its not. it doesnt matter either way in the case of heroin addicts.

[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 11:01 PM. Reason : 2234]

7/14/2006 11:01:19 PM

Quote :

"Once again, AIDS activists somehow think that if you don't know your status, then you're not really infected."

Excoriator has a point here. It's really fucking stupid to use "we can't take care of the new cases that this will discover" as an excuse for preventing testing of people. Like it really makes a fucking difference if we can care for them or not. If they've got it, they've fucking got it. Are there assholes out there that might go on continuing to spread the disease even if they know they've got it? Sure. But, there are also conscientious people out there who WILL take steps to prevent spreading HIV if they know they've got it.

Personally, I'd rather hurt a few feelings and bank on those conscientious people out there, because either way, the assholes are still spreading it, whether they get tested or not.

Do the new cases need care? Of course they do. So, go fight that battle instead of making the problem WORSE.

7/14/2006 11:24:47 PM

youd get more false positives then cases prevented. that makes universal testing immoral.

now, youre trying to justify testing becuase it ultimately would result in fewer HIV cases.

but this testing would cost billions; money can be spent in other areas, like education/research, that more effectively prevent HIV transmission per dollar.

[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 11:34 PM. Reason : 234]

7/14/2006 11:32:42 PM

Quote :

"youd get more false positives then cases prevented. that makes universal testing immoral."

lol

7/15/2006 9:53:13 AM

Quote :

"lol"

lol

[Edited on July 15, 2006 at 10:03 AM. Reason : LOL HAHHHHAHAHHAHAHAH .... AHAHAHAHAHAH]

7/15/2006 10:03:31 AM

^^^ Isn't that an agument for better testing then not less testing?

7/15/2006 11:09:12 AM

yes, i clearly said the money is better spent on research.

7/15/2006 12:06:14 PM

Quote :

"Excoriator: ^ well according to bridget and most other aids activists, its "because then they might feel bad""

I never said that. I said this:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: There are HIV activists who specialize in HIV/AIDS, and they are worried about government involvement in expanded AIDS testing mainly because they see this as a step towards the elimination of informed consent and medical privacy. They are also concerned about the "stigma," but that is rooted in the idea that many doctors are unprepared to counsel and educate individuals. There are also biased doctors out there who, upon diagnosis, would think, "I always knew you were a fag" or "GG, addict" or "Not such a Casanova anymore, huh." Unprepared and biased doctors should not be "urged" by the government to get involved with AIDS/HIV patients."

Do you or do you not agree with the idea that unprepared or biased doctors should not be "urged" by the government to get involved with AIDS/HIV patients?

7/16/2006 7:55:11 AM

8===D

7/16/2006 8:29:52 AM

^^ I do believe that universal testing should be urged by the government. Will there be some bad doctors out there? Yes, there will be. Guess what - they're gonna be out there fuckin shit up no matter what.

How about this - just because some pharmacologists refuse to dispense birth control medication, we should ban the sale of BC so that customers are not offended when their request is denied at the pharmacy. Pretty stupid huh? Ya, so is your stupid idea.

7/16/2006 8:53:15 AM

^BC and this are two entirely different things, by the way.

And I guess we disagree. I don't think the government should be urging bad doctors to get involved with AIDS/HIV patients. That's just me. I might be more concerned if I didn't already know that more people are getting tested without the government having to urge doctors to offer it. I think there are other ways to encourage getting tested that don't include the government urging doctors to offer it.

[Edited on July 16, 2006 at 9:22 AM. Reason : sss]

7/16/2006 9:21:48 AM

your language conflates "government urging" and "government requiring"

of course the government should urge doctors to test for AIDS. you would have a point if the gov. were requiring universal testing, but its not, so you're hoping no one will notice the difference.

7/16/2006 5:19:09 PM

Quote :

"youd get more false positives then cases prevented. that makes universal testing immoral."

ORLY?

I might be totally wrong, but I was under the impression that the problem with HIV testing isn't the amount of false positives, but the number of false NEGATIVES.

7/17/2006 1:56:10 AM

youd be wrong. yes, youd get more false negatives -- but thats not really a huge deal compared to the implications of a false positive

[Edited on July 17, 2006 at 1:59 AM. Reason : 243]

7/17/2006 1:58:56 AM

Quote :

"Excoriator: your language conflates "government urging" and "government requiring" of course the government should urge doctors to test for AIDS. you would have a point if the gov. were requiring universal testing, but its not, so you're hoping no one will notice the difference."

For starters, I'm not hoping people won't see the difference. I've repeatedly used the word "urge."

And, by the way, folks, I think we should look into the language of the law.

When they say "urge doctors to offer," do they mean, "urge doctors to verbally offer it to patients" or "urge doctors to offer it," as in include it in their available services?

[Edited on July 17, 2006 at 9:07 AM. Reason : sss]

7/17/2006 9:07:03 AM