5 Things to Know About the First Drug to Prevent HIV

[crazy canuck]

Total strawman - we are not talking about who can and cannot take prescription drugs. There is no argument there.

So for some things you are willing to take away freedom - Commie!

[Berkut]

Total strawman - we are not talking about who can and cannot take prescription drugs. There is no argument there.

So for some things you are willing to take away freedom - Commie!

Of course - how is that even disputed?

I find it interesting that your argument is that as long as we take away any freedom, no matter how well justified, it is ok to take away any other freedom without any need to justify doing so at all. In fact, because freedom is not absolute (which is non-sensical anyway), then any argument that we should not restrict freedom is by definition dismissed as irrelevant.

Like I have said, most people pay only lip service to the concept of liberty.

[grumbler]

More to the point, anyone would be a moron to take you seriously.

  Seriously?

[grumbler]

Total strawman - we are not talking about who can and cannot take prescription drugs. There is no argument there.

So for some things you are willing to take away freedom - Commie!

Of course - how is that even disputed?

I find it interesting that your argument is that as long as we take away any freedom, no matter how well justified, it is ok to take away any other freedom without any need to justify doing so at all. In fact, because freedom is not absolute (which is non-sensical anyway), then any argument that we should not restrict freedom is by definition dismissed as irrelevant.

Like I have said, most people pay only lip service to the concept of liberty.

I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread.  Kinda reminds me of the old thread about the British panicking over the Italian invasion of Egypt in 1940.

[Neil]

I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread.

Is he?  It seems to me that Berkut's arguments tend to fall back on liberty and freedom, which is a poor base for public policy.

[Razgovory]

I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread.

Is he?  It seems to me that Berkut's arguments tend to fall back on liberty and freedom, which is a poor base for public policy.

CC is losing because Grumbler doesn't like CC therefore, nothing CC says is persuasive.  Berkut's just going on about how he knows what liberty really means, but most people don't.

[Barrister]

But the important idea here is that we as a society should recognize that humans as a whole are better able to make those decisions for themselves than the state making that decision for everyone.

There is a word for this concept: it is "liberty".

But Berkut - you just conceded that there are situations where government should restrict that liberty - people need a prescription for various medicines.

So if it can be justified, it is possible that perhaps home HIV tests should not be allowed.  I'm not certain it is justified - I would think the benefit of more people getting tested outweights the negative actions some may take when finding a positive result.  But it's a discussion worth having.

[garbon]

But it's a discussion worth having.

Is it though? As I pointed out somewhere in here - at-home kits already existed for HIV. However, you had to mail in those kits to get your results back (usually by punching in your code into a phone and then potentially having a counselor delivering the news).  The only difference here is that you can get your results back super quick (with of course, no counselor standing by - though OraSure does similarly have a help line to call post-test).

I think the biggest concern though is what happens to the below individuals (quote found in an NYT article about OraQuick):

So, while only about one person in 5,000 would get a false positive test, about one person in 12 could get a false negative.

[Barrister]

But it's a discussion worth having.

Is it though? As I pointed out somewhere in here - at-home kits already existed for HIV. However, you had to mail in those kits to get your results back (usually by punching in your code into a phone and then potentially having a counselor delivering the news).  The only difference here is that you can get your results back super quick (with of course, no counselor standing by - though OraSure does similarly have a help line to call post-test).

I think the biggest concern though is what happens to the below individuals (quote found in an NYT article about OraQuick):

So, while only about one person in 5,000 would get a false positive test, about one person in 12 could get a false negative.

Fair enough points.  But I wonder what the "false negative" rate is for tests done in a doctor's office.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread. 

You are losing your grip on reality.

[katmai]

Losing?

[garbon]

But it's a discussion worth having.

Is it though? As I pointed out somewhere in here - at-home kits already existed for HIV. However, you had to mail in those kits to get your results back (usually by punching in your code into a phone and then potentially having a counselor delivering the news).  The only difference here is that you can get your results back super quick (with of course, no counselor standing by - though OraSure does similarly have a help line to call post-test).

I think the biggest concern though is what happens to the below individuals (quote found in an NYT article about OraQuick):

So, while only about one person in 5,000 would get a false positive test, about one person in 12 could get a false negative.

Fair enough points.  But I wonder what the "false negative" rate is for tests done in a doctor's office.

Wiki says 3 in 1,000 for standard lab test. So that looks alarming as not an insignificant difference.

[grumbler]

But Berkut - you just conceded that there are situations where government should restrict that liberty - people need a prescription for various medicines.

So if it can be justified, it is possible that perhaps home HIV tests should not be allowed.  I'm not certain it is justified - I would think the benefit of more people getting tested outweights the negative actions some may take when finding a positive result.  But it's a discussion worth having.

I am not sure what the argument is for not allowing home testing.  It surely isn't the argument used to justify prescription medication.

The justification for making medications require a prescription is that the medication might be harmful to the patient if used incorrectly (and, in some cases, even when used correctly), and therefor that a doctor needs to evaluate the needs and condition of his/her patient before authorizing the risk.  Since the doctor controls the patient's access to the prescription, he or she can ensure that the patient is taking the medicine in the proper dosages and after proper counseling.

The justification for not allowing home testing for HIV appears to be that the justifiers feel that the testee isn't able to understand the results of the test unless those results are delivered in person by someone else.  There is no harm here to the recipient of the test, except maybe for some emotional trauma if it is positive, so I don't see any connection whatsoever.

The only purpose of government intervention in peoples' decision-making, it seems to me, should be to preserve some greater good.  If the government is intervening in peoples' decision-making just because someone feels that it is a good idea, even if it serves no greater good, then I don't find it justified, and I oppose it.

The greater good of having prescription medicine seems to me to be clear.  The greater good in banning home testing seems to me to remain completely unarticulated.  So far the argument is bogus analogies and straw men, as far as I can tell.

I could be convinced though.

I thought I would add this as I am out of popcorn.

[grumbler]

I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread. 

You are losing your grip on reality.

You seem to be taking me seriously.  By your standards, doesn't that make you a moron? 

[garbon]

The greater good in banning home testing seems to me to remain completely unarticulated.  So far the argument is bogus analogies and straw men, as far as I can tell.

I could be convinced though.

I thought I would add this as I am out of popcorn.

Only bit I added above is that it does look like home testing has a higher chance of telling individuals they don't have the disease when they do.