It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Namibia HIV women sue over forced sterilisation

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Namibia HIV women sue over forced sterilisation


news.bbc.co.uk

Three women in Namibia are suing the state for allegedly being sterilised without their informed consent after being diagnosed as HIV positive.

The women say the doctors and nurses should have informed them properly about what was happening.

The rights group representing them, the Legal Assistance Centre, says it has documented 15 cases of alleged HIV sterilisation in hospitals since 2008.

A march in their support is taking place in Windhoek as the case begins.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.upi.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Pro & Con of Eugenics




posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
There has been talk about this before. As far as recent history goes you could take it back to Nazi Germany. This ties in with eugenics. The word comes from Greek meaning good born. Simple put it is selective breeding. In a world of material goods and economies that run on money, it also means weeding out those who are not of good stock. Hence the source article, those with HIV, or perhaps the blind, retarded, ect..... Not necessarily a pretty picture, but this was not the first case, and it wont be the last.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Not sure if you were intent on making the distinction or not, but for the record the eugenics movement didnt really take off till it came to the U.S. in the earlay 1880's. By and large it didnt publicly "grind to a halt" till the '60's.

Not sure if it can still be found or not but I remember reading an interesting article a few years back tracing the eugenics movement beginning with Galton, and bringing it into present day america, with the people who run among other things, the FDA, and the WHO.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Do these females never think about the kids?

Enough said.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
This is a hot topic for sure! One one hand their human rights have been abused by being sterilized without consent but on the other hand, would these women want to risk having an AIDS baby?

IRM



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
This is a hot topic for sure! One one hand their human rights have been abused by being sterilized without consent but on the other hand, would these women want to risk having an AIDS baby?

IRM


They should have been able to make the choice themselves.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
This is a hot topic for sure!


Thanks to everyone for posting


I agree this is a hot topic, however it does not seem like it is drawing to much attenchen here at this point.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


You're up against one of the hottest debated topics in years here ATM. Does the word Flotilla ring any bells. It's a great thread man. Just a shame it will be overshadowed by all the tension in the ME.

IRM



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Firefly_

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
This is a hot topic for sure! One one hand their human rights have been abused by being sterilized without consent but on the other hand, would these women want to risk having an AIDS baby?

IRM


They should have been able to make the choice themselves.


I wasn't implying otherwise. I simply asked if they would wish to risk having an AIDS baby. Nowhere in my previous comment have I denied their 'rights' to give birth to what is essentially a terminally ill child with little to no quality of life. Would you risk it?

IRM



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 

Although the chance of having an HIV-positive baby remains, with ARVs that chance becomes slim. Fortunately in Namibia and SA Nevirapine and other ARVs for pregnant, and even breatfeeding women, has been won (in SA after a long struggle with Mbeki's denialist policies). Sad to see though that funding is waning internationally.
The right to be fertile and have children is encouraged by culture and most religions. In the predominantly heterosexual pandemic in southern Africa, the very expectation of procreation is spreading HIV.
Let the churches allow and encourage condom use, before sterilization (or forced mutilation) becomes any kind of common practise.
In the ethnically tense mileu of Africa there could well be tribalism and ulterior motives involved.
I've even heard of HIV-positive couples (who can afford it) using "sperm washing" to have children. so with modern medication HIV is neither a death sentence nor a "sterility sentence".
The issue does open a slippery slope - diabetes, heart disease or Taysach syndrome are common amongst some ethnic groups - does that mean that they too should be sterilized?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
This is a hot topic for sure! One one hand their human rights have been abused by being sterilized without consent but on the other hand, would these women want to risk having an AIDS baby?

IRM

It would make more sense to give them anti-virals to prevent the fetus getting infected. There are proven treatments available.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Im not too suprised. I wonder if this ties in with the elitist goal of reducing world population?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
They should have been able to make the choice themselves.

I agree they should have been able to make the choice themselves.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by The Wandering Spirit]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Forget about if the baby will be born with Aids or not.

Lets say it isnt, then who will take care of the child once the mother dies from her disease, or even soon when she becomes to weak to care for the child?

Society? The Govt? Their limited supply of resources to be used for bringing up motherless children?

I mean in some cases it could be a grandparent or something but still what if thats not an option?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan


You're up against one of the hottest debated topics in years here ATM. Does the word Flotilla ring any bells.


I am guessing you are referring to the flotilla that was attacked by Israel off the west bank coast?

And it seems there has been some debatable comments hear on this thread. Who will care for the ill against reproductive rights.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Desolate Cancer
 

The problem of Aids orphans remains significant.
Most of this has been the result of governmental denialism, or incompetency, rather than resources or funding.
The southern African countries (except Zimbabawe) are middle income countries and should be able to provide free ARVs.
In the Khayelitsha township studies the length of frontline drug success is astounding, and women are still alive after 12 years on ARVs, and several have put children through school and even university.
At first the West was skeptical about African ARV treatment, claiming problems with timekeeping and refrigeration and so forth. However so far it is a astounding success, and with the aid of NGO, local self-help organizations and governmental will, the occurance of Aids orphans can be totally erased.

One major stumbling block to treatment is HIV-stigma, and sterilizing positive women is a result of that stigma, and it reinforces this.
Groups like Medicins sans Frontiers run highly successful treatment programs even in the most rural areas, where positive women continue to work and raise children.
The only impediment is politics, and it is worrying news to hear this from Namibia.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman

In the Khayelitsha township studies the length of frontline drug success is astounding, and women are still alive after 12 years on ARVs,



Twelve years on ARV drugs. Aside from being astounding I can picture the drug companies twiddling there bonny fingers with a tooth filled smirk saying "excellent".

Point being that again comes back to whom is paying for it all?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 

Twelve years is not that astounding time-wise, many people who started ARV treatment when it first became available around 1996 are still doing well. At that time they had to finance their own treatment, which was not available to the poor (except some pilot studies) until activism vastly reduced the prices and challenged patent rights (some countries began producing their own ARVs).
It is astounding in the sense that some experts were skeptical that treatment compliance was possible under the living conditions in African townships, and that a small selection of ARVs could remain effective for so long (secondary ARV treatments in the case of viral mutation is not freely available in public health sectors). The people who can pay and are employed do pay for the now affordable treatments. Whatever the cost, it is better to have living parents than the higher cost of Aids orphans.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Firefly_

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
This is a hot topic for sure! One one hand their human rights have been abused by being sterilized without consent but on the other hand, would these women want to risk having an AIDS baby?

IRM


They should have been able to make the choice themselves.


i think i've seen enough "choice" to allow the government some leeway when they want to sterilize people. i think this is a great idea and should be used liberally.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
The people who can pay and are employed do pay for the now affordable treatments. Whatever the cost, it is better to have living parents than the higher cost of Aids orphans.



Halfoldman
you are speaking like a drug company representative.
That being aside though I am glad the drugs are working.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join