Ex GF and ethical dilemma

[BelgianBoy]

Soongmaak and P127,

 

Time for both of you to take this discussion out of here and per PM as there is no more benefit to this thread.

And no, dont complain to me.

 

BB

modding

[JJsushi]

flyonzewall said:

well, and now we are back at square one.

 

based on a "what if" you already plan a map of what you are gonna do.

 

first of all - AIDS in this age is not a *mortal* danger anymore. so far, with proper use of available antiretrovirals life might very possibly not be shortened significantly. and more research is done, AIDS will in foreseeable future maybe not be a cureable desease, but one which get easier and easier to manage. we should start not to think anymore in the outdated panic induced parameters of pre-antiretroviral days.

 

 

Your under the mistaken concept that all one needs is to take drug cocktails and they can manage the diseaese. Unfortunately every HIV infedted person does not respond to the drug cocktails and some have such reactions to the drugs that they become sick to the point where theiir bodies will not accept the treatment. HIV is stil a "mortal danger", especially with a virus that has the ability to mutate into different strains, hide in places such as glands and nodes and can lie "dormant" for years within the body. You do know that there are strains of HIV that the cocktails have no effect on whatsoever.

[soongmak]

To the mods: I am extremely dissapointed that the fucking moron comment is still not edited after a day, and I think that I have done nothing to warrant such a remark. ::

 

Now back on topic:

 

I came across an interesting article on the site of Unaids regarding HIV and human rights, and here's an excerpt:

 

HIV/AIDS, Human Rights & Law

 

"The goal of realizing human rights is fundamental to the global fight against AIDS. And in a world facing a terrible epidemic - one that has already spread further, faster and to more devastating effect than any other in human history - winning the fight against AIDS is a precondition for achieving rights worth enjoying."

 

- Dr Peter Piot, UNAIDS Executive Director

 

Several years of experience in addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic have confirmed that the promotion and protection of human rights constitute an essential component in preventing transmission of HIV, reducing vulnerability to infection and the impact of HIV/AIDS.

 

However, in practice:

 

Fundamental human rights of people living with HIV/AIDS, such as the right to non-discrimination, equal protection and equality before the law, privacy , liberty of movement, work, equal access to education, housing, health care, social security, assistance and welfare, are often violated based on their known or presumed HIV/AIDS status....

 

For those who want to read more: Unaids.org - HIV, Human Rights and Law

 

Cheers,

 

soongmak

[soongmak]

Zenseless,

 

I found an interesting document on the website of Unaids called Handbook for Legislators on HIV/AIDS, Law and Human Rights. It also addresses the subject of partner notification on page 45. You can find the document here.

 

Cheers,

 

soongmak

[Zaad]

Soongteesood,

 

I still fail to see the relevence of the content of your last two posts.

If your loved one is in such a situation and you rush in to tell him the sad news and ignore her privacy completely, then I'll be there to read both of your posts word by word. I don't wonder what kind of answer I'll receive from you.

 

This is why I believe the privacy issue is not relevant in extreme cases like this one. Other factors ARE and THOSE should be mentioned as one's reasoning for not interfering.

 

You fully respect her privacy now, but completely ignore tomorrow.

This is why it's quite hypocrytical to bring it up IMHO.

[khwaimaisabai]

soongmak said:

That's exactly what arbitrary interference in the DOHR is all about. It's not for you to decide.

Hi sm,

Oh yes it is. That is what this is all about. It is in the end a personal decision for zense. Some document drawn up by a bunch of politicians may be valuable and indeed inspiring but is not to be taken as ultimate truth. Personal freedom of choice is still with us.

Khwai

[soongmak]

This is why I believe the privacy issue is not relevant in extreme cases like this one.

 

Zaad,

 

Let's not go there anymore, OK? We have both addressed the privacy issue, and you're not adding new information or ask questions I have not answered before. I do however object to you saying that the privacy issue is not relevant. At least give me that. I have no problems if you say that there are more pressing matters to be addressed, but saying that it is of no relevance at all, is simply not true.

 

Maybe it is time to find some common ground here.

I guess we both agree that the man has should be informed and that the preferred way would be through a professional.

 

Now, what would be more appropriate to make sure that every partner should be informed by a professional and that this should be enforced by law. If that would happen, people like Zenseless would probably not have to face dilemmas like these so often. A law like this is effective in the state of New York.

 

Then why is it that several professionals in the field of HIV/AIDS object to this law, and that studies have been conducted that say coercive partner notification doesn't work?

Now if qualified professionals should not notify partners of HIV positive persons without their consent, because it is proven ineffictive, why do you as an unitiated feel the need to disregard this knowledge and play vigilante?

 

Here are a few links regarding partner notification. Maybe you can find some info here as to why you shouldn't interfere. If it is not to safeguard privacy, then for the good of public health:

 

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/aids/hiv_partner.html

 

http://www.engenderhealth.org/res/onc/hiv/diagnosis/hiv4p8.html

 

http://www.popcouncil.org/horizons/ressum/vct_violence/vct_violence_recommendations.html

[BelgianBoy]

To the mods: I am extremely dissapointed that the fucking moron comment is still not edited after a day, and I think that I have done nothing to warrant such a remark.

 

A PM is the right way to complain about moderation.

Furthermore, I choose to ask more civility instead of editing, my decision.

And P127 adknowlegded he went too far.

End of discussion.

 

BB

[Zaad]

Big boy,

Now if qualified professionals should not notify partners of HIV positive persons without their consent, because it is proven ineffictive, why do you as an unitiated feel the need to disregard this knowledge and play vigilante?

I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at. You're right by asking the above, but don't you think it's a little unfair to ask me such question since you are not 100% commited to it yourself?

 

Maybe it is time to find some common ground here.

I guess we both agree that the man should be informed and that the preferred way would be through a professional.

With that I think I've had my final say in here.

[soongmak]

[color:"red"] I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at. [/color]

 

Zaadje,

 

I know perfectly well what you're getting at. I told you that I believe that I could lose my head and break every law to protect my loved ones. Do you think I don't have a heart? That doesn't mean that we should not apply common sense in this case.

 

Why let emotions cloud your judgement when we are in a perfect postion to judge the situation with an unbiased view?

 

Cheers,

 

soongmak