5 Things to Know About the First Drug to Prevent HIV

[Jacob]

...and more specifically..."fuck no".

I'll never stop "being a Ron Paul dickhead" if that means actually thinking that the word "liberty" means *something*.

We all think the word "liberty" means *something*; the issue is what that *something* is.

[Berkut]

...and more specifically..."fuck no".

I'll never stop "being a Ron Paul dickhead" if that means actually thinking that the word "liberty" means *something*.

We all think the word "liberty" means *something*; the issue is what that *something* is.

Yeah, what most people think it means is nothing practical though.

Seedy is actually arguing that the general public should not have the right to take a test to find out if they have a disease because some people, in his opinion, might not react well to the news under some circumstances.

His solution? Make it impossible for anyone to take the test except under controlled circumstances, that he defines.

You cannot have any actual respect for the concept of liberty in real terms if you are willing to argue that individuals should not be allowed access to information about themselves because you think they cannot handle that information.

[Razgovory]

In any case, stop being such a fucking Ron Paul dickhead.

...and more specifically..."fuck no".

I'll never stop "being a Ron Paul dickhead" if that means actually thinking that the word "liberty" means *something*.

I guess that means you are in fact "a Ron Paul dickhead".

[Martinus]

Is there anything more revolting than the idea that something that can help people ought to be denied them because some fucking bureaucrat thinks it will "encourage risky behavior!" and therefore should be restricted?

That kind of shit makes me crazy.

It makes you crazy that public health officials are concerned that people will wrongly think the drug makes them immune?  Epecially given the title of the thread leaves one with exactly that kind of misleading and false understanding?

Shouldn't such concerns be addressed through a "health warning" and not an outright denial, though? Especially as this is mainly addressed to people who are in risk anyway (e.g. people living in sero-divergent relationships).

[CountDeMoney]

Seedy is actually arguing that the general public should not have the right to take a test to find out if they have a disease because some people, in his opinion, might not react well to the news under some circumstances.

His solution? Make it impossible for anyone to take the test except under controlled circumstances, that he defines.

Oh yeah, and the attendant clinical alternatives, future treatment plans, the risk assessment and education on how to reduce the public safety risk, the attendant health issues that impact the individual such as sex partners, pregnancy, and the variety of future medical implications of HIV, as well as the overall dealing with the behavioral and psychosocial impact of a having a socially stigmatizing health condition that will inevitably result in one's death... that'll all be stuffed in the home test box you can grab at Rite-Aid too, right?

Oh wait, we're talking about freedom.  They can just listen to their bodies.  No sweat.

You cannot have any actual respect for the concept of liberty in real terms if you are willing to argue that individuals should not be allowed access to information about themselves because you think they cannot handle that information.

Sometimes you pick the goofiest subjects to plant your Libertard flag.

[Martinus]

Yeah, it's one thing to home test for blood sugar, cholesterol or even pregnancy, but a home test for HIV should need more than a "Get thee to an apothecary" label on the instructions.
Not a good idea for home testing.

I don't know if there's so much difference. I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

[CountDeMoney]

I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

[Berkut]

Seedy is actually arguing that the general public should not have the right to take a test to find out if they have a disease because some people, in his opinion, might not react well to the news under some circumstances.

His solution? Make it impossible for anyone to take the test except under controlled circumstances, that he defines.

Oh yeah, and the attendant clinical alternatives, future treatment plans, the risk assessment and education on how to reduce the public safety risk, the attendant health issues that impact the individual such as sex partners, pregnancy, and the variety of future medical implications of HIV, as well as the overall dealing with the behavioral and psychosocial impact of a having a socially stigmatizing health condition that will inevitably result in one's death... that'll all be stuffed in the home test box you can grab at Rite-Aid too, right?

No - why does it need to be though?

You might as well argue that kids in school should not be allowed access to condoms because you can't fit all the possible information they may need about sex onto that little package.

Oh wait - people argue exactly that all the time.

Oh wait, we're talking about freedom.  They can just listen to their bodies.  No sweat.

No, they can listen to whatever they want to listen to - and yes, we are in fact talking about freedom.

You cannot have any actual respect for the concept of liberty in real terms if you are willing to argue that individuals should not be allowed access to information about themselves because you think they cannot handle that information.

Sometimes you pick the goofiest subjects to plant your Libertard flag.

No, actually I am completely consistent. As are you, for that matter - you consistently don't give a shit about liberty, except when you are whining about it somewhere other than right here.

[Martinus]

But speaking seriously, both the drug and the home HIV test controversies seem to boil down to liberty vs. ignorance. You solve that easily: you educate. Informed user will be less likely to commit the errors you mention.

It could be that garbon and I are less concerned about this, since the GLBT community has been literally awash with HIV prevention and maintenance education for years now so we don't think there are people who don't know these things - but perhaps it's time to start such campaign for heteros (I don't see why the aforementioned drugs/tests can't have leaflets explaining a lot of this stuff). Especially as in pure numerical values, new HIV infections are on the raise among the straight populace more than in the gay one.

[Martinus]

I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

Neither does HIV.

[Barrister]

Yeah, it's one thing to home test for blood sugar, cholesterol or even pregnancy, but a home test for HIV should need more than a "Get thee to an apothecary" label on the instructions.
Not a good idea for home testing.

I don't know if there's so much difference. I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Berkut]

I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

Yes it does.

And in some cases, HIV does not kill people - hell, in many cases it does not these days.

None of that is the point though - liberty is not about some calcualtion of Seedy's to decide if some information is just too risky for the peasants to have access to - you either buy into the idea that people have the right to decide those kinds of risks themselves, or you buy into the idea that the state is better able to assess those risks for everyone, and should in fact do so and impose a blanket answer for everyone.

[Barrister]

I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

Yes it does.

And in some cases, HIV does not kill people - hell, in many cases it does not these days.

None of that is the point though - liberty is not about some calcualtion of Seedy's to decide if some information is just too risky for the peasants to have access to - you either buy into the idea that people have the right to decide those kinds of risks themselves, or you buy into the idea that the state is better able to assess those risks for everyone, and should in fact do so and impose a blanket answer for everyone.

So given this thread in particular...

Do you support the idea that prescriptions are unnecessary, and that people ought to be able to "decide these kinds of risks for themselves" and have the right to be given any kind of drug that is only available by presciprtion?

[Martinus]

Well as I said, education is the key. Giving ignorant people an access to a drug that can be potentially misused/misinterpreted vs. denying them that drug is a false dichotomy. You have to educate and inform, but that's unfortunately not something that can be accomplished by a simple signature of a bureaucrat under some piece of paper - you need the whole system of health and sex education.

[Berkut]

I mean think about pregnancy. Like HIV, you get it from unprotected sex, it radically changes your lifestyle, increases your living costs and it's a pain you have to live with for the rest of your life. Mind you, there are people who claim that becoming HIV positive changed their lives for the better, but they are as delusional as people who get pregnant.

Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

Yes it does.

And in some cases, HIV does not kill people - hell, in many cases it does not these days.

None of that is the point though - liberty is not about some calcualtion of Seedy's to decide if some information is just too risky for the peasants to have access to - you either buy into the idea that people have the right to decide those kinds of risks themselves, or you buy into the idea that the state is better able to assess those risks for everyone, and should in fact do so and impose a blanket answer for everyone.

So given this thread in particular...

Do you support the idea that prescriptions are unnecessary, and that people ought to be able to "decide these kinds of risks for themselves" and have the right to be given any kind of drug that is only available by presciprtion?

No, not at all - but I don't see how that relates to the question.

We aren't talking about whether a given drug should be available as a prescription, we are talking about either

A) Whether a given drug should be available at all, even with a prescription, or
B) Whether a test should be available

I have no problem at all with the basdic idea that certain drugs are to be administered under a professionals supervision.

That is not what is being debated though - if you want to debate that (and can find someone to take the con position), maybe start a new thread?