Testing AIDS Drugs on Unwitting Foster Children

Post Reply New Topic

So Sean, you are an anti-semite (see the Jesus was an Aspie post) and you have no compassion for people who are suffering from HIV/AIDS through no fault of their own. HMMMM.

At least he's honest.

Sean, you think that a person who is as good as dead anyway should die to save other people's lives, correct? Interesting. So then what is your stance on stem cell research?

AIDS and HIV is a serious problem. But with proper care, people with the disease can live meaningful lives albeit short ones. Since there is no cure yet, if people don't want the virus to spread, they need to be responsible for protecting themselves.

I'm not anti-semetic (I'm 1/16th jewish), I was refering to the fact that the Roman occupatin was not a high point for Jewish culture in the "Jesus was an Aspie" post, I do have compassion, albeit little, and find that it is best reserved for people that can be helped.

The civilized Christian conservatives tried to make AIDS a public health issue in the early '80s to avoid this mess in the first place.

When it comes to AIDS research and Stem Cell Research, the only connection is that people are playing God. The precedents are now set and we have to deal with problems human minds were never intended to address.


In a little bit more ideal world, that would suffice. However, wreckless negligence and blatant stupidity account for the vast majority of new infectons that otherwose would not have occured, not blood transfusions.

Sean, could you just satisfy my curiosity on the following:

Where's the cut-off point? Where does your god require you stop thinking and addressing problems? You seem to think we've stepped over the mark, so when did that occur? Was it the stem cell thing, penicillin or the wheel?

Sorry if that's a bit tangential, but I'd really like to know.

They did the same thing with smallpox at the Tuskegee* institute a long time ago. What makes you think that people would ever learn better.

*Probably spelled wrong. Deal with it.

What does this have to do with politics or philosophy anyway?

I am not sure you understood what I meant. What I am saying is rather than harm people who are already infected, how about you be responsible for yourself? If you don't want the virus then you need to be the one who is smart and protect yourself.

Protecting yourself from identifiable risks is a good start. But there's always the risk from someone with a cut on their finger and doesn't realize it, improperly cleaned up blood or other bodily fluids from an accident, or even two people making out that both have sores in their mouth. The first recorded case of that happening was in Riverside, CA. These problems will be compunded if the strain subtype AE becomes more common in america since that strain is transmittable in more body fluids. There needs to be better ways to hold them accountable for the risk they create when they are out in society and names of patients need to be forwarded to agencies that may come into contact with their body fluids to help prevent transmission.

I better add, many of you may be angry about my comments and I may disapprove of some member's lifestyles, but please keep the disagreements confined to this forum.

Well, if you're going to stand in judgement Sean, at least have the courtesy to answer questions directed at you.

You'd love it over here. We've got TB, hepatitis and methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureas lurking under every hospital bed. And not a hint of moral depravity to be seen... you'd be so pleased Sean. .

You know, for the risk averse, best policy is not to leave the house.

I know people who are HIV possitive who are living long productive lives with the help of medication and council. I was a teen in the 70's it was all about sex,drugs and rock and roll. Nothing sacred, ok the 80's,sex, drugs and disco. Few people felt selfcontrol was necessary..."If it feels good do it"type of mentality. When I decided not to live that life style, well, another reason to find me strange...go figure. But I rmember someone saying that do to the carelessness of "Oh well if I get an STD I'll just take an antibiotic and I'll be fine"that some day a disease is going to crop up that is going to be so terrible that no antibiotic will work it wil become immuned. I never thought of aides. I also know a person who when he got a divorce he did something stupid and had a one night stand...something he never did before.And was appauled at himself, never did that again. He died of aides a few years later. I remember him saying "I can't believe this, I only did this once and it's going to kill me." How sad that one mistake cost him so dearly. Another friend of mine as he was dying it was a strict,conservative church that bathed and fed him and took care of him.The issue of him being gay was not their concerne, someone needed them and they made themselves available, he didn't have anyone else, I and my husband lived an hour away. And we did not turn on him when we found out he had aides...oh no, but his liberal friends did.They stopped visiting him. Ok so with all this I say, education and morals go along way. Loyalty and taking sex a beautiful thing, more seriously. Not just bouncing from partner to partner. Addicts should not be allowed to keep their children unless they stay sober for at least 2 years. Making help readidly available to those who need it. Prosecuting people for attempted murder and then murder who knowingly spread aides. And for petes sake,doing everything we can to give a person dignity in the face of this disease. Expecally the ones who are inoccent victims,children, rape victims tainted blood transfusion.They diserve everything our government wastes, and instead spends on nonsense to go towards a cure and care for them. Children in the system who are ill are once again....being denied what they should have because our country would rather them just die off.They didn't diserve this, and I would not wish this disease on anyone, regardless of their lifestyles or how they got it.

OK, I like the idea of this approach, but it only works for those that will take percautions to avoid transmitting it to others, but what about those who are careless or even apathetic? Some sort of drastic measures still need to be taken against them if there will ever be any hope of letting the disease die off (cure or no cure) and have the total number of patients start decreasing. You can give the people who have learned to be careful the hard way the best possible quality of life, but punishing those who spread it around is still stopping them after the fact and creates more cases. There would also need to be a law requiring the patient to inform anyone at risk of infection of the disease before sexual intercourse or in the event bodily fluids are spilled.

Paula, I'd like to hear more of your approach to the problem. If there's a better solution, then I'm all for it.