plural

Yesterday was
if you did not know

the 20th birthday of AIDS

(which means)
(next summer)
(it wont need that)
(fake id)

I was listening
to a talk show on NPR
one of my favourites
not
because
like all those limbaugh loving fools
I agree with what they say
cause
well
they mostly are too damn liberal for me
but
because the guests
are always (almost) of the
highest caliber of education
and
they do an excellent job of
presenting articulate opinions
from all sides of an issue.

additionally
it portends to take calls
from actually real life listeners
but
I have not
in four years
gotten anything but a busy tone

So they were talking about
how people have greater life expectancies
now
than ever before
but that the rate of infection
which was on
the decline for many years
was reversing itself
and they were seeing
increased numbers of
infections

now
I think
those same drugs
which prolong peoples lives
are inadvertently the problem

I remember
when AIDS came out

it was simple

it had a gun to your head

practice safe sex
or
AIDS is gonna kill ya

not in 20 years
but
six months

want to see your next birthday
use a rubber

I remember
a comedian talking
about AIDS
when it was still mostly

"something only homosexuals get"

the question he posed was this

"used to be
you got the clap
you got a shot
cleared right up

now AIDS
it will kill ya

whats next
stick you dick in
and
explode?"

and
pardon any
barbarous treatment
of that quote
I think I was 11
when I heard the act
so
you can imagine
that it had an
impact on me

of course now
its HIV

which doesn't have all the nasty
memories attached to AIDS

its been prettied up
people can live long productive lives
with HIV

While I appreciate the humanity involved in
find drugs and treatments which save lives
and improve the quality of lives for those infected

I am not surprised that we
no longer treat HIV/AIDS with
any respect

800,000 Americans have HIV/AIDS
approximately 35 million world wide

June 5th 1981
The Center for Disease Control
reported 5 deaths from AIDS
in the US

for the year 2000
it reported
20,000

45,000 people in the US
were infected with
HIV/AIDS
in 2000

Twenty years from now
what percentage of the population
will have AIDS?

A person called up
who was HIV Positive
said
that they had chosen to quit their drug routine, because they felt crummy

my first thought was

"You have a fatal illness and you are complaining about feeling crummy? grow the fuck up"

I was
appalled

I am not advocating
shunning or blaming them
or
putting them in camps

but
I don't think
they should really have final say
on their healthcare decisions

I really don't care if the drugs make you feel "crummy"
if they reduce your virus count and therefore make you
less likely to infect someone else

you damn well are going to take the drugs

Sure give them what choices are available
but I think the treatment options should be
arranged and targeted toward protecting the
general population from transmission from this
individual.

not
are they as comfortable as can be.

I also think
there should be
some sort of identification system

perhaps something discreet where
it would only be obvious in the most
intimate of encounters

but someone who is a carrier
of a life destroying (if no longer life ending)
virus, should not be allow to be
released into the general population
on their own honor
cause most people don't have any

in conclusion
this is a disease
it is not
a human tragedy
but a part of nature

when some dumb schmuck
blows away a playground full of kids
that is a human tragedy

plagues, viruses, natural disasters
are simply a part of life

I do not think
AIDS test should be
optional

I think every last one of us
should be required to get one
every 6 months in fact

I am
a strong proponent of
privacy

I think there are
very very few reasons
the government has
to legitimately interfere in your life

and
quite frankly
if you are the carrier of
a disease
which last year
killed
over 3 million people
worldwide

I am not
incredibly
sympathetic

3 million people

if you are American
and you are reading this
unless you live in

New York, Chicago, or L.A.

Imagine
your entire city

poof
gone
everyone

dead.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

zaiah.livejournal.com

And Here! Here! about mandatory testing.. But then I guess the alternative is to only sex them young virgins (risky now that children are coming up HIV positive) or have a 6 month long interviewing process on all prospectives? hmmm

From:

kansaschica.livejournal.com

Sweetie, you know I loves ya, but...

I have to totally disagree... a labelling system for those found to carry it? Testing every 6 months? What about those of us who have been in monogamous relationships for years and years??

As to the person who's quit taking their meds... I think, as long as they take the responsibility of realizing that they have an infectible disease, and don't do ANYTHING that could infect someone, they shouldn't be forced to take pills that make them puke and all... when I was pregnant, I went through three straight months of nausea (but no throwing up, just constant, horribly distracting, debilitating feelings that I would vomit at any second). ONE SINGLE day I did actually throw up, and for the rest of the day, I was free from the nausea. Never in my life did I wish I'd vomit on a daily basis until that moment. So I can understand how those meds would make one want to quit.

I'm sorry, but I'm really against letting the government come in and interfere with my life any more than it already does. Especially since I'm a law-abiding, taxes-paying, legal adult citizen.

I think I've earned the right to not be treated as a child.

From:

plural.livejournal.com

First off, let me say that I appreciate your opinion before I respond.

I have a hard time with the labeling system idea myself, but the fact is there have been cases where people who are infected do not bother telling their sexual partners. I would express that any identifing mark be located in the most private of places, I was thinking a tattoo in the groinal region, something that really would only be shown in the most intimate of situations.

As for the testing, You may enjoy a lifelong monogamous relationship with your husband, but my dear, despite all the words to the contrary, the reality is many many people are out there cheating on their lifelong monogamous partners and not always with the most reliable people either. (i.e. prostitutes) The simple fact is that knowledge is the most important weapon against this virus, and testing is the only way to get that knowledge.

Imagine this situation, a couple have been married for 5 years, behind her back he has been visiting prostitues, he contracts HIV, she is also infected in a short time. They decide to have a child. Here are two people who because they do not know they have HIV are about to create a third person with HIV, and quite frankly I think a little discomfort and inconvience to prevent something like this from happening is more than worth it.

As for the medications, In your example, I can see your sympathies, but quite frankly we are speaking about a person with a lethal disease.

He is lucky to be alive and functioning most of the time, now we can discuss what exactly he meant by "crummy" but I think considering he wasnt hospitalized, he must have been feeling an awful lot better than the many HIV/AIDS patients.

the question which we as a society must answer is this:

"Is it more important that this person, who is freely interacting with society, avoid minor discomfort, or that they do everything possible to minimalize the chance that they transmit the disease to someone else?"

If they can find an effective drug therapy that makes them feel less crummy then great, but I do not think they have the right to passively endanger another person just because they dont feel swell.

and while you may be a law-abiding, tax paying, responsible adult, most people out there fail the last test. The person referenced about the medication for example, has failed the social responsibility test, he has elevated his personal discomfort to be more important than quite possibly the life of another person.

Unfortunatly while you have earned the right not to be treated like a child, and I would like to hope I have as well, people like him, and those who are cheating on their partners, show the necessity to society to insure in the best ways possible that we are capable of determining as quickly as possible who is infected and thereby hopefully preventing them from accidently continuing the spread of the virus.

From:

millionz.livejournal.com

Last night this very thing was discussed on Politically Incorrect and I would like to steal an opinion from Bill Maher, which I think he stole from me, because I have been saying it for a long time.

Ten years ago Aids and HIV cases were starting to taper off because it was on everyone?s lips you couldn't watch TV without seeing an Aids ribbon. The big message was that Aids was indiscriminate and if you weren?t careful you were going to get it. There was hysteria some people estimated that by 2010 like 20% of the population would have it. So of course in this environment people were particularly frightened and extra careful. But now we are learning that most of that stuff was bullshit. Aids is discriminating and I don't mean to be bigoted when I say this but there is no denying that it attacks the gay community much more fiercely than the straight community, this is fact. The gay population makes up around about 2% of our population but something like 30% of our aids cases. I am not some right wing fascist who thinks that Aids is god's revenge I just think it is simple biology. Anal sex is dangerous therefore gay men get Aids more than straight men. I think once people started realizing that there are such things as high-risk groups and low risk groups that people started to become lacks in their use of protection. So we are starting to see a raise in our number of Aids cases. Does it have something to do with the fact that people are living longer with Aids and thus infecting more people? Maybe, but I would guess that the percentage of people Knowingly living with Aids and HIV who are so cavalier as to be sexually promiscuous without regard to who they are infecting is very low.

As for the person who was going off their medication because it made them feel crummy, all I can say is you may be right they very well could be putting people at risk. But there is a growing movement among doctors and scientists that think these Aids drugs cocktails do more harm than good. Maybe they do work for some, maybe they work for most, but many, many people suffer outrageous side effects that actually shorten their lives.

As for the need to identify everyone with Aids so we can be able to control it and put a stop to it, to me it sounds like some of that old fashioned hysteria. Yes Aids will eventually kill everyone who gets it but lets take a moment to realize the Aids problem in America is not a very big one. Certainly we are not like Africa or some of the poorer countries in the world that are truly besieged by this disease. In America I don't think Aids even makes the top 20 list of killers. In fact if I am not mistaken I am pretty sure cancer kills like 4.5 million more people a year than Aids. Granted Aids is infectious and cancer is not but really Aids is something you can almost fully avoid if you are willing to show some discipline and lead a safe lifestyle. Even if you are in the gay community if you are insistent on having only protected sex you can greatly reduce your risk.

From:

plural.livejournal.com

as I responded to much of your comments
via my response to september, I thought I would address a few last issues.

I am not talking about a
national database of HIV/AIDS infected
people.

I am however advocating that
everyone, from the time they are born
until the time they die
(or test positive)
recieve an HIV test
every six months.

There was a ER
episode my darling
foisted upon me to watch
with her.

a young boy
about 16,
was admitted to the ER
with a lacerated hand
his grandmother pulled
the doctor aside and
informed him that the boy's
mother had died from HIV and
had passed on the virus to him.
and his grandmother had kept this information
from him all of his life, telling him
that his medications were "vitamins"
well
as 16 year old boys
often are
he was sexually active
and he infected his girlfriend.

no personally if that was
my daughter,
I would personally terminate
with prejudice the grandmother,
the kids doctor and
anyone who had kept this
information from the boy.

I cant and will not blame the boy
but if he had been tested and IDed
he would have known, she would have known
but no one else needed to know, so he could have
continued to live a normal life
without infecting his girlfriend,
hell these days with the right drugs
and proper use of condoms,
they could have even enjoyed a mostly
risk free sex life if that was enough
of a priority.

There are two simple facts in this discussion.

1) Too many people who are carriers of the HIV/AIDS virus do not know that they are carriers.

and

2)The individuals right to privacy regarding their HIV status does not extend to withholding that information from individuals or group with whom they are sexually active

just my nickel

From:

9thmoon.livejournal.com

What about the responsible few, who are HIV+ and are careful not to spread it?
I have a hard time seeing how you can say you are a strong proponent of privacy, but advocate a labeling system.

I'm curious about your stance on intentional HIV infections. People who know they are positive and infect others (through whatever means) without care for that persons's risk. I've yet to hear of a precedent in court but do you think that person should be charged with a crime?

From:

plural.livejournal.com

Ever heard the saying all it takes is a few bad apples to spoil the pie for everyone?

I encourage people who are HIV+ to be responsible, and those who are should lauded.

I am very much an advocate of privacy, I think that any marking system should be very discrete and privately done.

I do not think you have however the right to keep information about your HIV status private from your lover.

Perhaps a tattoo in the pubic region which is generally not disclosed to people who do not have a right to know your HIV status (atleast for me the only people who would see a tattoo in such a spot would be my love and my doctor, both of whom should damn well know my HIV status before getting involved)

When planning policies of public health, you can not implement practices based on the responsible few, especially when you are dealing with a viral infestation which is contagious.

I would say 10-20% of the people in society are responsible in most areas of their life.

I am not one of them.

I have an accountant because I am not responsible enough to pay my bills.

I have a maid because I am not responsible enough to clean my house.

I have a cabana boy becaus.... well never mind you get the idea.

If I had a medical condition, wherein I had to take a pill every 24 hours, didnt matter when but between 12:01am and 11:59pm each day I was required to take one pill, and if I failed to take said pill I would die at the stroke of midnight. Being generous, I would say that I could survive maybe two months.

Again this primarily hinges on testing, if we could eliminate accidental infections, we would eliminate 75% of increase in HIV/AIDS infections, perhaps more.

Are you allowed to carry a gun onto an airplane? no.
why?
because it is too great a threat to your fellow passengers. Maybe you are not dangerous, but there is no way to tell you from adam,(or eve) so we make the rule for everyone, to ensure that the few psychos out there cant damage the rest of us.

I beleive not only should any intentional infections be criminal, I believe negligent infections should also be.

If you know that you have HIV/AIDS and you have sex with someone without informing them that you have HIV/AIDS, I would consider that first degree murder. I do not care if your virus count is undetectable, or if you performed safe sex.

Just my nickel