Ex GF and ethical dilemma

[Guest]

axactly zorro.

 

Well put.

 

HT

[Guest]

>>>>100's of thousands, if not millions, have/are dying.......due to non-disclosure.

 

Do we, as a society let this go on, unchecked? <<<

 

 

that is the crux of the matter why i strictly advocate to let professionals handle the issue. your statement here is completely wrong, and your course of action appears to be based on that faulty statement.

100's of thousands, millions have died, are dying not because of non-disclosure, but because of a multitude of different reasons. foremost is poverty, lack of education, and especially lack of access to antiretroviral medicine. non-disclosure - a reason in a miniscule of cases.

professionals in the field of AIDS have studied the issue at hand from far more angles than can be studied here on an internet board, over a vastly longer stretch of time, and therefore have the professional abilities to judge single cases far more qualified than you or i can.

what you propose here, and fellow vigilants ( ), well meaning though completely based on some unqualified gutfeeling of what is right and wrong, citing courtcases etc without having the indepht knowledge and qualifications to be able to interpret them properly, is to be consultant, lawyer, police and executioner at the same time. without having the basic knowledge on that subject, inspired by the panic of the last two decades surrounding the subject of AIDS.

if you want to do something, inform yourself about the availability of the different professional places where you can refer particular cases. that should keep you busy for a while. or, if you want to help yourself, get qualified in one of the many different areas in the wide world of AIDS before you get involved any further than by doing referrals to relevant places.

[Guest]

Zorro said:

HT said

The community or society will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the society as a whole if it feels threatened or endangered.

 

The rights of individuals will never take precendence over what the community feels is best for the community.

Whether the community is right or not doesn't matter as it will try to protect itself as it sees fit.

 

 

 

 

plain wrong.

professional, highly qualified, gremiums decide in which particular case the right of the commune supercedes the right of the individual.

when the unqualified community decides what it feels best than you have vigilantism at best.

so, all of us, who are not qualified enough in that particular field of AIDS, especially regarding law, are only to refer to the relevant authorities or consultants, who will decide the matter, and which course to take.

not you. not anyone of us.

[Zorro]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Zorro said:

HT said

The community or society will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the society as a whole if it feels threatened or endangered.

 

The rights of individuals will never take precendence over what the community feels is best for the community.

Whether the community is right or not doesn't matter as it will try to protect itself as it sees fit.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Fly said

 

 

plain wrong.

professional, highly qualified, gremiums decide in which particular case the right of the commune supercedes the right of the individual.

when the unqualified community decides what it feels best than you have vigilantism at best.

so, all of us, who are not qualified enough in that particular field of AIDS, especially regarding law, are only to refer to the relevant authorities or consultants, who will decide the matter, and which course to take.

not you. not anyone of us.

 

I don't think we are really disagreeing here.

The community encompasses lawmakers , politicians,ordinary folk and experts. They will have varying levels of input into any situation where the community might be put at risk and will take what they feel are the appropriate measures which may well include infringing on the rights of individuals if they feel the situation warrants it.

 

You seem to put a lot of faith in what you call experts and professionals. They often make mistakes and are often wrong and often have vested interests. They need to be carefully scrutinised and held accountable.

 

BTW What is a gremium?

[Guest]

>>>You seem to put a lot of faith in what you call experts and professionals. They often make mistakes and are often wrong and often have vested interests. They need to be carefully scrutinised and held accountable. <<<

 

 

that is not really the question here. whatever mistrust i might have about experts and professionals, for sure can trust far less actions performed by complete novices in any particular field, novices who propose to circumvent not just the practical and theoratical experience of experts, but even the advice of experts. which appears to be the case here, what our advocates for immediate action propose.

personally, i have difficulties to understand why people here still keep on advocating taking action without consulting experts, without letting experts handle the situation, even though here in bangkok there is a multitude of experts easily availabe. it simply beats me.

 

 

gremium is an advisory body.

[check_bin_krap]

I just read a sad story in the newspaper here, in Norweigian. Some dude knocked up a Thai girl, married her and brought her here. She found out that he had given her HIV, when she got sick.

 

She is filing for divorce, and tries to get permission to stay here. Appearently her husband also took government support for the child and birth from her, and claimed it was to cover her medicines for HIV. Which is free here in Norway. She was also beaten serverly during this period.

 

The local community knew he was HIV infected, and appealed to him to not infect Thai's during his visits to Thailand. This is an ethical dilemma also, should such b**tards be allowed to contuniue to spread the disease? ::

 

If one continues on the ethical dilemma, what if she wasn't infected on arrival in Norway? Wouldn't it right that one of those locals who knew he had HIV told her?

[Guest]

>>>Wouldn't it right that one of those locals who knew he had HIV told her?<<<

 

 

no, it wouldn't.

it would have been right if one of those locals would have went to some professional consultant, or a lawyer, or maybe even the police.

i have never proposed non-action, but action by professionals. there are certain procedures to do things. they might not be perfect, but they are all we have. we have them because we tried to build up a lawful society. we improve them as we go along.

just because of AIDS why should we throw those procedures out of the window, in effect reducing ourselfes to a tribal society in spirit with vigilantism as a law?

 

and regarding the protection of the majority. please see the case discussed here, and most similar cases presented here in perspective.

those cases are sad exceptions which happen often, but still are exceptions. those are *tough calls*, never a doubt about that (maye our more extreme vigilants might disagree there, but as i am an optimist, who is stupid enough to still believe in the basic good in people, i see them as exceptions as well ).

why should we go overboard just because of those exceptions? why should we disregard human rights, lawful procedures, take vigilante action ourselves, and that way make life far more difficult for the vast majority of infected who do not act that way?

 

again, repeated countless times already: there are experts available in bangkok who do deal with such situations on a regular base. go to them and let them take the correct action. support them by continous caring, and whatever they might demand of you. but let them handle it. whatever they decide, the decision will be based on a wealth of experience, and professionalism, which hardly anyone in this debate here has. especially not the ones who advocate taking direct action themselves.

[check_bin_krap]

But Fly, whatever could or can be done to prevent him from infecting more Thai girls? Apart from people telling whatever girl he drags here the situation?

 

Its 2 countries involved here, HIV infected people are free to travel. Your counselling ideas don't help anything, this guy knows what he is doing. Its just damage control after the damage has been done.

[JJsushi]

flyonzewall said:

Zorro said:

HT said

The community or society will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the society as a whole if it feels threatened or endangered.

 

The rights of individuals will never take precendence over what the community feels is best for the community.

Whether the community is right or not doesn't matter as it will try to protect itself as it sees fit.

 

 

 

 

plain wrong.

professional, highly qualified, gremiums decide in which particular case the right of the commune supercedes the right of the individual.

when the unqualified community decides what it feels best than you have vigilantism at best.

so, all of us, who are not qualified enough in that particular field of AIDS, especially regarding law, are only to refer to the relevant authorities or consultants, who will decide the matter, and which course to take.

not you. not anyone of us.

 

Just curious here, you keep reiterating over an over about professionals and qualified personnel making all of the decisions, just what exactly requires one to be a "professional" and at what point is the professional "qualified"? Is there an interanational standardized exam and subsequent certificate that qualifies one to deal with HIV cases and the issues they present to society at large? How do you rate these professionals? I know of several cases where even so called "professionals" disagree when it comes to issues concernng HIV. So what makes one professionals' opinion or theory more valid than anothers?

 

I think it is a little naive to simply say let the professional handle it. Individuals can have certain insights or the ability to self educate that would place them at an advantage to so called "experts". I know people that have certain illnesses who are more informed than their health care professionals concerning that particular illness. I know of friends and families that offer better advice and support to loved ones far superior than any "professional" simply because they understand how the individual will respond to certain stimuli and they make it a priotiy to be well versed in the proper ways to care for the sick individuals.

 

We are talking about an individual HIV case here not quantum physics.

[pattaya127]

So you find no relevance in the DOHR.

----------------------

are you a fucking moron or what?

 

If you want to be so petty, I would appreciate you leave me out of your life altogether, I do not like dishonesty and I am seriously disappointed that you have been constnatly looking for a fight with me, where i simply stated my case, and explained time and time again it was up to the individual.

 

You are also a coward for not answering my simple question, sticking very closely to the topic. Talk all you want about the girl, but address also the possibility of saving one human being with one word from a kind though.

 

For your benefit, and the last time you are on my radar, DOHR is an extremely relevant and landmark of humanity, but it is irrelevant in our debate as it speaks for all humans, here, the guy and the girl, leaving decisions individual ones in not so clear-cut cases (proof being you find difficult to answer simple questions).

 

 

 

Have a good day!