{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
ursprünglich gepostet in:Sapphire
Bearbeitet von bobcast:
5/13/2013 10:18:59 PM
57
Should people with incurable communicable diseases be forced to join a registry?
Should people who have an incurable disease be forced to join a registry?
It would be something similar to a sex offender registry, where people with diseases like HIV, HSV, ect, are forced by law report to the government their name and address. The data can be easily searched by the community via the internet or by visiting the local health department.
This could help reduce the spread of disease throughout the community by allowing people to search to see if the people they are encountering in the community are on the list. They can then choose to avoid contact with the infected people if they choose.
Imagine being able to look up the guy or girl you're flirting with at the bar quickly on your smart phone to see if they are known to carry HSV2.
-
No, we should send them all to Siberia.
-
No. We should make every citizen in the country live in rolling bubbles.
-
MUTANT REGISTRATION
-
I think stupid people should be forced to join registry. Or, just wear a sign...
-
2 AntwortenAmazing how many people don't realize that (in most locales) doctors are required to report to the state any patients who have communicable diseases. Of course that data isn't (typically) shared with the public and is for epidemiology study and response, but the data is collected and analyzed. How else do we hear about the progression of each year's influenza variant as it makes its way around the world? How do we know/hear about outbreaks of SARS, resistant infections, ebola, and other disease? It's because MD's report to a clearinghouse that then analyses the data to know what regions, populations or demographics are at higher risk. As to the stigmatization of medical conditions? I acknowledge that it exists, but don't see the reasoning behind it. An illness is an illness and someone who is sick is just that, sick. Not a bad person, not a flawed human being, not an immoral or lesser person, they have a condition, illness, infection or disease. Two areas where people seem to attach so much stigma are STDs and mental illness. It's petty and those who think that a patient with an illness in either category is a "freak" need to grow up. I don't "get" the stigmatization and I don't "get" the shame/shaming either. Someone who has an e-Coli, C-diff, or gonorrhea infection (IMO) are in need of the same things. Treatment and education as how to better avoid the illness in the future and how to prevent spreading it to others.
-
1 AntwortenI would support this, whilst it might infringe on the rights of people who have the disease the benefit of halting the spread far outweighs the rights of the induhvidual. It's like forcing people to have a vaccination, If it is necessary to do so then it must be done. Personal choice ends where the impact on other people begins.
-
Thanks. It was fun.
-
1 Antwortenpros: people on the list would be known and the disease can be contained people gain knowledge that can protect them cons: people might not go get tested to avoid being put on the registry invasion of privacy prejudice against those on the list people on the list giving fake names The first con can be countered by making testing mandatory and maybe requiring retesting every few years. Doing this, though, would be costly. The 3rd could be countered by making laws against prejudice in most cases(the exceptions being giving them jobs in which the risk of them spreading the disease is elevated.) The privacy issue, however doesn't have a counter argument, and the situation boils down to the right to knowledge vs. the right to privacy. I probably would support something like this if it was done right, despite the cons.
-
Oh... I probably should've read the whole thread. I thought it was just for government access in case a case of someone giving it to another person came up or something, not for people to use it for other people. I... wow. Also that tag. Support rescinded.
-
-
1 AntwortenBecause people couldn't lie about their name,
-
Yes, because we don't need to spread that shit around.
-
I don't necessarily disagree
-
I almost thought of an answer, then I saw #successfultrolling and lost it...
-
Any disease that that is deadly and is a crime to knowingly transmit, I'd say yes. HIV and TB are the ones that come to mind, not really herpes.
-
Yeah why not? I don't have to worry about some infected zombie being near me AND, they can use the registry as a dating/friend finder app to meet other infected people just like them. I don't see what is wrong with it.
-
I don't think public registry's are a good thing, right now the sex offender list has been made public and you can see where they live causing parents to not allow their child outside without supervision (Or at all) and causes abuse for the offender. (Some of who could be innocent like being accused of -blam!- somebody). In the UK a year ago women and only women wanted access to criminal records for the men they are dating to see if they have a history of abuse and all that, basically these things ruins lives. Only the police and government agencies should have access to that type of information not normal people.
-
2 AntwortenIt's a crime in Germany to not tell a sexual partner you have HIV, I think.
-
Are you a communist or something?
-
Would you like a side of hell with that no?
-
1 AntwortenI think there's something to the idea that people wouldn't want to get tested for those diseases if they knew that they might get put on a registry.
-
2 AntwortenIt's both a good and bad idea. Good for the reason of reducing the spread of disease, bad because that's invading people's privacy, etc. If it were my choice though, I would go ahead and authorize a registry.
-
Sounds like a good idea, but in reality it's not. You will end up isolating someone because of it and just cause another inequality in the world, one that is highly unnecessary. Do you really think the patient in question needs something that could possibly create a psychological issue on top of their illness? And then what? Once the person in question is found to have HIV they're probably going to move out the community. Why not just form communities of people suffering from a known incurable communicable disease?
-
This would only really help with destroying the lives of those people than helping the community. It'd only contribute to helping that person not get a job and possibly lose their social life.
-
Good idea on paper, bad in reality.
-
It's no fun if you ruin the surprise!
