National H I V Testing Day

[havok579257]

Getting back on topic, I echo the statements of the poster above. Just someone getting tested for HIV does not mean it means someone is being advised to have as much sex as they want. I think testing should be given to any and all who want it and free of charge everytime they ask for it. It should be free everywhere also. Not just the free clinics. If someone was to walk into the most expensive physicians office, they should have to give the tests for free, no matter who wants it. Knowledge can only help us fight this disease.

[rkwright]

Who forces the doctors to offer these services for free?

Who pays for these tests?

What if someone refuses to be tested?

And if that person who refuses to be tested infects others?

[havok579257]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588344' date='Jul 1 2008, 01:57 PM']Who forces the doctors to offer these services for free?

Who pays for these tests?

What if someone refuses to be tested?

And if that person who refuses to be tested infects others?[/quote]


The doctors should be forced to by the law, just as a doctor is forced to help a person if he walks into the hospital without and money or insurance. NO docotor in a hospital can turn a patient away because they have no money, it should be the same with these tests.

The government and tax payers should pay. We already pay for any person who gets help at a hospital without insurance or money.

The tests is NOT mandatory but should be AVALIABLE to all free of charge.

If the tests are free of charge and someone refuses to be tested and infects other then he should be brought up on charges. If he didn't know he had the disease it should be manslaughter. If he knew and infected others is should be murder 1. Cause giving someone HIV/AIDS is a death sentance. Its no different than holding a gun to someone and pulling the trigger. The only difference is it takes a lot longer to die.

[rkwright]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1588347' date='Jul 1 2008, 01:05 PM']The doctors should be forced to by the law, just as a doctor is forced to help a person if he walks into the hospital without and money or insurance. NO docotor in a hospital can turn a patient away because they have no money, it should be the same with these tests.

The government and tax payers should pay. We already pay for any person who gets help at a hospital without insurance or money.

The tests is NOT mandatory but should be AVALIABLE to all free of charge.

If the tests are free of charge and someone refuses to be tested and infects other then he should be brought up on charges. If he didn't know he had the disease it should be manslaughter. If he knew and infected others is should be murder 1. Cause giving someone HIV/AIDS is a death sentance. Its no different than holding a gun to someone and pulling the trigger. The only difference is it takes a lot longer to die.[/quote]

Ok so what you have created is basically mandatory testing. You say they're not mandatory, but based on the criminal charges you place even on those who don't know they are infected, you create a virtual mandatory testing.

If a person were to have sex, they need to be tested, because if they don't get tested and they have sex with another, then they have put the other person at risk (btw thats criminal negligence, doing something that puts another at risk even if the harm doesn't come about). The only way a person, in your scheme, can have piece of mind that they are not breaking the law is to have the test done. For repeat drug users and those who have had many sexual partners, this would equate to a lot of tests.

As a tax payer, I don't want to pay for people to have HIV tests. We pay for people who come to the hospital seeking emergency medical care, but I see that as distinguishable from an HIV test.

[havok579257]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588352' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:14 PM']Ok so what you have created is basically mandatory testing. You say they're not mandatory, but based on the criminal charges you place even on those who don't know they are infected, you create a virtual mandatory testing.

If a person were to have sex, they need to be tested, because if they don't get tested and they have sex with another, then they have put the other person at risk (btw thats criminal negligence, doing something that puts another at risk even if the harm doesn't come about). The only way a person, in your scheme, can have piece of mind that they are not breaking the law is to have the test done. For repeat drug users and those who have had many sexual partners, this would equate to a lot of tests.

As a tax payer, I don't want to pay for people to have HIV tests. We pay for people who come to the hospital seeking emergency medical care, but I see that as distinguishable from an HIV test.[/quote]

1. Its not mandatory but it makes it so one would want to get tested. Criminal charges should be brought on anyone who infects someone with HIV. If someone were to come up and poke you with a AIDS infected needle, would they not be brought up on charges? What's so different if they have sex with you if they have AIDS and give you HIV/AIDS?

2. A lot of tests which would help contain and maybe put a stop to this deadly disease. Also as a note, anyone who does have AIDS and knowingly has sex with people unprotected can be legally brought up on charges. That is currently possible right now. So I don't see why this is a problem?

3. But we also pay for people being drunk. I work as a paramedic for a major metropolitian city and a good 25% of people brought in are because they are drunk or high on PCP and by law are not competent to make their own decisions so they must go to the hospital till they sober up. We pay for that as taxpayers. We pay for the $800.00 ambulance ride. There are so many instances of tax payers paying for un-needed stuff in a hospital, one more thing will not matter. If its such a big deal to you, are you against people coming to the hospital unless it is a major issue? Where is the cutoff line of what we should pay for as taxpayers and what we should not pay for? What about this?

[rkwright]

Sorry I'm busy at work, but I don't disagree with your #1 and #2. Only those were intentionally inflicted. What of the person who doesn't know they're infected and doesn't intentionally inflict these disease.

[havok579257]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588385' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:56 PM']Sorry I'm busy at work, but I don't disagree with your #1 and #2. Only those were intentionally inflicted. What of the person who doesn't know they're infected and doesn't intentionally inflict these disease.[/quote]


If the tests are completly free, then the person who infects someone else has no excuse for not knowing. To me its its like someone borrowing thier friends car and gets pulled over and the cops find drugs in the car. They are going to charge the driver with the drug possession. Although the drugs may not even be the drivers, using the excuse of, well I didn't know is not a valiad excuse. You took the car for driving, which means you are responsible for whatever is in it. If you don't want to get in trouble for whatever is in the car, then check it out before you borrow it. By you driving in the car, you are taking full responsability for what is in the car.

The same should be for sex. If the tests are offered freely, then no one can use the excuse they didn't know they were infected because they could easily go get tested for free to find out. By having sex with someone, you are taking full responability for your actions and what they may result from. Although this should apply to not only AIDS/HIV but to pregnancy and STD's also. If you are choosing to have sex then you are responsible for your body(same as the car). What ever diseases or outcomes that come about from sex, one should not be able to use the excuse of I didn't know. If you choose to have sex and use a condom to avoid pregnancy but the condom fails and pregancy is still a result, you should have to deal with the consequences (such as being a parent and paying for the childs care and their needs in life). Your body is your property and you should be responsible for its actions unless otherwise unavoidable such as having a seizure when driving or having a syncople episode during driving or such as these. Although infecting someone with HIV is avoidable if you get tested and know you have the disease.

[rkwright]

And thus you have created quasi-mandatory testing.

Now anytime anyone has sex, they are going to need to be tested. They are now responsible for anything they carry so they better know what that is.

So there are two outcomes here... more expense on local governments and maybe people wouldn't have so much sex because they are worried about being prosecuted.

Not to bring up the other issues mentioned here, but isn't exactly what you decried in the abortion arena? Making it illegal will not change people's minds? Making having sex if your infected with HIV illegal won't change people's minds, they'll just do it and not report it?

My point in all this is that if it comes out to be mandatory in any way, it ends up doing exactly what you think is wrong; forcing mans law over God's law.

Edited July 1, 2008 by rkwright

[havok579257]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588418' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:25 PM']And thus you have created quasi-mandatory testing.[/quote]


Well its not mandatory per say, but one should be responsible for thier bodies actions. Don't you agree? Or should people be allowed to use the excuse of, well I didn't know, so not my fault. To bad for you though, but them the breaks?

[rkwright]

Sorry I edited my post above.

I do believe people are responsible for their actions. People are, not the government. The government doesn't need to tell me to get tested (either through penalties or mandatory testing).

If you have sex with someone and get AIDs, to me, that is your fault (unless the person has outright deceived you). If you have AIDs and don't get tested, again thats your fault, and if someone has sex with you without knowing if you have AIDs thats both your faults. I don't see it as one party to blame, but both.

More importantly I don't want the Government in my life; they don't need to know who I've had sex with.

[havok579257]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588418' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:25 PM']And thus you have created quasi-mandatory testing.

Now anytime anyone has sex, they are going to need to be tested. They are now responsible for anything they carry so they better know what that is.

So there are two outcomes here... more expense on local governments and maybe people wouldn't have so much sex because they are worried about being prosecuted.

Not to bring up the other issues mentioned here, but isn't exactly what you decried in the abortion arena? Making it illegal will not change people's minds? Making having sex if your infected with HIV illegal won't change people's minds, they'll just do it and not report it?

My point in all this is that if it comes out to be mandatory in any way, it ends up doing exactly what you think is wrong; forcing mans law over God's law.[/quote]

Since you edited, I will address it.

I don't think just cause you have HIV/AIDS it should be against the law to have sex. What I am saying is someone who has it should have to inform their partner if they have it. It is then up to that person to decide if they want to still have sex with that person. Sex with somoene just cause they have AIDS should never be illegal. I am saying people should be informed, with who they are going to have sex with and then it is up to them to decide what to do.

By offering free testing, I don;t see that as enforcing laws at all. Again, I am not saying just because you have AIDS it should be against the law to have sex. I am saying it is your responsiblity to be tested and tell your partner about something you have which will end up killing them down the road. If your partner wishes to have sex with you even though you have the disease then that is their choice. Although they should be informed about it so they can make an informed decision.

If you don;t want to get tested, then don't have sex, its that simple or be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you don't want to go to jail for killing someone, don't do it. If you choose to do it, then be prepared for the consequences. I attribute it to killing someone. Both of them, the outcome is the same, the person you inflicted it upon, be it by gun shot or AIDS is dead.

[rkwright]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1588436' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:46 PM']If you don;t want to get tested, then don't have sex, its that simple or be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you don't want to go to jail for killing someone, don't do it. If you choose to do it, then be prepared for the consequences. I attribute it to killing someone. Both of them, the outcome is the same, the person you inflicted it upon, be it by gun shot or AIDS is dead.[/quote]

How about if you don't want AIDs then don't have sex.

[havok579257]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588424' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:34 PM']Sorry I edited my post above.

I do believe people are responsible for their actions. People are, not the government. The government doesn't need to tell me to get tested (either through penalties or mandatory testing).

If you have sex with someone and get AIDs, to me, that is your fault (unless the person has outright deceived you). If you have AIDs and don't get tested, again thats your fault, and if someone has sex with you without knowing if you have AIDs thats both your faults. I don't see it as one party to blame, but both.

More importantly I don't want the Government in my life; they don't need to know who I've had sex with.[/quote]

People are responsible for their actions, I agree. but when those actions indanger a society a government must step in and set up rules and regulations so anarchy does not reign supreme. But the government does use penalties on the comman man. An example is murder. This instance we can not leave up to people and say you are responsible for thier actions because we would become extinct in no time. Although for the sake of argument, let's use only those cases that do not directly relate to somoene just shooting you for no good reason. Meaning, should a person get off scott free if he kills someone else during a drug deal gone bad? Are you implying that its is also the victims fault because he was involved in the drug deal and he's just as responsible for being shot as the guy who shot him? AIDS is the same as shooting someone.

But the government for the sake of the people has a right to know if you are infecting others because they need to inform them that they could be infected. Although simply getting the test would not mandate the government knowing anything about who you sleep with. Only in cases where you infected someone else would this come to light so the government could warn your previous partners.

Your statement of the government does not need to know can be used in other instances. Like the government does not have the right to know what air I am breathing. Well what about a person who ahs TB. The air they are breathing out could infect people with TB and kill them. As of right now, the government can and does quartine people with tb for the sake of its citizens. Do you also disagree with this? After you are found with tb they want a list off all the people you infected and call them to wanr them to get tested. How is this any different?

[havok579257]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588439' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:48 PM']How about if you don't want AIDs then don't have sex.[/quote]

Ok but then you could use that arguement on anything. If you don't want to get into a motor vehicle collision, then don't drive a car or anything of the such. If you don't want salmanila(sp) don't eat meat. If you don't want skin cancer never step foot into the sunlight. And so on and so on.


We as Catholics consider it a sin if someone is unsure if something is a sin, say for example he is unsure if birth control is a sin but he thinks it might be. So to avoid knowinglly sinning, he refuses to ever get an answer on bc. So technically he never got an answer, so in his mind he does not know if its right or wrong. Although it is considered a sin because he is purposly refusing to get an answer on the subject so he can keep on using bc.

The same idea is applied to HIV. If you have sex with someone you should be tested. Refusing to get tested just so you are not positive if you have the disease is not a valid excuse to passing the disease on. YOur purposly keeping yourself in the dark to deny culpability(sp?).

[rkwright]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1588446' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:56 PM']People are responsible for their actions, I agree. but when those actions indanger a society a government must step in and set up rules and regulations so anarchy does not reign supreme. But the government does use penalties on the comman man. An example is murder. This instance we can not leave up to people and say you are responsible for thier actions because we would become extinct in no time. Although for the sake of argument, let's use only those cases that do not directly relate to somoene just shooting you for no good reason. Meaning, should a person get off scott free if he kills someone else during a drug deal gone bad? Are you implying that its is also the victims fault because he was involved in the drug deal and he's just as responsible for being shot as the guy who shot him? AIDS is the same as shooting someone.

But the government for the sake of the people has a right to know if you are infecting others because they need to inform them that they could be infected. Although simply getting the test would not mandate the government knowing anything about who you sleep with. Only in cases where you infected someone else would this come to light so the government could warn your previous partners.

Your statement of the government does not need to know can be used in other instances. Like the government does not have the right to know what air I am breathing. Well what about a person who ahs TB. The air they are breathing out could infect people with TB and kill them. As of right now, the government can and does quartine people with tb for the sake of its citizens. Do you also disagree with this? After you are found with tb they want a list off all the people you infected and call them to wanr them to get tested. How is this any different?[/quote]


[quote name='havok579257' post='1588451' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:02 PM']Ok but then you could use that arguement on anything. If you don't want to get into a motor vehicle collision, then don't drive a car or anything of the such. If you don't want salmanila(sp) don't eat meat. If you don't want skin cancer never step foot into the sunlight. And so on and so on.
We as Catholics consider it a sin if someone is unsure if something is a sin, say for example he is unsure if birth control is a sin but he thinks it might be. So to avoid knowinglly sinning, he refuses to ever get an answer on bc. So technically he never got an answer, so in his mind he does not know if its right or wrong. Although it is considered a sin because he is purposly refusing to get an answer on the subject so he can keep on using bc.

The same idea is applied to HIV. If you have sex with someone you should be tested. Refusing to get tested just so you are not positive if you have the disease is not a valid excuse to passing the disease on. YOur purposly keeping yourself in the dark to deny culpability(sp?).[/quote]

This is starting to go in circles, so I'll be brief.

#1 Spreading AIDs is not like shooting someone. Shooting someone is most likely an intentional act, and more specifically shooting a gun is always an intentional act. Spreading AIDs can be either an intentional or unintentional act, and many times it is unintentional. I think you agree to this since you want people to be tested. Obviously the ones you want to test are the ones spreading the disease unintentionally. There is a difference between unintentionally spreading AIDs and intentionally shooting someone.

#2 If your goal is to protect people from AIDs, how will the government do it other than warning people about you. Its almost like the government would make you wear a badge saying 'I have AIDs', or something like you said making every person criminally responsible for every sex act.

#3 We quarantine people with TB and other infectious diseases because they can't help spread it. Theres nothing they can do about it, and for the sake of society we should set them apart. However AIDs is different. Don't have sex before you're married. Don't do drugs. Screen the blood at the hospitals. There are things that people can do to prevent the spread of the disease; unlike TB where there is nothing those people can do.

#4 The point is that people can take care of themselves. We don't need the government to take care of every aspect of our lives. If you don't want AIDs don't have sex before marriage. Thats easy and controllable. Not driving so you can avoid car wrecks is neither easy nor controllable. Not eating meat is not easy. In those cases, where it is easier for the Government to mandate something we allow them; but every government mandate strips some of our personal liberty. Now if I drive I have to buckle my seatbelt, I no longer have a choice. Now if I eat meat I know it must meet some FDA standards, I no longer have a choice in all the types of meat. If we go that route with AIDs testing we are saying "If you want to have sex, you will have to be tested. If you're not tested, you might be prosecuted for possibly putting others lives in jeopardy" I don't want to give out that information to the Government. At some point, people are responsible, and if people can't be responsible for having sex whats left to be held accountable for?

#5 I'm refusing to be tested because I have done nothing wrong. I haven't had sex, and when I do have sex with my wife I shouldn't have to answer to anyone. In fact everytime I have sex with my wife I shouldn't have to be tested (heaven forbid one of us contracted the disease between the last time we had sex).

The Government does not need to know every time I have sex, nor do they need to know who I had it with in order to warn who I may have it with.