I can't believe you even consider the notion. It is immoral and illegal. It reeks of the same logic behind forced sterilizations in the early 20th century when Hitler came to power and eugenics held sway in America. To consider this proposal would to throw away all sense of decency and human rights, and gives government unlimited legal power over a person.[/quote]

As far as it being illegal, laws are changed all of the time. The morality must be judged against the morality of someone knowingly passing it on to others. Time and circumstance can change laws and points of view, don't you think? Having said that, I agree with the mandatory testing, though I am skeptical of such an undertaking getting accomplished with accuracy. I am against marking those infected. Reasons: It would be good to at least take away the excuse of "not knowing" for those who would unhesitantly have sex with others without telling them of their condition. People who knowingly pass it on should be prosecuted. Marking people would no doubt create social problems where there is no sexual exploit involved.

__________________
Turk Quid Pro Quo

Making tests mandatory would not allow one to opt out of testing and would provide some type of punishment for not being tested during a certain length of time.

This is simply a recommendation that tests become part of standard practices. A person can decide to opt out of the testing nor is there any penalty whatsoever for failure of being tested. It's quite a big difference.

I would call the police and have her arrested. Just like I would do if she stabbed me or shot me. People have been found guilty of such crimes. I don't see how you see this as being different from other attempts to take a person's life.

It's because of two reasons, the link to eugenics and the forced physical marking of a person as being diseased. I'll write a longer post why forcing someone to be marked is a big step towards a totalitarian government.

Mike, do you think the doctor would act differently if he or she knew you had AIDS? I haven't noticed my doctor failing to use gloves or other disease preventatives after I tested negative AIDS or HIV.

People can place medical information on their drivers liscence, but it is not mandatory. I'm sure if someone wanted HIV positive on their liscence, they could do so. However, you're talking about forcing people to do that.

Yes, it's too late for the victims, just like any other crime.

No, because tattoos would give people a false sense of security. A tattoo means someone has HIV, 100%. The lack of a tattoo doesn't mean someone doesn't have HIV. It's better for people to assume that any sex partner may have HIV then to rely upon a tattoo for verification. I think your plan would increase infection rates because people would have unprotected sex with whom they assume do not have HIV.

dameeun,

Excellent response. I am glad I peeked your interest.

See dameeun's response about medics showing up to a bloody crash scene. Also, I can guarantee you doctors doing surgery and know the patient is HIV positive act differently. They will take more precautions. This would be especially try in an emergency room when a guy is bleeding everywhere. In some cases a a patient can get better treatment in an ER if the doctor knows what diseases the patient is suffering.

Not true. When someone commits murder they are arrested in most cases and put in jail. It is immediate in most cases (within hours or days). They can not commit murder again unless it is in prison or when they get out. In the case of AIDS, a beautiful women could sleep with THOUSANDS of men over a short period and take years to get caught. If this beautiful women had a mark a huge percentage of the thousands of men would pass on this girl.

You should give the average Joe some credit. They are not going to say, "No tattoo means no AIDS" and have sex and/or share a needle. I am saying when they see a tattoo they have a choice to make. If a guy is visiting a prostitute and sees the tattoo, there is a good chance he will pass on the girl. The same goes with a drug users unless they are extremely in need of a fix.

What I am saying is THOUSANDS of AIDS and other diseases could be prevented. Over a few years THOUSANDS of prostitutes and drug users will be marked. Then there will be thousands of people visiting prostitues and people using drugs with a choice when they see the tattoo. If they don't see a tattoo it doesn't mean the person is AIDS free, it simply means they have not been identified with AIDS.

Drug users and prostitutes are groups with a high rate of AIDS and the ones that spread a large amount of community diseases. If they are arrested they should be marked. I am NOT for the average citizen being marked, but for criminals who break the law and know they have AIDS, but go out and share needles and sleep with others anyway.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

I think Doutdes has a good point. It's kind of scary to just rely on a tattoo, and many people would do that. Even some educated people, in the heat of the moment, will be willing to have unprotected sex as long as there is no mark. And then there are the risks of other diseases as well.
How long does it take to get the results from an HIV test? I heard that some types take 3 weeks, while others only take a couple of days.

I didn't say Germans, I said Nazis. There is a difference. Most Nazi's were German but not all Germans were Nazis. I'm half German as well, and would never make the mistake of of getting the two confused.

It's not that different a comparision. The Jews were forced to have a visable star of David on their clothes, in addition the ones sent to concentration camps were marked with tatoos on their arms.

Additionally, you can not mark HIVAIDS patients because they have the right to privacy as well.

YES! Dameeun! Thank you, thank you, -thank you-!

*G* I'm not the -only- one who posts mini-novellas when they're on a soapbox! LOL :)

While I have no problems with the idea of testing being recommended as part of routine physicals, etc., I seriously doubt that it would ever be made 100% mandatory, simply due to the financial considerations of such an effort. Medical procedures aren't cheap, and given the current insurance status of most individuals in the US, I don't see how it could be done in a cost-effective manner, especially when you consider that the test would have to be performed upon more than one occasion. The insurance agencies/hmo's would undoubtedly balk and raise cain at the prospect of having to absorb that kind of expense, and I seriously doubt any pharmeceutical company will be willing to foot the bill. Given the current status of federal medical coverage for the average individual (civilians covered by medicare/medicaid, etc.) I doubt that the government could absorb that kind of expense, and lest we forget, many individuals in our country go without necessary medical care, simply due to their inability to pay, so.. I doubt those same individuals could come up with the cash to pay for mandatory HIV testing, either. :)

I personally disagree wholeheartedly with the idea of making those with the disease be marked. Not only do these people have the right to privacy, but.. talk about the social stigmas attached to that! I'd certainly hate to be a 9 year old who got the virus from a blood transfusion who had to wear a mark, and face the scorn and scrutiny of society. Yes, there are undeniably those who behave irresponsibly in the transmission of this disease, but..there are many more who have this virus,and/or suffer from the effects of AIDS, who -don't- behave so irresponsibly, and I can't see them suffering for the acts of those who do. If someone knowingly transmits the AIDS virus without informing their partner, then the courts (both civil and criminal) could and should offer remedy.. and a sex offender should definitely be required to have such a status on his public profile- they have, in my opinion, waived their rights to privacy by their own actions, and their victims deserve to be notified of possible exposure. Publically displaying their status in a registry effectively offers notification for those victims who may -not- have come forward against their violator.

BTW, Dames.. off the subject here, I noted that you work in the medical field... and I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you :) My brother is an EMT/Firefighter/Search and Rescue, and the work you do is so important,and often overlooked! Rest assured, you are -much- appreciated for all you do!
On behalf of those you serve (which is all of us, in an extended way!) THANK YOU! :)

Dee :)

Agashi..

There are different types of HIV tests , and depending on the laboratory that administers the test, some do take a couple of weeks to get results back, some a few days.. and recently I've heard that there are HIV tests that can now provide results in about 20-30 minutes..these are being used for screening here in South Carolina for a sort of HIV-mobile..a mobile unit that goes around and sets up and provides free,and anonymous testing.

D.

I stated I am for drug dealers and prostitutes that have committed crimes to get marked. I am not talking about 9-year old boys without intent to spread the disease. Drug users and prostitutes go around KNOWINGLY spreading HIV. If you are arrested KNOWINGLY spreading HIV you should be marked. These people are stealthily spreading a life threatening disease. They would still have their privacy. They only loose their privacy when a person wants to share a needle or sleep with them for money or get treated in a hospital.

Again, I am NOT for making everyone in America with AIDS forced to be marked, ju