer past experiences, they are pretty ok about that {past experience, unfortunatley--not even gonna get into to THAT}--they are more concerned with the people that wantonly and delibertly spred communicable diseases. You wont be penalized for unknowingly giving the gift that keeps on giving, unless you have already been informed that you got the cooties.
Sex offender notification and HIV notification have nothing in common. Public notification about sex offenders is available to everyone in the community unlike medical information. This is because a sexual offender is a risk to the entire community. someone infected with HIV is only a risk to sexual partners and to people coming in contact with their bodily fluids.
HIV notification would be handled in a similar fashion as other communicable diseases. The health care provider would do a sexual history interview to determine who came in sexual contact with the patient. Then the sexual partners would be notified and offered free testing. At no point do they say what disease or who the partner was. Only those who are at risk are notified.
__________________
A wise man once told me...
You should never rob Peter to pay Paul.
Because this will make Peter sore.
And we all know you can't do business with a sore Peter.
I'm pretty sure you can thank the "gay rights" crazy folk for the secrecy in this infectious disease reporting procedure.
I believe you have this all wrong. HIV was seen as the homosexual disease, thus if you were infected you were gay. The laws were made by straight law makers to protect themselves and their friends in case they contracted HIV. These laws were drawn up to protect straight men and women from being affiliated with the gay disease.
__________________
A wise man once told me...
You should never rob Peter to pay Paul.
Because this will make Peter sore.
And we all know you can't do business with a sore Peter.
The only safe sex isn't marriage sex. You're obviously not married. What happens if/when the wife cheats?
Actually, I am married, but I will conceed that point to you. In today's screwed up society, not even marrieage can really be considered safe sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzbatl
No one chooses to get HIV. One chooses not to protect against it (or herpes, or crabs, or anal invasion - shoulda checked for that homo hiding in the closet!). That's like saying you chose to wreck your bike.
What kind of crazy talk is that? You can choose a choice that you don't know about... that's not a choice. Choice is Diet Coke or Mr. Pibb. Use a condom or don't. Just because you choose to not use a condom, doesn't mean the bitch got teh AIDZ, and that you're choosing to get it from her even though she doesn't have it.
When you make a choice, you are also choosing all of the consequenses that come with that choice. You may not know what all of the consequenses are, but you are still choosing to accept those consequenses. All choices have consequenses, and you are personally responsible to know the consequenses of your choices, and to only make the choices that you are willing to accept the consequenses of. And yes, you may be choosing something that you do not know you are choosing. One consequense of unprotected sex is that you may very likely contract an std. If you choose to follow through with the action, you have also chosen to accept the consequense.
I believe you have this all wrong. HIV was seen as the homosexual disease, thus if you were infected you were gay. The laws were made by straight law makers to protect themselves and their friends in case they contracted HIV. These laws were drawn up to protect straight men and women from being affiliated with the gay disease.
how the hell did this become a "Gay" issue? More people in Canada got infected from tainted blood used in transfusions than from fudge packing. And dirty needles are still the number one 2nd source of HIV infection.
And now I cant get that stupid Springsteen song out of my head--super.
I believe you have this all wrong. HIV was seen as the homosexual disease, thus if you were infected you were gay. The laws were made by straight law makers to protect themselves and their friends in case they contracted HIV. These laws were drawn up to protect straight men and women from being affiliated with the gay disease.
That was simply a crack on the Brokeback crew. Take a chill pill on that one.
And no, it wasn't a law to protect straight men or women with the gay disease. It was a privacy law drawn up long before HIV was in the spotlight for all medical information.
Lord, way to turn that one around. You must hug trees too.
We are helping spread disease
What happens if/when the wife cheats?
