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.

 

Should a doctor sterilize an unmarred teenage who is living successfully with HIV on the birth of he

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
While what the doctor did may be illegal, immoral or unethical ... it IS gutsy and took "Common Sense"!

What the mother did was close to premeditated murder. Getting PG while having HIV is also illegal, immoral and unethical. She should have waited until there was a cure for HIV and AIDES. She could have dedicated her life to working toward the cures.

Tubes CAN be re-connected later.

Two wrongs don't make a right ... but in this case, I'd side with the doctor.




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I think the doctor did the right thing. He should do it more often.
This girl is irresponsible and should not be having babies.
This area is one that seriously needs population reduction.
The poor would not be so poor if they would quit having so many children.

ualRedneck. cutting the tubes has NOTHING to do with the production of estrogen.


edit on 6-5-2012 by OhZone because: added thought



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
reply to post by aboutface
 


This girl is 19 and not a friend but one of the children that was saved by this Catholic organization.

She returned to the center after she had chosen to leave 4 months pregnant not knowing who the father is or at least that is what she said.


Doesn't know who the father is? So she sleeps around, right? Sounds pretty dangerous to me.

The thing is, this is Thailand, not the US, not Canada. Frankly I have no idea what "rights" Thai citizens have compared to the rest of the world. It's a different culture and what we think is "right" may not be there.

Actually, I think we are caught between a rock and a hard place on issues like this. On the one hand we are angrily told that we should not attempt to foist our values on the rest of the world. We're just completely ethnocentric and all that. But if we "do business" like the rest of the world typically doies, complete with bribes and corruption, then we're told THAT is wrong. We really can't win.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Trexter Ziam
 

Getting pregnant while HIV-positive is not illegal.

As often happens here, the mother probably only discovered her HIV-status during pregnancy.

Why not bring in all the possible positive fathers to to be sterilized and castrated?
They're probably still happily spreading it.
It's sexist and misogynistic.

edit on 6-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
reply to post by aboutface
 


Dear aboutface

Ok a bit more explanation is needed here.

I am English but I live in Thailand and volunteer every day at an Orphanage for children living with HIV/AIDS. I have done this for now over 6 years.

This girl is 19 and not a friend but one of the children that was saved by this Catholic organization.

She returned to the center after she had chosen to leave 4 months pregnant not knowing who the father is or at least that is what she said.

Since the birth and sterilization she has left the center again bring yet a further burden on the center and its supporters.

Without this sterilization she would doubtless do the same thing again. My opinion of her is she is taking the piss, the orphanage saved her life and now she intends to do what she likes regardless of obligation.

However law what ever it may be here don’t excuse the doctors action in my opinion.


Having been saved by a Catholic organization, would it be fair to say that condom use was discouraged during her stay there? I'm not Catholic but I believe birth control is strongly discouraged within the faith. However, since condoms can curtail the transmission of HIV, I'm wondering how prepared she was to deal with the transmission of an STD.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
reply to post by reitze
 

Dear Reitze
Do yourself a real big favor, go to your nearest AIDS hospice and ask this question.
It may well save your life.
If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS then what does?
Also ARV’s save the lives of AIDS suffers.


No thanks. BTW, like the video explains there are lots of causes of the "AIDS" symptoms, especially drug use. Its also a well known side effect of cancer and cancer treatment - which happened to a deer friend.


Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by reitze
 

House of Numbers was a load of bull (en.wikipedia.org...).
www.houseofnumbers.org...
Considering a tragic and avoidable death that was hardly acknowledged, massive scientific withdrawals, and obvious blunders (like holding clearly positive test results that were claimed to be negative) it was probably the worst thing to happen to AIDS denialism is ages.

edit on 6-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


While you may not like or appreciate the movie, I PERSONALLY FIND IT MORE CREDIBLE than the PROPAGANDA that seems so common place. While you point a site that updates a couple of anecdotes - the HIV tests and other aspects of the whole industry seem rife with $-driven PROPAGANDA without serious answers to the primary thesis explained in the movie. And skipping the tab on the link you shared is revealing - pointing to a "consensus" of scientists is completely false - instead that's propaganda - to treat 'science' as though its a popularity contest. The truth isn't about that, but drug sales and doctor services are. After all that's why we have a war on Pakistan (for OPIUM, the most popular of medications), and Mexico (for prohibition of MJ which actually does cure Cancer and symptoms of compromised immune systems).

in contrast, AZT like Radiation and other cancer medications actually causes cancer and AIDS.

But hay go ahead and believe the lies - its your life, or death.

edit on 5/7/2012 by reitze because: sp



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by chasingbrahman
 


Dear chasingbrahman

In 2006 our founding Italian priest attended the Toronto AIDS conference.

While there is saw a device that was much like a scientific manipulation booth with the rubber gloves inside a plastic cabinet. Only this one you could not see through. In the center that was invisible from outside there was a big green dick. The idea being that people could learn the skill of installing a condom in the dark.

So in short the answer is no condom use is encouraged at our center. Even the Pope has changed his mind about condom use to prevent HIV.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Whether she would have repeated this is irrelevant. Performing any medical procedure of any kind without the consent of the person in question is a violation of both human rights and ethics regardless of the mental/physical health of that person or any other factors (e.g economic status, race, religion, etc.).



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Pearl1970
 


Dear Pearl1970

Do you want to pay for her second, third, four, and fifth, baby?

Because as a charitable institution we and our supporters will have too.

That is the reality of this particular situation.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 

If you find a movie credible when most of the scientists (except what remains of the denialists www.aidstruth.org...) claim they have been falsely represented and quoted out of context, then enjoy.

In SA we've had that kind of nonsense as an official state policy that was pushing "vitamin entrepreneurs" and diet cures for a decade, and it's absolutely living in denial while people are dying.

Just because big pharma made $ does not mean the science is wrong, and there were many ways to oppose them and supply medicines.

But as you say, it's my life, and you believe what you like.

Incidentally, medical marijuana is recognized as a therapeutic aid in HIV/AIDS treatment by many scientific papers, and it is the AIDS denialists who pushed it as a cause of AIDS (along with poppers, alcohol and easily recognizable conditions like syphilis).
See for example this discussion on ATS:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

They want to sell us over-priced chemically manufactured "vitamin pills" and "immune boosting" potions with no scientific studies whatsoever, and all for big cash.

Their alternative causes for AIDS are unclear and could include anything that takes their fancy. Usually it's something moralistic, especially when a self-proclaimed HIV-positive follower of a denialist "guru" inconveniently dies of a typical AIDS-related disease, and then they are insulted by their former cult-leader as dying of a "lifestyle disease" - but fortunately few HIV-positive people are so blind that they would still die for one of these quack egomaniacs. www.aidstruth.org...
And yet they've never done more than a faith healing show, and they've never provided a cure or provided a real treatment that causes a dramatic turn-around in an AIDS patient, such as the "lazarus effect" - unlike ARVS.
Due to ARVS the AIDS memoir as a narrative of dying has been a thing of the past, and since 1996 HAART has enabled the survival and productive lives and testimonies of millions of people.

We should fight big pharma to get an equal distribution of medicines, instead of trying to wish away the obvious and proven.
Yes, medicines have side-effects, especially in a research phase, but in SA court cases have proven that for people with AIDS the denialists had no singular cause or cure, and they actually killed people.
But then again the last I heard since the denialist circus left SA around 2008, Rath had taken his con to the US and Russia (with his connections to Rasnick en.wikipedia.org... and via him to Deusberg), so have fun believing dated canards and outright lies.
edit on 8-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
However should the doctor be allowed to sterilize with out consent or even discussion?

edit on 3-5-2012 by MAC269 because: spelling


No the doc. is not GOD
its a moral issue.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Denialist? Well I DOUBT the mainstrem big pharma paid PROPEGANDA. And as you seem to recognize there are many known causes of AIDS symptoms such as drug abuse and malnutrition.

So all I've said is I DOUBT the PROPAGANA since the essential science is not open-sourced for the public. Instead we public get bullied by "scientists agree" - very similar to global warming "scientists" paid by CO2 tax advocates while the real scientist (TRUTH seekers) get treated VERY badly. And it can be related to 50 years of nuclear energy being called "safe" and then we find out "elevated fuel polls" that go critical w/o power - like FUKUSHIMA.

It takes BALLS to go against the big pharma or big financial forces - and scientists who do get LABELED - as "denialists" - when in reality they're simply saying the scientific matter is not adequately PROVEN - and the debate is reduced to anecdotes that don't actually prove anything other than people get emotional about it all.

Sure SA has had issues with snake-oil-salesmen. So has the USA - and that's why we originally got an FDA. Sadly though the FDA has become a branch of the corporate global elite and the World Health Organization is going the same way. Funny they minimize the deaths associated with Chernobyl too. They say 4K, Greenpeace says 1M, but of course "nobody knows for sure" - and if the real truth were told it could be even higher since the fallout is global, not just the locals they could "assuredly justify" counting.

So like it or not, what you call DENIALISM is actually more SCIENTIFIC than PROPAGANDA. And if the big pharma corps, govts, and others really did have the truth on their side their answers to questions like Deusbergs would be a whole lot better than a bunch of anecdotes. There would be statistically controlled demonstrated results. But instead there are MANY corrupting aspects to the statistics, such as SA high starvation rates.

So I hope that may help you realize "DENIALISM" is just another label by PROPAGANDA forces. Nazi style.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 

Nope, there are not many causes of AIDS apart from HIV.
There may be other immune related problems, but AIDS is typical of the final stage of HIV.
There never was starvation in SA in the 20th century.
All the issues in the documentary have long been addressed, and the denialists just pretend the information isn't out there, and easily accessible, which seems pretty impressive to some people and creates the false impression of major scientific disagreements that don't exist.
Indeed, it is the denialists who have major disagreements amongst themselves.
However, the people who believe these things would call peer-reviewed science "PROPAGANDA", so there's not much point in arguing and going off topic any further.
Fortunately most of them are far away from people with AIDS, and will admittedly never enter an AIDS hospice.

Debates and conspiracies about climate change and many other issues shouldn't be confused with AIDS.
Apart from the scientific proof, there are countless testimonies of people affected and infected with HIV, and treatment success stories since 1996 - but they've probably all been paid off too by big pharma.
I mean, jeez, it has the money to pay off the entire global scientific and medical community except for 3000 denialists (at least a few of whom are actually scientists)!

But hey, if HIV/AIDS in one piece in your big conspiracy puzzle then that's fine.
It's just another indictment against the denialists who crave scientific recognition, just like the badly made and deliberately misleading documentary.
It was probably sponsored by big pharma.
There's nothing wrong with a conspiratorial world-view, as long as that's the admitted discourse, and it doesn't attempt to be something else.



edit on 9-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
This is a tough one. It is a strange thought there are doctors who go around performing sterilizations without consent, i just hope there aren´t many of them. However in this particular case i think he made a wise decision. On one side we have human rights of One woman but on the other side there are rights of her newborn and potentially (probable?) more baby´s, partners etc. If we could ask a baby if it wanted to be born into HIV positive mother, a possible HIV infection themselves and a miserable life in an orphanage i think the answer would be ´hell naw´



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 

Would it be a human right violation if their was a cure for Aids and many other conditions, but were held back from public use because big pharma couldnt get a patent on them because they were cheap and easily available? Diseases like AIDS Arthritis, and diabetes, not to mention Cancer. The fact that this is well realised on say the part of Monsanto whos mission is to geneticaly alter a gene in a plant ...then get a patent and call it their own?. Just a thought but it might be worth an AIDS suffer to check out the Aids section in "Earth Clinic" and find out what Collodal silver does to the Aids Virus. Then the woman who had her tubes tied might get an even break.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


If you're really as knowledgeable as you claim you should start a thread to end the doubts of those you call "denialists" once and for all - the movie could provide you with a good outline of what to PROVE. I get the impression you can easily point to double blind statistical proofs rather than pathologies that maybe just correlations. If so it would be more interesting than the anecdotal site you pointed to previously. So far you simply seem to project a "Dr says so its true" attitude, backed up with "most people say so its true and you're dumb". IF that's really how you feel why bother with ATS?

You seem to believe in sterilizing the teen... or would you prefer he be executed for the safety of others? Obviously we see things differently.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I am on the fence.

On one hand, it is completely unethical to bring a child infected with HIV into this world, and forced sterilisation may be justified to prevent this.

On the other hand, the risk of infection is on the order of a 1-2 %, so it is not very high, and who knows, there may be a cure for HIV discovered in the future.

We should also take into account that tubal ligation can usualy be reversed and in-vitro fertilisation is still an option. So its not like she cannot have children in the future.
edit on 9/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/5/12 by Maslo because: typos



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


Fallopian tubes are not needed for estrogen production, they're only for transporting the egg to the uterus. Women can still produce all the estrogen they need even if they've had a hysterectomy, so long as the ovaries are left intact. They will continue to produce follicles until menopause, releasing the eggs into the abdominal cavity where they are reabsorbed. A women's endocrine system produces FSH, which promotes follicle growth, which in turn produces estrogen from the developing follicles.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 

I was clearly and strongly against sterilizing the teen in this thread.

You brought up AIDS denialism, so you can start a thread if you like, and include the documentary with its anecdotes. It just ends up with people shouting "PROPAGANDA" at scientific truths, so I'm not sure what another thread on the topic will accomplish.

Nowhere did I say anybody was dumb.

Where's the proof from the scientific community that anything in the documnetary is true?
Oh no Aids denialist says there is still major medical disagreement on AIDS; HIV tests don't work; AIDS in Africa is actually just poverty and amongst gays in the US it's poppers - and if you disbelieve any of the nonsense you are just dumb. Mr AIDS denialist says HIV does not cause AIDS, and probably doesn't even exist (depending on which denialist you ask, they're not agreed on the existence of HIV) - and if you don't believe it you're dumb or a shill for big pharma.

Just because people don't follow every quack that comes along does not mean they don't belong on ATS, and people who push fake remedies and pie-in-the-sky theories may very well have a conspiracy of their own.

edit on 9-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by reitze
 

You brought up AIDS denialism, ...
Nowhere did I say anybody was dumb.
... nonsense you are just dumb. ... if you don't believe it you're dumb or a shill for big pharma.
...


I didn't bring up denialism, you did. What I mentioned was scientific doubt - in contrast with politics.

And you just called me dumb for it. Obviously that's annoying
- and diverted what I said into a personal attack rather than going back to the HIV sterilization issue
. At least that post said you're against sterilizing the kid but that doesn't seem to logically follow from you're certainty about an HIV cause. In fact your expoused certainty of that concept could be construed into surmizing you'd have the kid quarenteened or executed to avoid infection of others.

But nice try calling me dumb.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join