Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Prosecutors: Man knowingly exposed 131 to HIV

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Useful Info - 11 May 2007 12:40 GMT
Find the story at http://Muvy.org
nappy-headed ho - 11 May 2007 16:02 GMT
Useful Info wrote..., On 05/11/2007 04:40:
> Find the story at http://Muvy.org

"Doctors warned Mr. Atkins, now 44, to tell sexual partners that
they might be at risk. ...  'Dismissed patient who doesn't seem
very concerned,' reads a notation in the records."

 - - - - - - - - -

And what did the doctor do about it besides making a little notation?
I'm pretty sure the Hippocratic Oath to "first do no harm" can be
extended to include the general public in addition to the individual
patient, on the grounds that failure to properly quarantine a
contagious patient causes harm to others.

Oh, and as I've mentioned before, cases like these are only ever
pursued by prosecutors when the victims are either women or minors.
In this case it was a 15-year-old boy that forced prosecutors to press
charges, and even then they were only allowed to reveal the man's
HIV+ status to the jury AFTER he was convicted, and only to help
decide his sentence for molesting the kid.  He really wasn't convicted
of transmitting HIV at all, just child molestation.  And the only
other case I know of involved another high school boy in Nevada, and
it was also only pursued because he was a minor AND his father was a
famous radio show host so the publicity forced prosecutors to pursue
the case, and they did manage to successfully use the HIV transmission
law to convict him.
HIV Positive - 11 May 2007 17:53 GMT
>And what did the doctor do about it besides making a little notation?
>I'm pretty sure the Hippocratic Oath to "first do no harm" can be
>extended to include the general public in addition to the individual
>patient, on the grounds that failure to properly quarantine a
>contagious patient causes harm to others.

Haven't you already told us you believe all gay men, apart from
yourself, are 'HIV+?'

You're effectively suggesting that all gay men other than yourself
should be quarantined.  If that happened you'd find yourself the only
gay man left.  If such a quarantine situation was in place you'd
probably find yourself in it, anyway: why just leave one gay man out
in society all on his own?

One problem with quarantining those diagnosed HIV+ is that on one
would volunteer for the test.  It would, of course, be possible to
force everyone to have an 'HIV test,' but removing tens of thousands
of people from society in this way would be very difficult.

And where would it all stop?  After cleansing society of the 'HIV
problem' what would be next on the list?
Signature

Should I begin ART?
Vote: <http://hiv-positive.freehostia.com/vote/>

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.