New Debate.

[jill_valentine]

This came up in Irish Parliment after a recent case where a man knowingly and deliberately infected his partner with AIDS, and I thought it would make an interesting debate.

Should AIDS victims be visibly "branded" in some way to prevent people being unknowingly infected?

[HighWiredSith]

Of course not. AIDS prevention is and should be the responsibility of the individual, not the government or even, technically, the infected partner. If you are willing to have unprotected sex with someone you don't know to be HIV free, then this is your fault, bottom line, end of debate.

The great irony of HIV is that it's 100% preventable. I tire of these who try to label HIV infected individuals as so-called Typhoid Mary's. Getting HIV (99.9999% of the time) begins with a choice.

[Iwata]

You mean, like the stick with a bell on it that was carried by plague and leprosy victims duringthe Middle Ages?

No way. AIDS is, like Sith said, the responsability of the individual.

That would be the first step in ostracizing those individuals.

[The one......]

Hmmmmm, good question, but I fear that HWS stole the very reasonable answer that there is.

The only branding, just say that there had to be by law (work with me here) should be by the genitalia of the infected, so that if you were to go down that road you would know. Then there's the problem of actually branding people- some don't know that they have it and of course the 3 month incubation period after possibly being infected.
People that have HIV don't necessarily suffer with any symptoms for a good few years, some even having it and yet not affected by it (ie carriers so to speak) so how would they be branded, if they never told anyone???

So back to HWS and his comment- safe sex, ma friends is the best bet.
Heeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny!

[Xorgan]

Originally posted by HighWiredSith
Of course not. AIDS prevention is and should be the responsibility of the individual, not the government or even, technically, the infected partner. If you are willing to have unprotected sex with someone you don't know to be HIV free, then this is your fault, bottom line, end of debate.

I can't believe it - first time I'm one opinion with HWS.

I...also...agree....with...High Wired Sith...

Gak!

But...and this is quite a big but...this was not a one night stand. These people had been a couple for 3 years or more. He was not presenting symptoms.

One other interesting point to note is that there was a similar case some years ago, but it didnt raise as much controversy. I wonder what the difference was? Why werent their hysterical protests from politicians then? Incidently, the guy was a black immigrant. Hmm.

The branding suggested was to be a type of discreet tattoo. Tattooing genetalia might be a little too cruel...

[HighWiredSith]

There are always the what if's, the for instances, .005% I mentioned - these are people who get into long term relationships with people who are infected or get infected through infedility. These instances are tragic but I still don't think they call for government branding of anyone on any body part.

Wise words....er....Fountain of Desire.

[HighWiredSith]

Your new screen name is pushing all the thread topics to the left of my screen!

That is all.

[jill_valentine]

Im sorry, that was childish...

[Darth Bob]

childish but fun

No they should not be branded.

one thing:

Originally posted by Unregistered
one thing:

one thing: yawn


re: the poll...

in an ideal world people would be open and honest in relationships.. however, stick by the rules of safe sex and not drinking other peoples blood and we should all be fine