Sacrificing for the greater good

[Avatar4321]

I had a rather disturbing thought while discussing HIV and AIDS on another board.

You know how we have all these drugs now that will prolong the life of those who are infected with HIV. What if, because we created these drugs, we have inadvertantly provided more opportunity for people to be infected.

Think about it. The Longer someone with HIV has their life prolonged the more they have opportunities to spread the disease to someone else.

Have people seeking a way to prolong the life of others just ended up spreading the disease more?

Disturbing I know. Especially since its probably true. The really disturbing part is the alternative which includes quicker, but still painful death for those infected. And honestly it disgusts me.

Which of course brings me to the poll. If you had to choose to let someone die (or help them do so) or risk the chance of hundreds or thousands others die what would you do?

 

[Avatar4321]

I guess this is kind of like one of those "If you had the opportunity to kill Hitler in his youth knowing he would be responsible for the death of so many would take it to save them" type questions except we arent dealing with Hitler. we are dealing with potentially innocent people.

 

[Hobbit]

I guess this is kind of like one of those "If you had the opportunity to kill Hitler in his youth knowing he would be responsible for the death of so many would take it to save them" type questions except we arent dealing with Hitler. we are dealing with potentially innocent people.

While I can't honestly say what I'd do, ethically you must give the sick the medicine. However, anyone who knows they're sick and engages in behavior that spreads the disease can and should be arrested for manslaughter.

 

[Nienna]

Every life is sacred. If someone's life can be prolonged/ improved, it should be done. Perhaps, in the meantime, a cure could be found for the disease.

I know that many could be infected by AIDS, but this is true of any infectuous disease. Our responsibility is to help or heal where we can.

 

[MissileMan]

I had a rather disturbing thought while discussing HIV and AIDS on another board.

You know how we have all these drugs now that will prolong the life of those who are infected with HIV. What if, because we created these drugs, we have inadvertantly provided more opportunity for people to be infected.

Think about it. The Longer someone with HIV has their life prolonged the more they have opportunities to spread the disease to someone else.

Have people seeking a way to prolong the life of others just ended up spreading the disease more?

Disturbing I know. Especially since its probably true. The really disturbing part is the alternative which includes quicker, but still painful death for those infected. And honestly it disgusts me.

Which of course brings me to the poll. If you had to choose to let someone die (or help them do so) or risk the chance of hundreds or thousands others die what would you do?

This problem isn't restricted to HIV either. Modern medicine is allowing thousands of conditions, a lot of them genetic, to flourish instead of being flushed from the gene pool.

 

[pegwinn]

Take the risk.

IF we begin to triage folks outside of a mass casualty situation, it is a short step to euthanasia. While euthanasia may be humane for a suffering animal, we only do it because the animal cannot communicate its' desires.

Pretty soon we will be killing old folks who are no longer useful, or have alzheimer's and cannot function. Eventually, it'll spread to babies with incurable diseases, or genetic abnormalities.

Now if the person is lucid and of age to make the call, then they should have the option of ending thier own life if they choose.

 

[Gem]

In my opinion there is no other reasonable option for a society to do than allow the person to live while providing them with the education and resources to not spread the disease and while looking for a cure.

If we engaged in the alternative - killing those infected or allowing them to kill themselves rather than risk infecting others, we enter a dangerous realm of killing someone based on a "potential" risk. Do we stop people with genital herpes from being allowed to date, marry, or procreate because of the heightened risk? Do we stop allowing diabetics to take insulin because they could pass the disease onto their children? We know that children of obese parents have a signficantly higher risk of being obsese themselves...we know what health conditions this will cause, the money this could cause our healthcare system, etc. Do we not allow overweight people to procreate based on this?

There are situations where this would not work - if a person was infected with a disease that WOULD, WITHOUT QUESTION, infect and kill everyone who came into contact with him/her then allowing them to roam freely throughout society would not be permittable. However, if, as in the case of Diabetes or HIV/AIDs, it was treateable and/or could have precautions taken against it...I think we have to, as a civilized society, err on the rights of the individual.

 

[Avatar4321]

I agreee with everyone which is why i found the original thought a bit disturbing. But the question is sound.

I just find it such a heartbreaking situation because its got to be the most easily avoided disease in the history of man.

 

[MissileMan]

I just find it such a heartbreaking situation because its got to be the most easily avoided disease in the history of man.

Tell that to the people who got it through a transplant or blood transfusion or the babies being born with it.

 

[Gem]

I don't think he was implying that all people had contracted the disease from their own actions, MissileMan...only that the majority of people infected (especially in the United States) have gotten the disease through unsafe sex and/or "safe" sex gone wrong or unsafe drug use.

Now, children born to infected parents obviously did not do something to contract the disease...however that doesn't change the fact that millions upon millions contract the disease because they engaged in unsafe behaviors such as unprotected sex and/or drug use.

Again, I don't think that Avatar was trying to say that ALL people who are HIV positive or have full-blown AIDS got it through their own actions...only that for adults in this day and age (now that we have blood screening and know more about its transmission) it is fairly easy NOT to contract HIV. It is unfortunate that we have hundreds or thousands becoming infected everyday for ANY reason...but it is especially sad that people are catching it due to ignorance or willfull ignoring of how to keep themselves safe.

 

[Avatar4321]

Tell that to the people who got it through a transplant or blood transfusion or the babies being born with it.

Considering I never said or implied that everyone has the disease received it because of irresponsibility I am not exactly sure what your point is except to try to attack me personally for some reason.

The fact is its easy to avoid transfering it through blood transfusions, simply screen the blood before you transfer it.

Its also easy to avoid having your child born with it. Dont contract it yourself.

It doesnt change the fact that most HIV patients contract the disease through irresponsible sexual behavior and drug use.

It does, however, destroy the myth of the left that what happens between "two consenting adults" doesnt effect others. The problem with sin is that its often those around us that suffere the most for our mistakes.

 

[MissileMan]

Considering I never said or implied that everyone has the disease received it because of irresponsibility I am not exactly sure what your point is except to try to attack me personally for some reason.

Damn! You've got some really thin skin. Are you one of those people who relishes the role of martyr? Do you consider even a slight disagreement with your opinion to be a "personal" attack? Grow up!

The fact is its easy to avoid transfering it through blood transfusions, simply screen the blood before you transfer it.

Until the lab screws up and releases a bad batch.

Its also easy to avoid having your child born with it. Dont contract it yourself.

There's an epidemic in Africa right now where the victims only "sin" is submitting to marital relations with their husbands.

It doesnt change the fact that most HIV patients contract the disease through irresponsible sexual behavior and drug use.

Here in the states that's a true statement.

It does, however, destroy the myth of the left that what happens between "two consenting adults" doesnt effect others. The problem with sin is that its often those around us that suffere the most for our mistakes.

You keep telling yourself that HIV is the "sinners" disease...right up to the time a member of your family contracts it through no fault of their own.

 

[pegwinn]

HIV is primarily a lifestyle disease. Which means that if folks actually practiced restraint and self discipline most cases would not happen.

There are cases where someone contracts it thru no fault of thier own. It's tragic. But no more so than someone catching cancer thru no fault of their own.

 

[MissileMan]

HIV is primarily a lifestyle disease. Which means that if folks actually practiced restraint and self discipline most cases would not happen.

Here in the states, yes. Not so in Africa.

 

[pegwinn]

Here in the states, yes. Not so in Africa.

Africa is the continent worst affected by AIDS, and because most new infections occur during unprotected heterosexual sex, the main goal in HIV prevention is to persuade people to change their sexual behaviour – to delay first sex, decrease casual relationships, and increase condom use. This is always a difficult task, and in Africa it is made harder by poverty, lack of resources and weak infrastructure. Only around one in ten Africans has been tested for HIV and knows whether they are infected; misconceptions about transmission routes are widespread, and access to condoms is very low. As a result, most countries have yet to see any decline in their epidemics. However, a few notable exceptions prove that such declines are achievable.

Source

Sounds like a lifestyle issue to me.

 

[Avatar4321]

You keep telling yourself that HIV is the "sinners" disease...right up to the time a member of your family contracts it through no fault of their own.

What I find Ironic about this response is that all one has to do is look at what I originally said and you can see I already addressed this.

People need to learn that when they make mistakes they effect more people then themselves. Simply because an innocent person suffers the consequences of someone elses sins doesnt change the fact that simply avoiding the sin could have avoided the consequences to begin with.

Nor does it change the fact that if one listens to the counsel of the Spirit one has virtually no chance of obtaining the disease.

Which is exactly why it destroys the myth that you can do whatever you want because it doesnt effect others... which of course is what I said to begin with. The actions between "two consenting adults" very much effect others around them. This is especially true with sexual relationships. You cant fool around with the process to create life and pretend as though no one else is affected by it any more than you can fool around in taking life and pretend no one is affected by it

 

[MissileMan]

What I find Ironic about this response is that all one has to do is look at what I originally said and you can see I already addressed this.

People need to learn that when they make mistakes they effect more people then themselves. Simply because an innocent person suffers the consequences of someone elses sins doesnt change the fact that simply avoiding the sin could have avoided the consequences to begin with.

Nor does it change the fact that if one listens to the counsel of the Spirit one has virtually no chance of obtaining the disease.

Which is exactly why it destroys the myth that you can do whatever you want because it doesnt effect others... which of course is what I said to begin with. The actions between "two consenting adults" very much effect others around them. This is especially true with sexual relationships. You cant fool around with the process to create life and pretend as though no one else is affected by it any more than you can fool around in taking life and pretend no one is affected by it

The majority of people engage in what you would consider sin with no negative consequences. So, the actions of "two consenting adults", in most cases, does not affect those around them.