In Africa where I am now people who get HIV get it becausae they are promiscuous. If they are treated, they live longer and are still promiscuous, thus kill a few more other people before they die. If untreated, their bodies get weak and the die sooner thus sparing others of HIV infection. What is the most moral thing to do/ Treat or not treat?
As a sex worker who knows people's attitudes, I would not treat, if the ideas was to reduce infection. In South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Swaziland , etc, the majority of adults are positive and the few that are still negative are on their way to infection. Its a matter of time. Zimbabwe says no new infection, but that is just because the nation of those that are promiscuous is now saturated.
2006-09-12 11:56:29 · 16 answers · asked by instant M 2 in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ STDs
Yes why not? They should also get the best treatment that is available and probably the way forward would be for an effective vaccine against the infection at the earliest. However, in the interim, till a potent vaccine becomes available, use all preventive measures. Furthermore, there should be a method wherein all those who are infected should protect others.
2006-09-17 07:44:00 · answer #1 · answered by doctor2 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your statement make a lot of since to me. You probably have the right view on it. Treat it in a single person, they spread it, and kill others, don't treat it, they die, sparing other people who will probably get it from someone else. I think in those places, the inhabitants are doomed, unless they start using protection against such things, or we find a cure, and cure everyone as soon as we can. If we get a cure, and only give it to a few people, they will get it again. So there really is no stopping it, unless you quarantine everyone who has it, and let them die a painful death. I know how this sounds, I am more for curing completely, than anything else, but it is not going to happen anytime soon. I would continue treating people, unless I made sure that they wouldn't spread it any more.
I was reading the other responses also, if I was one of those people who was promiscuous and living in Africa and always spreading it, what would be the point of treating me? So I can infect possibly a hundred more people while I was still alive, and then that 100 spreading it to another 100 and so on and so one. I totally get where you are coming from. But if I got it in the states, and wasn't spreading it like a wild fire, I would want to be treated. It is a matter of life style and where you live, BUT I am all for a cure. And I hope we get one soon.
2006-09-12 12:02:26 · answer #2 · answered by gin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Considering your sex worker you've im quite suprised you don't know reason why people are promiscuous or resort to prositution. Well the reason is it's the only way the can earn money and feed themselves and thier families.
What about you gonna do about the children whom are born HIV positive, do you want them to live short lives in pain and suffering, because of something they can not control. The best way to deal with the problem is to increase these countries econmic strength, so instead of people resulting to they have oportunies to learn and to have career. If not just get industies to invest there so people don't have to resort to working in the sex industry. Also educating people into using condoms and about the disease is another way.
Not giving ARVs will only scratch the surface of the problem not deal with route cause of the spread which is poverty!
As you probadly know there's about 50million people in africa whom are HIV positive, considering the cost of ARV i think you have no problem in most HIV positive people not getting ARV.
2006-09-12 12:31:30 · answer #3 · answered by quamig 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The idea of ARV treatment in southern African countries is currently grossly misguided. I agree that the longer those who live with HIV live, the more new cases we have. It is more humane to avoid introduction of ARV, because more people will die. As long as older men are going for young girls and marital faithfulness is a foreign concept, then ARV treament should really not be introduced. This is not an emotional issue, but a national strategic issue as well as a practical issue.
2006-09-13 01:40:28 · answer #4 · answered by acm Pie 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I work with the research and development company who pioneered a remarkable science which specifically deals with repairing and maintaining the immune system. It is not self-proclaimed as people seem to think, tens of thousands of scientific papers have already been written about this, the science also took four consecutive Nobel Prizes. More than 2,000 doctors have quit the profession in the USA, simply because they can get better results in all areas with this approach. But now I'm waffling ................
I believe we should be doing everything we can to rid the world of this awful disease, putting judgement aside. It is very evident that even a killer disease is not going to stop people being promiscuous, as you quite rightly point out. So, tackle the problem of the disease........ if you can fight your way through the mountain of political garbage.
Good Bye!
2006-09-16 00:43:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
HIV is the comparable difficulty, a pandemic. They morph so, they are able to't be cured. the only distinction is how the contagion is transmitted. extra human beings are possibly to sneeze and cough relatively than work together in rump wrangling. contained in relation to HIV, it is going to likely be around till all the folk interior the severe possibility communities die off. this is the only treatment. this is going on. that's why there are a lot of revival shows on Broadway. all the playwrights have been killed with the help of AIDS. in case you ought to treatment the two one, they could the two be cured besides because of the fact the user-friendly chilly. no longer likely every time quickly. we are going to easily ought to do the appropriate we can to take preventive steps with warning and private hygiene. Create some awarenesss and which will artwork.
2016-12-18 09:14:07 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question. Please take no offense to this, but this kind of reminds me of Dr. Kevorkian. I say that because his idea was to help people who were in terrible pain end the pain. Your idea is to remove the possiblity of infection by removing the infected. As immoral as it might sound I think it's a great idea. Now before I get flamed, my mother has HIV and she is a perfect example of what to do if you are infected. Stay clean, stay abstanant, stay as healthy as you possibly can.
Really though, I think you would be making a good decision, though I don't think it could ever happen.
2006-09-12 12:02:37 · answer #7 · answered by Eric S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
People do not ask for this disease. True, some people sleep around and just don't care. But some people might have caught this disease from a partner they thought was being faithful. There are different circumstances. This disease is terrible and everyone has the right to be treated. It is a shame that people know they have this and continue to spread it around. That is life though. Some people just don't care.
2006-09-13 03:13:17 · answer #8 · answered by Maggie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they need to get the facts out in order that other will not get infection like make a law and make it a jail time if they infect someone and know they have the diseases like in the state and it will stop and lower the cases but we still need to treat people who want to die horrible I seen people with age and I will alway treat them
2006-09-20 09:29:07 · answer #9 · answered by Linda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where I come from you do not catch HIV if you do not want it. HIV is strictly for promiscuous people or for people who are too desperate for sex to wear a condom or to wait for a test. You do not catch HIV if you do not want to, unless you are raped or you are injected with it at the government hospital, or ZANU PF uses it as a campain tool.
2006-09-14 07:34:17 · answer #10 · answered by Mai C 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋