Should people with AIDS be allowed to have children?

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

There is nothing hysterical about. I have said at least 4 times that I *know* it is illegal for someone to sleep with an uninfected partner and not inform them - read the thread.

Yes it is hysterical. Look. What's your point? Really? Everything you're arguing is utterly moot and classic 'knee jerk popular Sun newspaper' opinion.

Lets look at what you said.

This is regarded as unacceptable because the person is being put at risk unaware of the danger.

This qualifies above "being put at risk" and moves into the area of wilful attempt to cause some form of bodily harm rather than simply putting someone at "risk".

Syringe attacks, assault with deliberate exchange of infected bodily fluid, deliberate sexual activity (either adult or child) - all governed under existing leglisation.

What I have argued here, repeatedly, is that the same criteria should be applied to children.

It is. Assault or paedophilia.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me why it is illegal to place an *adult* at risk but not a child.

See above.

Now - if you're discussing the unborn - exactly how the f*ck do you propose stopping people carrying out sexual activity? Forced castration? Forced sterilisation? Imprisonment on the premise that they may attempt to breed at some point in time? Abortion? Last time I checked the Third Reich was toppled over 60 years ago.

Please, enlighten us. You have answered NONE of the above - and that's what you ultimately should be discussing. Every other scenario is covered by existing legislation and is a moot point and trying to discuss such in this context is nothing short of, as I've said for the n'th time, hysterical "wont someone think of the children"-mantra horsesh*t.

Eoghan-psych

Fysh wrote:

So what you're asking for is for children born to parents where one or both parents are HIV positive to have the right to prosecute their parents for giving them HIV? And you don't see how that opens up the possibility of kids suing their parents for giving them inherited diseases? (And yes, you can stop with the "but it can be spread" thing - either you're concerned about the welfare of the child, or you're concerned about the welfare of the population at large. You can't just hop from one to the other depending on which point you're responding to).

No, there should be no possibility of that - HIV+ people should not be permitted to have children. Very simple. I am concerned both for the welfare of children and of society at large - the two are not mutually exclusive, and I only "hop from one to the other" in so far as either is relevant to a specific point.

Fysh wrote:

How can you compare someone knowingly infecting an unaware sexual partner with HIV, to people knowingly having a child when one or both of them are HIV positive? Are you genuinely suggesting that the motives are the same? That the desire to have and care for a child is being completely surpressed and replaced by the urge to spread the virus?

Motives are irrelevant - *wanting* a child to not get infected isn't going to protect them. The only way to prevent a HIV+ child being born is to not get pregnant. Simple. Remember, this thread is about people who *know* they are HIV+ and *still* want to have children. Accidents and ignorance are excluded - we are talking about people who *deliberately* try for a child despite being HIV+.

Fysh wrote:

Children don't have the right you seem to be demanding that they have for *any* condition they get from their parents, regardless of whether it's known about or not. Personally I'd encourage education for people considering it and, if the disease looks like it most likely will be passed on, encourage them to adopt rather than have their own child. But you seem to be demanding that people be forbidden from breeding on the assumption that only someone meeting your stringent definition of "health" can possibly have a happy life.

I don't think there is anything "stringent" about saying HIV is unhealthy.

Eoghan-psych

Lemming wrote:

Yes it is hysterical. Look. What's your point? Really? Everything you're arguing is utterly moot and classic 'knee jerk popular Sun newspaper' opinion.

Tosh. There is nothing hysterical involved in saying those with a communicable disease should not be allowed to pass that disease on to children. Unless you think HIV+ children are somethign desirable? I hope not.

Lemming wrote:

This qualifies above "being put at risk" and moves into the area of wilful attempt to cause some form of bodily harm rather than simply putting someone at "risk".

If you are HIV+, attempting to deliberately have a child qualifies as a wilful attempt - just as it does if you have unprotected sex with a partner. Simple.

There are enough sick children in the world without creating more.

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

No, there should be no possibility of that - HIV+ people should not be permitted to have children.

Once again I am going to ask you how you propose to do that? I'm starting to get sick of repeating myself again and again with no "convenient" sign of an answer.

Very simple. I am concerned both for the welfare of children and of society at large - the two are not mutually exclusive, and I only "hop from one to the other" in so far as either is relevant to a specific point.

Your argument would seem to speak otherwise.

I don't think there is anything "stringent" about saying HIV is unhealthy.

No, but there is to say about a lot of other conditions that are just as serious. Incidentally, technically HIV doesn't kill you. It's more common viruses that then kill you, even common variety "flu".

Eoghan-psych

Lemming wrote:

Once again I am going to ask you how you propose to do that? I'm starting to get sick of repeating myself again and again with no "convenient" sign of an answer.

As stated earlier, I would *like* a society in which people are responsible enough to voluntarily prevent such pregnancies - but that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about people who refuse to do that.

Lemming wrote:

No, but there is to say about a lot of other conditions that are just as serious. Incidentally, technically HIV doesn't kill you. It's more common viruses that then kill you, even common variety "flu".

Absolutely - hence the other thread/s on the matter. This thread, however, deals solely with HIV/AIDS.

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

As stated earlier, I would *like* a society in which people are responsible enough to voluntarily prevent such pregnancies - but that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about people who refuse to do that.

Either answer the question, since it is fundamentally what this entire thread is really about.

Or shut up.

Anything else at this point is pointless, moot, off-topic drivel.

Absolutely - hence the other thread/s on the matter. This thread, however, deals solely with HIV/AIDS.

Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work like that. The issue is a liiiiiiiiiiiittle bit more complex than you would seem to comprehend.

Eoghan-psych

Lemming wrote:

Either answer the question, since it is fundamentally what this entire thread is really about.

Or shut up.

Anything else at this point is pointless, moot, off-topic drivel.

Read the thread - the question has been answered earlier. Here it is again to be sure you see it:

Laud those who voluntarily undergo sterilisation [of whatever form]. Those who refuse, withdraw treatment until they do, or impose sterilisation.

Lemming wrote:

Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work like that. The issue is a liiiiiiiiiiiittle bit more complex than you would seem to comprehend.

It works exactly like that - this thread is about HIV, the other thread is about everything else. Simple. Both threads are active - any point not relating to HIV fits on the other thread.

Fysh

Eoghan-psych wrote:

No, there should be no possibility of that - HIV+ people should not be permitted to have children. Very simple. I am concerned both for the welfare of children and of society at large - the two are not mutually exclusive, and I only "hop from one to the other" in so far as either is relevant to a specific point.

No, when people have brought up the similarity between this and other afflictions which can be inherited, you tried to make the distinction that a family history of cancer/heart disease cannot be spread. Meaning that despite the similarly gloomy outlook for the child, the aspect that allowed you to treat the situations differently was the social aspect. Whereas you constantly claim to care more about the children. (While it comes to that, your constant harping on about children is starting to sound like Mrs Lovejoy...)

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Motives are irrelevant - *wanting* a child to not get infected isn't going to protect them. The only way to prevent a HIV+ child being born is to not get pregnant. Simple. Remember, this thread is about people who *know* they are HIV+ and *still* want to have children. Accidents and ignorance are excluded - we are talking about people who *deliberately* try for a child despite being HIV+.

No, that's the only absolutely guaranteed way. In the same way that abstinence is the only absolutely guaranteed way of not having a children. You've dismissed the medical information here claiming that any chance is too much, despite having previously dismissed the similar case of children at risk of inherited illnesses or tendencies. Frankly, you're not making a great deal of sense, and your attempts to justify your eugenics programme are lacking, to say the least.

I also notice, with some lack of surprise, that you've ignored my question regarding how your arguments might be extended to apply to people with sensory impairments or disabilities....funny, that.

Eoghan-psych

Fysh wrote:

No, when people have brought up the similarity between this and other afflictions which can be inherited, you tried to make the distinction that a family history of cancer/heart disease cannot be spread. Meaning that despite the similarly gloomy outlook for the child, the aspect that allowed you to treat the situations differently was the social aspect. Whereas you constantly claim to care more about the children. (While it comes to that, your constant harping on about children is starting to sound like Mrs Lovejoy...)

Am I the only person here aware that there is a whole other thread on this topic in which that very point is being addressed?

As far as the social vs child - I care about both. .

Fysh wrote:

No, that's the only absolutely guaranteed way. In the same way that abstinence is the only absolutely guaranteed way of not having a children. You've dismissed the medical information here claiming that any chance is too much, despite having previously dismissed the similar case of children at risk of inherited illnesses or tendencies. Frankly, you're not making a great deal of sense, and your attempts to justify your eugenics programme are lacking, to say the least.

It is not a eugenics programme - unless you want to severely torture the notion of eugenics. HIV is a communicable disease. Limiting its spread is not eugenics.

Fysh wrote:

I also notice, with some lack of surprise, that you've ignored my question regarding how your arguments might be extended to apply to people with sensory impairments or disabilities....funny, that.

Again, there is a whole other thread, right here on this board, where this is discussed.

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Am I the only person here aware that there is a whole other thread on this topic in which that very point is being addressed?

No. It's just you not being able to grasp the concept that this issue may not actually be definable in such black or white boundaries.

Oh, and naughty_girl too.

*shock*horror*

As far as the social vs child - I care about both. .

Heh. You'll excuse my viewing that statement with extreme cynicsm. You care about nothing of the sort. Your arguments and blatantly blind continuation of said would speak volumes about the above one sentence, which rings very hollow.

It is not a eugenics programme - unless you want to severely torture the notion of eugenics. HIV is a communicable disease. Limiting its spread is not eugenics.

Hmmm, lets see. Sterilisation (as per your laughably woeful answer to my question) does not prevent the spread of the disease, ergo you are trying to propose eugenics.

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Laud those who voluntarily undergo sterilisation [of whatever form]. Those who refuse, withdraw treatment until they do, or impose sterilisation.

What a laughable suggestion. That is a pathetic attempt at answering the question. Again I will ask YOU to answer the question, and answer it decisively instead of some half-baked attribution to someone elses opinion.

Allow me to refresh your memory as to what that question was:

Now - if you're discussing the unborn - exactly how the f*ck do you propose stopping people carrying out sexual activity? Forced castration? Forced sterilisation? Imprisonment on the premise that they may attempt to breed at some point in time? Abortion?

So you are also, incidentally, overriding ethical medicinal practice based on eugenics. Doctors are sworn to a hypocratic oath. You are asking them to deny patients treatment based on co-ersive tactics in direct conflict with basic human rights.

Further - imposing medical treatment on a coherent, non-consenting person is also in violation of human rights and ethical medicinal practice. This of course does not include the concept of judicial dictate (eg. chemical castration) in certain types of law cases. But a person would have to be tried and convicted of an existing crime for which such actions is warranted in order to do such a thing

Fysh

Yes, it's present in another thread. As are many topics discussed on this board.

That doesn't stop it from being entirely relevant to this thread and your argument in particular. I note that, once again, you've jumped back to the "limiting spread of disease" angle, in order to move away from discussion about other diseases which affect children. Which would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that sterilising people will only prevent them having their own child with HIV, but does not actually prevent those same people from spreading the disease in other ways. As such, it doesn't quite stand up as a disease-limiting measure, frankly.

And I still want to know how many cases of this kind of situation actually come up in the Western world, because frankly I don't think they're all that numerous.

Eoghan-psych

Lemming wrote:

Hmmm, lets see. Sterilisation (as per your laughably woeful answer to my question) does not prevent the spread of the disease, ergo you are trying to propose eugenics.

It *reduces* the spread of both the disease and the social problems associated with it. It is not a silver bullet, nor was it ever proposed as one.

HIV is not an eye colour. It is not a skin tone. It is not an IQ point. It is not, in fact, *any* factor along which the human organism varies.

It is a disease, and it makes people sick.

Attempts to eradicate a disease are not eugenics. Attempts to eradicate 'substandard' human beings - such as short people or blonde people - are eugenics. Attempting to eradicate disease is simply good practice.

Eoghan-psych

Lemming wrote:

What a laughable suggestion. That is a pathetic attempt at answering the question. Again I will ask YOU to answer the question, and answer it decisively instead of some half-baked attribution to someone elses opinion.

Since you want it spelled out in explicit detail:

*I* think those with HIV should be sterilised.

Simple.

That does not detract from their human rights [unless you can point me to the one that reads "humans have a right to inflict disease"?

Eoghan-psych

Fysh wrote:

YWhich would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that sterilising people will only prevent them having their own child with HIV, but does not actually prevent those same people from spreading the disease in other ways. As such, it doesn't quite stand up as a disease-limiting measure, frankly.

In and of itself, no. But then, in and of itself hand-washing doesn't stand up as an attempt to reduce the spread of MRSA - but as part of a multi faceted approach, it does.

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Since you want it spelled out in explicit detail:

*I* think those with HIV should be sterilised.

Simple.

That does not detract from their human rights [unless you can point me to the one that reads "humans have a right to inflict disease"?

And again here we go.....

Sterilised for what? On what grounds? You are going to force them to undergo a medical procedure against their will for being nothing more than a victim? What crimes are you going tocharge them with in order to get a judicial order?

And what if a cure is found tomorrow? What then? Will you be able to give back these opeople their "human rights"?

Eoghan-psych

Lemming wrote:

And again here we go.....

Sterilised for what? On what grounds? You are going to force them to undergo a medical procedure against their will for being nothing more than a victim? What crimes are you going tocharge them with in order to get a judicial order?

And what if a cure is found tomorrow? What then? Will you be able to give back these opeople their "human rights"?

So until a cure is found we should just sit back and let things run their course?

They should be sterilised on grounds that any resulting children have a significant chance of infection.

If a cure is found tomorrow, great - that means sterilisation could be halted. Reversal procedures could be offered where possible.

As for giving back their human rights - none were taken. Nobody has the right to inflict disease on another person.

Fysh

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Since you want it spelled out in explicit detail:

*I* think those with HIV should be sterilised.

Simple.

That does not detract from their human rights [unless you can point me to the one that reads "humans have a right to inflict disease"?

As has already been repeatedly pointed out repeatedly, there is no guarantee that someone with HIV will have an HIV+ child.

Children of women who smoke, drink or indulge in narcotics excessively while pregnant are at risk of a variety of problems. It has not yet been made a criminal offence (well, the narcotics part from the perspective of possession, but not specifically from the perspective of harming the unborn child), as far as I know, to do so, although obviously all sane medical advice goes against doing this. (NOTE : I believe the US is trying to bring in, or has already brought in, law which allows someone who assaults a pregnant woman to be charged with two counts of assault - one for the woman, and one for the unborn child. I don't think it's been replicated in Europe yet though) I suspect that the legal consideration of this kind of thing would be criminal neglect or something similar. So why is it that someone wanting to have a child, with that given risk of the disease being transmitted, merits them being forcibly sterilised, when other equally reprehensible actions which can have a significant negative impact on the child (and, in the case of narcotics abuse, perpetuate a drug addiction which contributes to a socially detrimental phenomenon ie illegal drug trafficking) do not carry a similar penalty?

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

So until a cure is found we should just sit back and let things run their course?

No. Of course not. But neither should we run around with some knee-jerk sheep-mentality. Do you hack off a patients head to cure the illness? No of course you don't. Education & awareness are the key to this problem. Not right-wing, paranoia-induced fascist f*ckhead "medical" programs

They should be sterilised on grounds that any resulting children have a significant chance of infection.

And as mentioned by others - why stop at HIV sufferers? Precedents will be set, and you will be setting out the message that these people are second class citizens.

If a cure is found tomorrow, great - that means sterilisation could be halted. Reversal procedures could be offered where possible.

And if you can't reverse? Would you be happy to foot the bill for what would be massive compensation claims to these people for what the state did to them?

As for giving back their human rights - none were taken. Nobody has the right to inflict disease on another person.

You have got to be taking the p*ss. No rights were taken from them? What about the forced medical procedures against their express will? What the hell do you call that?

Fysh

Eoghan-psych wrote:

As for giving back their human rights - none were taken. Nobody has the right to inflict disease on another person.

So you're happy to have people with family histories of medical conditions sterilised as well? Because that's what your black & white simplified statement says to me there.

Eoghan-psych

Lemming wrote:

No. Of course not. But neither should we run around with some knee-jerk sheep-mentality. Do you hack off a patients head to cure the illness? No of course you don't. Education & awareness are the key to this problem. Not right-wing, paranoia-induced fascist f*ckhead "medical" programs

Fascist ****head medical program would be to shoot the HIV+ people. It would *not* be "protect their health and the health of society", which is what I have proposed.

Lemming wrote:

And as mentioned by others - why stop at HIV sufferers? Precedents will be set, and you will be setting out the message that these people are second class citizens.

Nope, I'd be sending out the message that people with communicable diseases must, by virtue of the fact that they have a communicable and deadly disease, be subject to regulations which are designed to reduce the net impact of that disease on society.

Lemming wrote:

And if you can't reverse? Would you be happy to foot the bill for what would be massive compensation claims to these people for what the state did to them?

There wouldn't be compensation. It simply wouldn't be an option.

Lemming wrote:

You have got to be taking the p*ss. No rights were taken from them? What about the forced medical procedures against their express will? What the hell do you call that?

I call that protecting the public good.

Eoghan-psych

Fysh wrote:

So you're happy to have people with family histories of medical conditions sterilised as well? Because that's what your black & white simplified statement says to me there.

In the case of incurable, communicable pathogenic conditions, yes until such time as we can treat those conditions.

As for 'post conception' identification of conditions [e.g. Tay Sachs] then the situation is obviously different. I've already outline my position with regard to this on the other thread.

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Fascist ****head medical program would be to shoot the HIV+ people. It would *not* be "protect their health and the health of society", which is what I have proposed.

There is, Eoghan dearest, such a thing as "mental" health as well as physical health .....

Tell me, how would society feel knowing that victims of a non-fatal disease (read below for further elaboration) are being treated as second-class citizens and denied the rights to live just like everyone else?

I know I'd feel deeply embarrased and ashamed to call myself part of a society that did that.

Nope, I'd be sending out the message that people with communicable diseases must, by virtue of the fact that they have a communicable and deadly disease, be subject to regulations which are designed to reduce the net impact of that disease on society.

Well then., you'll be catching a lot more people than HIV sufferers with that. In fact, far more other people than HIV sufferers with that.

Further you don't know what you're arguing. HIV is not a "deadly" disease. As I've already pointed out, it isn't HIV that kills you. HIV decimates your immune system. That doesn't kill you. It makes you less able to fight OTHER infections. It is these OTHER infections that can kill you. The same infections that can kill you anyway if you're really unlucky and just happen to have a low resistance at that moment in time. So you wouldn't even catch HIV sufferers by that definition of your "medical program".

Well done :rolleyes:

There wouldn't be compensation. It simply wouldn't be an option.

Really? And what legal standpoint are you basing that on? What about the army deafness claims? What about the blood transfusion board scandal? What about the child abuse scandals?

"Not an option" eh?

Tell me, what's it like being a rocket scientist?

I call that protecting the public good.

That's quite a warped perspective you have there .....

Magical Pete

Most of what i was going to say has been said already. Nevertheless i'd like to ask several questions:

1) How does someone have the right to withhold life-saving medicine? Is that not merely legalised murder, or at least a form of torture?

2) Why is it (withholding treatment/sterilisation) based on what HIV suffers may or may not do in the future? Is that fair?

3a) If sterilisation is unable to prevent transmission, what advantage has it got?
3b) Would you accept that if sterisation fails in its goal, it does more harm than good? I.e. What use is 0% transmission rate AFTER sterilisation?

4) Is furthur stigmatising HIV suffers a good idea? Is it fair?

In Eoghan's defense, he has always replied with respect, His views in my own view are utterly deplorable, but personally i appreciate his comparative politeness, yet i sincerely hope he never comes to a situation where he has control over someone's rights, life or genitalia.

iguana

HIV; human immunity virus, is a virus similar to the fiv (feline immunity virus) and siv (simian immunity virus) although not transmitted in the same ways. HIV CAN be and can ONLY be transmitted by the exchange of certain bodily fluids. Blood, breast milk, semen and vaginal discharge, listed in order of infectiousness. Obviously the exchange will only lead to infection if the infection exists in one of the people involved in the exchange.

AIDS; acquired immune deficency syndrome, can only exist in those who are already HIV+. HIV has no symptoms, but if you have it you can pass it to someone else and they could easily develop AIDS and die while you are still HIV+ and have no idea you are infected.

In this part of the world it is highly unlikely that a woman with HIV/AIDS will pass the infection to her unborn child. All pregnant woman, in this country, have a blood test to determine if they have HIV. The amneotic fluid that surrounds the baby is virus free. The only way for the baby to get infected is during birth. This can happen if the baby swallows some of the mothers blood during labour, as the baby's gastric fluids are not yet fully developed. Women who have tested HIV+ are encouraged to take medication which will reduce the risk of infection and to have a cesaerean birth.

Most babies infected with HIV are infected from drinking breastmilk. In most situations you can not be infected by swallowing as the gastric fluids will destroy the infection, as mentioned earlier these fluids aren't properly developed in a baby. Women with HIV should never directly breastfeed although there are cases now where the mother expresses milk, which is then sterilised and the HIV eradicated, it is tested to ensure it's safety and then fed to the baby through a bottle. Mostly formula is used.

A woman with AIDS is unlikely to be having a child as the chances are she is getting ill, or is incredibly so at this stage. This would not be unheard of though. Particularly if she was pregnant prior to discovering that she had AIDS.

The only real reason to reconsider plans to have children if you have HIV is that you may have a shortened lifespan. But this is not the concern of the badly educated (on this issue) OP. There is a range of about 16 anti-retroviral drugs which are used in different combinations (to prevent the disease from becoming immune to them individually) to halt the damage caused by the virus. Anyone in this country diagnosed HIV+ has a much longer life expectancy than most people imagine. How effective the drugs are long term (over say a 60 year period) is still impossible to tell.

In my opinion, from a moral standpoint those who are HIV+ should tell their sexual partners, past, present & future. But that is just my opinion, even if this was the law it is pretty unenforcable. At the end of the day our health is our responibility. However there is a situation in the UK where a man has been charged with manslaughter/murder for knowingly infecting someone, through sex, with the virus.