Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't care if the only people that had this disease, one that is potentially fatal and at a minimum life altering, were heterosexual. If the disease carrier does not disclose that they have a disease that is contagious and could kill someone, they need to spend the rest of their (hopefully very short) lives in prison, and they should be surgically altered so they can NEVER do this to another human being.
Your right to freedom should end when you, either intentionally or due to gross negligence on your part, infect another human with a potentially fatal disease.
Technically, this "gross negligence on your part" includes:
-An attractive straight man who regularly hooks up with random women at bars and has unprotected sex often because she is on birth control, and is accidentally infected and doesn't bother getting tested because he has had no serious symptoms since his infection that would make him believe he has HIV (initial HIV infection is often asymptomatic).
-The above but vice versa. An attractive straight woman who often hooks up with random men unprotected and doesn't bother using condoms because she's on birth control. She accidentally infects a man because she shows no symptoms during the time she's most infectious (the first month or two after contracting the virus).
-Two people are very drunk and have consensual sex without protection. One is HIV positive the other negative. However, the negative partner doesn't bother to ask the status of his partner and the positive partner doesn't mention his status because they are so incredibly drunk and their judgement has been altered.
So...... Do all three of these people who accidentally infected a negative person deserve to be in jail for their "gross misconduct."
Jail? Just stamp em with an H like Mircea recommended. They chose to hook up with folks randomly and contracted the disease. Why should others have to pay for these peoples irresponsible behavior with their lives?
Jail? Just stamp em with an H like Mircea recommended. They chose to hook up with folks randomly and contracted the disease. Why should others have to pay for these peoples irresponsible behavior with their lives?
What about these totally innocent people? This could be the mayor, chief of police,rabbir, priest, your daughter or grandchild.
Rogue Dentist May Have Exposed 7,000 Patients to HIV, Hepatitis
The Tulsa Health Department is warning 7,000 patients of a local dentist's office that they could have contracted HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C from poor sterilization practices.
Dr. Wayne Harrington, an oral surgeon with a practice in Tulsa, Okla., is being investigated by the state dental board, the state bureau of narcotics and the federal Drug Enforcement Agency because one of his patients recently tested positive for hepatitis C and HIV without known risk factors other than receiving dental treatment.
Upon hearing of the infected patient, the Oklahoma Board of Dentistry conducted a surprise inspection of Harrington's practice on March 18, allegedly finding numerous problems, including regular use of a rusty set of instruments on patients with known infections, and the practice of pouring bleach on wounds until they "turned white."
KANSAS LEGISLATORS ARE STUPID. There is a pill that those exposed to HIV can take within 72 hrs. Thus the whole premise of the bill is wrong. Right in the idea as to discriminate against certain groups. TOTALLY bogus and will get overturned.
Right now, if a firefighter or a paramedic in Kansas is exposed to bodily fluids while treating a victim, they need a court order to get that victim’s blood tested for infectious diseases.
PS. I don't have aids nor do i know anyone that does i am not gay and i only know one person that is a lesbian. You cannot attack me there.
Totally illustrates how far over the edge they are in KS.
Technically, this "gross negligence on your part" includes:
-An attractive straight man who regularly hooks up with random women at bars and has unprotected sex often because she is on birth control, and is accidentally infected and doesn't bother getting tested because he has had no serious symptoms since his infection that would make him believe he has HIV (initial HIV infection is often asymptomatic).
-The above but vice versa. An attractive straight woman who often hooks up with random men unprotected and doesn't bother using condoms because she's on birth control. She accidentally infects a man because she shows no symptoms during the time she's most infectious (the first month or two after contracting the virus).
-Two people are very drunk and have consensual sex without protection. One is HIV positive the other negative. However, the negative partner doesn't bother to ask the status of his partner and the positive partner doesn't mention his status because they are so incredibly drunk and their judgement has been altered.
So...... Do all three of these people who accidentally infected a negative person deserve to be in jail for their "gross misconduct."
These three situations happen ALL THE TIME.
Yes... they do. If no one is responsible for the use of their genitals simply because they were either lazy, unconcerned or inebriated, couldn't the same argument be make for ANY crime committed while being lazy, unconcerned or under the influence?
Rogue Dentist May Have Exposed 7,000 Patients to HIV, Hepatitis
The Tulsa Health Department is warning 7,000 patients of a local dentist's office that they could have contracted HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C from poor sterilization practices.
Dr. Wayne Harrington, an oral surgeon with a practice in Tulsa, Okla., is being investigated by the state dental board, the state bureau of narcotics and the federal Drug Enforcement Agency because one of his patients recently tested positive for hepatitis C and HIV without known risk factors other than receiving dental treatment.
Upon hearing of the infected patient, the Oklahoma Board of Dentistry conducted a surprise inspection of Harrington's practice on March 18, allegedly finding numerous problems, including regular use of a rusty set of instruments on patients with known infections, and the practice of pouring bleach on wounds until they "turned white."
Let's hear your answer captain!
Their self perceived right to privacy no longer exists once they have a communicable disease that is not curable regardless of how it was contracted. In this case it is protecting the rights of the uninfected over the perceived embarrassment of the infected.
KANSAS LEGISLATORS ARE STUPID. There is a pill that those exposed to HIV can take within 72 hrs. Thus the whole premise of the bill is wrong. Right in the idea as to discriminate against certain groups. TOTALLY bogus and will get overturned.
Right now, if a firefighter or a paramedic in Kansas is exposed to bodily fluids while treating a victim, they need a court order to get that victim’s blood tested for infectious diseases.
PS. I don't have aids nor do i know anyone that does i am not gay and i only know one person that is a lesbian. You cannot attack me there.
Totally illustrates how far over the edge they are in KS.
Did you find out whether or not the last 5 people you slept with had HIV within 72 hours of sleeping with them? Have you ever tried getting a court order? What if (in a first responder's case) the victim's blood was NOT tested and they are not readily available for testing or if they refuse to be tested? Does that first responder just say, "Well... maybe we'll be lucky this time"?
I think everyone has a right to know if someone else has a communicable disease that can not be cured.
What I find amazing is some what to say, "It's not fair because these people got the disease through means other than sex. So we need to protect their "rights". So, rather than protecting the rights of those who are not infected, to continue to be not infected, we should demand some privacy concerns apply over common sense?
It isn't about outing homosexuals. It isn't about denying someone their privacy. It IS about allowing the public to stay informed about who has an incurable disease.
Last edited by KS_Referee; 03-29-2013 at 09:40 AM..
Their self perceived right to privacy no longer exists once they have a communicable disease that is not curable regardless of how it was contracted. In this case it is protecting the rights of the uninfected over the perceived embarrassment of the infected.
There is a hell of a lot of difference between "perceived embarrassment of the infected." and FREEDOM.
Show me where the law says this! "Their self perceived right to privacy no longer exists once they have a communicable disease that is not curable regardless of how it was contracted." Yu seem to want them marked so as to be discriminated against. You RWNJB'S talk so much freedom crap from the govt and then you attack at will. An old guy like you will very likely get a STAPH infection(quarantine your sick body) while you are on your last days in a hospital and then you will be able to contemplate your previous hate.
Did you find out whether or not the last 5 people you slept with had HIV within 72 hours of sleeping with them? Have you ever tried getting a court order? What if (in a first responder's case) the victim's blood was NOT tested and they are not readily available for testing or if they refuse to be tested? Does that first responder just say, "Well... maybe we'll be lucky this time"?
I think everyone has a right to know if someone else has a communicable disease that can not be cured.
What I find amazing is some what to say, "It's not fair because these people got the disease through means other than sex. So we need to protect their "rights". So, rather than protecting the rights of those who are not infected, to continue to be not infected, we should demand some privacy concerns apply over common sense?
It isn't about outing homosexuals. It isn't about denying someone their privacy. It IS about allowing the public to stay informed about who has an incurable disease.
YOU said"It isn't about outing homosexuals". The actual purpose of this bill is supposed to protect first responders after exposure and we have medicine to protect them, thus no need for this bill at all.imo
I have had only one partner in the last 9 years. You came up with the number 5. Are you a rabbit? Don't compare your loose morals to me. How many people do you sleep with monthly? Yearly?
I can see where a very sexually active guy like you would be so worried. Gosh man at least use protection would ya. Remember they have a pill you can take in the 72 hrs after you get yourself exposed.
There is a hell of a lot of difference between "perceived embarrassment of the infected." and FREEDOM.
Show me where the law says this! "Their self perceived right to privacy no longer exists once they have a communicable disease that is not curable regardless of how it was contracted." Yu seem to want them marked so as to be discriminated against. You RWNJB'S talk so much freedom crap from the govt and then you attack at will. An old guy like you will very likely get a STAPH infection(quarantine your sick body) while you are on your last days in a hospital and then you will be able to contemplate your previous hate.
Excuse me?
FIRST. I am a libertarian, not a right wing nut job. Do NOT call me names or I WILL return the favor.
SECOND. You have NO right to privacy once you contract an incurable communicable disease and even some curable communicable diseases. Federal and State laws have required MANDATORY reporting of these events for years so THEY, the government can protect themselves. Now this new bill gives average citizens protection that they have been denied under the disguise of hippa and supposed privacy laws.
Your right to privacy ends if by maintaining it, you place other people at risk of either grave illness or death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile
YOU said"It isn't about outing homosexuals". The actual purpose of this bill is supposed to protect first responders after exposure and we have medicine to protect them, thus no need for this bill at all.imo...
That drug MAY NOT prevent anything. So you require everyone who would offer 1st aid, cpr, be a first responder in any manner be subject to death in order to save a life? Than in order to protect the identity of the FEW who have these incurable communicable diseases, I say all people needing urgent 1st responder health care should wait until test results come back proving they are not infected BEFORE they are treated.
A first responder should not be required to contract an incurable communicable disease just to keep from hurting the feelings of someone with an incurable communicable disease.
You have no "right" to endanger the lives of others. A cop or an ordinary citizen could shoot you dead for that very thing. You rights stop the SECOND you endanger another person's right to life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
