A serious question should people with HIV be tattooed??

Originally posted by Rocketgirl
reply to post by MAC269

 

A group of people shouldn't be singled out just because they have Aids or any other disease.

This reasoning is why AIDS/HIV is still a problem. There comes a point when the unthinkable must be considered for the good of the whole. Once you rule out even thinking about it, you have already sealed your own fate.

If, as some here seem to be suggesting, those with HIV/AIDS have contracted it through their own inaction, then surely the rest of society should be protected from those people, for if they care not about themselves, they certainly care nothing for others.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by 其中一許多]

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Dear sdcigarpig

From sdcigarpig

“Dear Mac269:
MADD is Mothers Against Drunk Driving. But what you are not realizing is the cost of such. Tattooing people with HIV will only send people underground instead of getting treatment, and create a blackmarket, where they will end up getting falsified paperwork for their health.
If you want to cut the progression of the disease, then there are several means to do such:
1) Put pressure on the government to where they can move their vast resources to cure this disease. If history tells us anything, then it states that when a government finds the need to cure something, it gets cured. Want an example, take POLIO. The cure for Polio was not do to someone thinking they could get rich, but was started by the stroke of a pen, namely FDR, who put into action, not by an act of Congress, but rather an executive order, demanding that a cure be found. In less than a generation (About 18 years) there was a cure for that disease and now all of us live in a world without the fear of that dreaded disease.
2) More education for the young people. They need to know about the consequences of what will happen with having unprotected sex. Pictures are a good deteriance. You want to shock someone, then show them the advanced stages of the disease and tell them what happens. Too many people, parents, don't take the time to inform, or to ensure that their children know what can be caught. I know it is harse, and probably rough, but may seem cruel, but what is more cruel, letting think that it will be alright, or waking them up to the harsh realities of the world?”

Too tattoo a new infection would cost about 5 bucks out here so that is not really an issue not even here.

We do the education bit but we are one of the only ones doing it. Too many people and not enough time.

It is interesting that you brought up the Polio bit because according to the Father who is the founder and director of this center polio’s first vaccine may have been the cause of the beginning of the HIV/AIDS infections. But this thread is not about what started it but a way of clearing it.

reply to post by Xeven


Dear Xeven

From Xeven

“Well I think it would be awful to do this to them. Yet in reality doing so might bring HIV to its knees. You see we cannot trust them all to do the right thing and not have sex with people who do not have HIV.

None of them are bad people and branding them is an absolute horrific thing to do, but I think it should be done to protect and possibly eliminate further infections at least reduce it.

If I had HIV I would wear a Tatoo, and I also would not have sex with anyone that also did not have HIV.

Identifying people with a contagious deadly disease is not the same as racial profiling or marking them as inferior.

It is certainly a dreadful reality to do, but it would save lives and that should out weigh the negative aspects of branding people with contagious disease.

Sometimes doing the right thing is a choice of two bad things.”

Well as I have said I do not like it either but until someone comes up with something better what do we do just let it go on.

reply to post by MAC269


People with AIDS should be treated no differently than anybody with a common cold. Anybody testing positive for HIV should understand that the test is not accurate. The actual tests have been diluted hundreds of times. A positive means that you have antibodies...Antibodies are a good defense.

Get tested for Syphillis. That can trigger a false positive. I'm very much disgusted with the AIDS community going with the flow of bad science. AIDS is an invented excuse for big Pharma to get a gigantic charitable tax right off for non effective drugs as gifts to the third world. In fact some more recent studies have shown greater improvement in "AIDS" patients with nutritional treatment replacing anti-retroviral drugs.

I'm not advocating the spread of venereal disease but people need to outright reject the test. It not an accurate test of immune function.

Those treated for AIDS often die faster than those who have not. I encourage all people to reject the test. It is known to trigger false positives.

I would say get yourself tested at your own expense at 10 different labs...You might find the results inconclusive. Go in anonymously and and request an anonymous number.

Africa does not have a high HIV rate because the people are having sex. They have low immune systems due to malnutrition and absolutely polluted water.

If America had the same environment we would have the same epidemic. In reality we do but it is much more isolated in areas of high industrial pollution.

Stop beating yourself up over something that will bring you down emotionally. Get tested at multiple facilities...The AIDS community is really a big joke. If they would accept that the outright destruction of clean water and toxic metals were the cause...We'd have a sound case to build a greener world.

With billions of dollars into research they have made zero progress. More lies, more money and more sick people. Take care of yourself. In fact I can only recommend you take a complete nutritional inventory of what you have been doing to yourself.

Read all the ingredients on your daily products. Add up all the toxic ingredients and compare them to your natural products. You might add them up and say "my immune system got screwed by these rascals" It's time to trim the fat and begin a new healthy life.

Screw the bad science surrounding AIDS...Ignore the death filled outcome. Your not going to die for a very long time if you take better care of yourself.

reply to post by RightWingAvenger


Dear RightWingAvenger

From RightWingAvenger

“People with AIDS should be treated no differently than anybody with a common cold. Anybody testing positive for HIV should understand that the test is not accurate. The actual tests have been diluted hundreds of times. A positive means that you have antibodies...Antibodies are a good defense.

Get tested for Syphillis. That can trigger a false positive. I'm very much disgusted with the AIDS community going with the flow of bad science. AIDS is an invented excuse for big Pharma to get a gigantic charitable tax right off for non effective drugs as gifts to the third world. In fact some more recent studies have shown greater improvement in "AIDS" patients with nutritional treatment replacing anti-retroviral drugs.

I'm not advocating the spread of venereal disease but people need to outright reject the test. It not an accurate test of immune function.

Those treated for AIDS often die faster than those who have not. I encourage all people to reject the test. It is known to trigger false positives.

I would say get yourself tested at your own expense at 10 different labs...You might find the results inconclusive. Go in anonymously and and request an anonymous number.

Africa does not have a high HIV rate because the people are having sex. They have low immune systems due to malnutrition and absolutely polluted water.

If America had the same environment we would have the same epidemic. In reality we do but it is much more isolated in areas of high industrial pollution.

Stop beating yourself up over something that will bring you down emotionally. Get tested at multiple facilities...The AIDS community is really a big joke. If they would accept that the outright destruction of clean water and toxic metals were the cause...We'd have a sound case to build a greener world.

With billions of dollars into research they have made zero progress. More lies, more money and more sick people. Take care of yourself. In fact I can only recommend you take a complete nutritional inventory of what you have been doing to yourself.

Read all the ingredients on your daily products. Add up all the toxic ingredients and compare them to your natural products. You might add them up and say "my immune system got screwed by these rascals" It's time to trim the fat and begin a new healthy life.

Screw the bad science surrounding AIDS...Ignore the death filled outcome. Your not going to die for a very long time if you take better care of yourself.”

Thanks a good post.
You are quite right about the quality of nutrition it is certainly the other half of the treatment that we provide. However despite as you say that the pharmaceutical companies bumping up their profits with the ARV’s they are the other essential part of the treatment.

Now then you have obviously never been to Africa, and I admit neither have I but I work very closely with missionaries and priests that have. As you say malnutrition will not help but to be infected with HIV it needs to enter the blood stream and this is most common there through SEX.

I would agree that you need more than one positive test as with all things. However if antibodies are present after a few tests then you are positive.

Certainly I am with you on the Green front. But don’t reject the ARV’s they will save your life in combination with a healthy lifestyle, I agree a healthy lifestyle will help with out the ARV’s but for sure you will live a lot longer with them.

Originally posted by MAC269
After being diagnosed.

The main reason HIV is spread is though SEX, this is a fact.

The idea of abstinence is just not going to work, fact.

Condom use is good protection but people do not like using them, in most cases fact.

You can not tell if a person is HIV positive for at least 5 years after infection by looking at them, fact.

Many people living with HIV have unprotected SEX anyway and don’t tell the potential sexual partner, fact.

I am not suggestion that they be tattooed across there forehead. A small tattoo in any area that will be hidden even on the beach that will be seen prior too the sexual act will do nicely.

I have many answers but let’s see what people post on this subject first; I am calling for a first class discussion that I believe the law makes should be debating.

Even without addressing the ethical and political aspects, this is a dumb idea for two reasons.
1. Wouldn't using the tattoo needles put the tattoo artist at risk?
2. Anyone who would have sex with a stranger is not too smart anyway, so what good would another government program do?

Originally posted by MAC269
After being diagnosed.

The main reason HIV is spread is though SEX, this is a fact.

The idea of abstinence is just not going to work, fact.

Condom use is good protection but people do not like using them, in most cases fact.

You can not tell if a person is HIV positive for at least 5 years after infection by looking at them, fact.

Many people living with HIV have unprotected SEX anyway and don’t tell the potential sexual partner, fact.

I am not suggestion that they be tattooed across there forehead. A small tattoo in any area that will be hidden even on the beach that will be seen prior too the sexual act will do nicely.

I have many answers but let’s see what people post on this subject first; I am calling for a first class discussion that I believe the law makes should be debating.

Not all your "facts" are accurate. Look up "acute infection" - it is a flu-like reaction to exposure to the virus that occurs within a few weeks after exposure. That should raise a red flag in most people to go get tested. And, it certainly doesn't take five years.

Then, you have the issue that the tests are not 100% reliable, so within the billions of people tested, you'd have plenty of false-positives. Then, if it's wrong once, why trust the other tests? And, different viruses can cause positive readings on the tests, and regular hiv- people can have viral loads.

Scary if you ask me. I don't recommend these tests. Also, there is discrimination going on when you are asked what type of sex you had. If we're all at equal risk to getting infected, then whether it was straight or gay or whatever, would not be relevant. There is at least the chance for exploitation, which the governments we know are notorious for.

Your idea sounds like a tool for abuse and more discrimination.

reply to post by CharlesMartel


Dear CharlesMartel

From CharlesMartel “Even without addressing the ethical and political aspects, this is a dumb idea for two reasons.
1. Wouldn't using the tattoo needles put the tattoo artist at risk?
2. Anyone who would have sex with a stranger is not too smart anyway, so what good would another government program do?”

(1) Every time a medical worker nurse doctor or other goes near an HIV positive individual they are at risk. The tattoo artist in this case would come under that banner.
So no more risk that that. Also if my idea works there would be less to tattoo in the future.

(2) Most of the women in are palliative care unit are married women who have only had SEX with there husbands. So sorry but it is not all about strangers you can be infected by a friend.

reply to post by glitchinmymatrix


Dear glitchinmymatrix

From glitchinmymatrix “Not all your "facts" are accurate. Look up "acute infection" - it is a flu-like reaction to exposure to the virus that occurs within a few weeks after exposure. That should raise a red flag in most people to go get tested. And, it certainly doesn't take five years.

Then, you have the issue that the tests are not 100% reliable, so within the billions of people tested, you'd have plenty of false-positives. Then, if it's wrong once, why trust the other tests? And, different viruses can cause positive readings on the tests, and regular hiv- people can have viral loads.

Scary if you ask me. I don't recommend these tests. Also, there is discrimination going on when you are asked what type of sex you had. If we're all at equal risk to getting infected, then whether it was straight or gay or whatever, would not be relevant. There is at least the chance for exploitation, which the governments we know are notorious for.

Your idea sounds like a tool for abuse and more discrimination.”

Yes it is true that within the first few weeks of infection you may feel a little unwell.
This being the case every time you do not feel 100% you should rush off and have a HIV test. I am sure that it doesn’t happen there and it sure as hell doesn’t happen here. In any case it would come back negative if under 90 days for infection.

There are at least three common tests for HIV first is the quick easy and cheap one that tests for Antibodies. I am sure that there have been some false positives with this test. However if there is a positive for this you need two more, CD4 and Viral load. The results of these will confirm or otherwise the original test.

Where I am these people are discriminated against anyway with for instance a blood test before being offered work. That however dose not tells the next person they are going to sleep with.

People with any type of serious STD should be labelled in a way that a potential sex partner can know before sex occurs. It might seem against individual rights, but so is infecting other people with a serious disease. A discreet marker of some sort that can only be seen when the person is fully naked seems like the best way.

To those playing the "Holocaust" card, it is not the same thing. People with AIDS or HIV are a direct danger to any potential sex partners they have. This is a a scientific fact. And this form of tattoo or marking would not be noticeable in anyway unless the person is fully naked.

I believe in individual rights, but prevention is way more effective than any form of treatment or cure.

My first thought was 'this is awful'. But then I thought about it. It's all very well for people to bleat on about individual responsibility but you get instances of people in long marriages who contracted HIV because their partner was unfaithful. You get people who were born with it.
So my second thought is not so much about the rights of the person but about the practicalities of such a measure. People may be unaware and untested. And the fact that they are 'tattooless' could create false confidence. It could also drive sufferers underground - as has been said.

Originally posted by MAC269
reply to post by staple

 

Dear staple

From staple

“Can you imagine being diagnosed with HIV?, imagine telling your friends, your fammily. the stigma alone is surely torture enough. Then imagine having to be tagged for having a disease.

Can you imagine how the tattooed will be treated by the rest of society I think that in order for your idea to work, everyone would need to be on board and that is not going to happen. Someone is going to have to be held down an inked. I am not for that. Forcing harm to another living being is not good for you or them.
I think that people with HIV should take precautions and have open dialog with people they have relationships and contact with. As should everyone else.
I vote no.”

Yes I think you are right everybody or at least a good majority would have to agree.
For reasons I have outlined in the post above I have sever misgivings as well but someone has to do something so give me a better idea.

You misquoted me but it makes no differance. You might not have a popular idea and are getting bashed for it but like you said, untill a better idea comes along...

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Dear Dark Ghost

From Dark Ghost “People with any type of serious STD should be labelled in a way that a potential sex partner can know before sex occurs. It might seem against individual rights, but so is infecting other people with a serious disease. A discreet marker of some sort that can only be seen when the person is fully naked seems like the best way.

To those playing the "Holocaust" card, it is not the same thing. People with AIDS or HIV are a direct danger to any potential sex partners they have. This is a a scientific fact. And this form of tattoo or marking would not be noticeable in anyway unless the person is fully naked.

I believe in individual rights, but prevention is way more effective than any form of treatment or cure.”

Thanks you for seeing my point. However I do not think it necessary for any infection that can be easily cured with a good dose of Antibiotics. Unfortunately HIV con not be cured now or for the foreseeable future. At such a time as there is a cure the tattoo for HIV will become meaningless as every one will have had the magic cure.

reply to post by unicorn1


Dear unicorn1

From unicorn1 “People may be unaware and untested. And the fact that they are 'tattooless' could create false confidence. It could also drive sufferers underground - as has been said.”

People who are unaware and untested are only guilty of homicide were people who know they are positive are guilty of 1st degree murder.

You can not get much more underground than not being tested till you are in the AIDS stage of this sickness.

Indeed there needs to be discussion at government level as too the particulars of this procedure. I sure as hell do not want to be the one making the decisions on this or anything else for that matter. However knowing what I know I felt that it should be aired in a public forum.

One infected person as the possibility of infecting thousands of other.

reply to post by staple


Dear staple

From staple “You misquoted me but it makes no differance. You might not have a popular idea and are getting bashed for it but like you said, untill a better idea comes along...”

I fully expected to be unpopular with this thread but I am the one who is up to his neck in these cases. I watch the adults die sometimes 2 or 3 a week.

I feel that just keeping my mouth shut is the wrong thing to do. No more can be done for the dead so keep the living uninfected.

reply to post by MAC269


I know this thread has died in the past couple of days, but after reading through I'd really like to convince you MAC, against your idea.

I think your intentions are all positive, and all about ending the suffering a devastating disease causes world wide.

I imagine too, that most people infected wouldn't mind getting a tattoo if it meant preventing the disease spreading, except those with ill intentions.

And thats what it's all about right? stopping people who deliberately infect others? Sure, there would be many sufferers who wouldn't deliberately infect anyone, but for some it is a concealed weapon, upon which they must discharge in order to fulfill their sexual desires, or out of their own malice.


So I think we can say, that if no sufferers of HIV commited these acts then the tattoos would not be necessary, so rather than the infection being the determinant of a marker, rather its the actions of a few/some/many infected people.

Lets take a look at another analagy. If say a person buys a knife, they may use it as a weapon, either to rape for their sexual desires or kill out of their own maliciousness, now we know not everyone who owns knives actually do this, but some do. Now to quell this devastating epidemic of suffering as the result of knife wielding maniacs we could perhaps introduce a marker, so that people may be able to identify knife owners before allowing themselves into a vulnerable position with them. perhaps a tattoo..?I'm sure most knife owners would be more than happy to mark themselves to try and help the suffering that some knife wielders inflict.

okay so perhaps it could be argued there are some holes in the analagy, for instance sex is consentual and the crime is the concealment of the infection. however i could still apply the analagy wherein :

the HIV problem: concenting to sex is not concenting to infection
the knife analagy: concenting a knife owner entrance to your home is not concenting to be stabbed

we could probably come up with many analagies trying to correlate your proposition to other scenarios but I think you would still argue the point, down to the semantic differences of HIV infections to the hypotheticals.

At least for the moment though I hope you can see why many think your idea is preposterous. The reason that you see the knife scenario to be ridiculously draconian, is exactly the same way your opponents here see your proposition.

reply to post by countercounterculture


Dear countercounterculture

Thank you for coming back and presenting your point.

However I have to argue this, someone who owns a knife or a gun for that matter if they use it to injure or kill will have an army of law enforcement people tracking them down in order to stop them committing further crime. This is as it should be.

However someone with HIV can commit a crime equally devastating too not just one but hundreds or even thousands and no one is even looking for them.

Before writhing these quaintly off as ridicules consider one infected SEX WORKER.

How many clients can they infect in a 5 year period???

Hi all, I've read this thread & have something to share with you which happened in my part of the country ( State of Victoria, Australia ) & submit it as proof that this does actually happen & people ARE still careless. Not only that, but this bloke actually infected 8 women in the same area, knowingly. I am still trying to find a live link to the story, which was actually huge at the time it broke.

This guy was a convicted offender & in his case I believe there should be some sort of "mark" which instantly shows him to be a HIV carrier PLUS a person who has been convicted of crimes relating to the knowing spread of the disease.

In the case of people with HIV, I think that if they are innocently going about their daily lives in a productive manner, not willfully & knowingly spreading the disease, then leave them the hell alone----they deserve their privacy, just as the rest of us do.

Anyway, read this!!

www.theage.com.au...

Having to get a tattoo on your sexual organ area would definitely work in immediately dramatically decreasing the infection rate. If you are about to have sex with someone and see the tattoo, you aren't gonna want to even have protected sex with that person. But of course this idea is so controversial and sounds awful. I knew of someone who had herpes but still had unprotected sex with others without disclosing his condition to them. People are gonna have unprotected sex no matter what.
This idea would immediately stop the spread of HIV, however controversial it may sound.

reply to post by gsuboy


Dear gsuboy

From what you say you have seen the effects of either intentional infection or indeed the lack of care for other first hand. In the news lately there have also been cases of what can only be described as grievous bodily harm or indeed attempted murder.

I very well know that too tattoo a person living with HIV against there will is an infringement of there human rights. Naturally this is where the people who are apposed to this proposal come from.

However what about the human rights of every body else??