5 Things to Know About the First Drug to Prevent HIV

[HVC]

Berkut, society curtails several freedoms for the greater good. That's what society is, really. A group of people telling you what you can and can't do . Personally i wouldn't care if take home test existed, but i can see where it could be a bad idea. Going around all Mel Gibson-y doesn't make sense. There is a large medical costs crisis going on in the states (as i'm sure you're aware ), why not let any tom dick and harry perform surgeries or make medications? The patients know the risk of a back alley doctor; why not give them the freedom to choose who to get surgery from?

Yes, i know that's an extreme, but i feel it's a simple way to show that freedom isn't always the ideal someone should strive towards. You have to weigh freedom against risks. "Freedom" can't be a sole reason to allow something.

[Martinus]

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?

This is a straw man. Prescription drugs are drugs that can potentially harm you - not because of the "social" side effects as we consider here but because of them actually being poisonous. Arguing that the anti-HIV drug should be available on prescription (or worse yet banned) because it could cause people to engage in risky behavior thinking themselves immune is like arguing aspirin should be available on prescription because people may think it cures certain diseases it does not cure and thus forego other drugs and die.

[Barrister]

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?

This is a straw man. Prescription drugs are drugs that can potentially harm you - not because of the "social" side effects as we consider here but because of them actually being poisonous. Arguing that the anti-HIV drug should be available on prescription (or worse yet banned) because it could cause people to engage in risky behavior thinking themselves immune is like arguing aspirin should be available on prescription because people may think it cures certain diseases it does not cure and thus forego other drugs and die.

aspirin is a bad example, as it is a very dangerous drug that was only grandfathered in to being over-the-counter.

But in any event - it is an example that some substances need experts to decide whether you should take them or not.  Either you agree with that statement or you do not.

[Martinus]

Berkut, society curtails several freedoms for the greater good. That's what society is, really. A group of people telling you what you can and can't do . Personally i wouldn't care if take home test existed, but i can see where it could be a bad idea. Going around all Mel Gibson-y doesn't make sense. There is a large medical costs crisis going on in the states (as i'm sure you're aware ), why not let any tom dick and harry perform surgeries or make medications? The patients know the risk of a back alley doctor; why not give them the freedom to choose who to get surgery from?

Yes, i know that's an extreme, but i feel it's a simple way to show that freedom isn't always the ideal someone should strive towards. You have to weigh freedom against risks. "Freedom" can't be a sole reason to allow something.

Again it is a completely wrong analogy. The concerns about take-home HIV test are not that the test can be improperly performed and as a result harm the patient (which would be the case with Tom Dick and Harry performing surgeries) but because the test could produce information that the patient is unable to handle/process himself. That's a completely different concern and while valid is preventable to a large extent by including the information in the test what to do/who to contact if you turn out to be HIV positive.

Let's also not forget that in many countries (either due to costs of health service or social stigma associated with HIV status) many people forego going to a doctor to get a HIV test entirely, so again the alternative between going to a doctor to take a HIV test and doing it at home is a false one - very often it is either the home test or nothing at all.

I think you guys argue first principles and ideal dilemmas, while ignoring the realities associated with both health care systems and HIV/sex education in our countries.

[HVC]

But the test isn't being denied to people, just denied to take at home. you can still get the info in a place that has people who know how to council you. Being home alone in the bathroom probably isn't the best place to find out about having HIV. People do stupid shit in situations like that. Like i said, in this particular case i don't really agree, i'm just against Berk's use of freedom to say that the home test should be made available.

[Berkut]

Berkut, society curtails several freedoms for the greater good. That's what society is, really. A group of people telling you what you can and can't do . Personally i wouldn't care if take home test existed, but i can see where it could be a bad idea. Going around all Mel Gibson-y doesn't make sense. There is a large medical costs crisis going on in the states (as i'm sure you're aware ), why not let any tom dick and harry perform surgeries or make medications? The patients know the risk of a back alley doctor; why not give them the freedom to choose who to get surgery from?

Yes, i know that's an extreme, but i feel it's a simple way to show that freedom isn't always the ideal someone should strive towards. You have to weigh freedom against risks. "Freedom" can't be a sole reason to allow something.

Freedom is most definitely an ideal that we should in fact always strive for. It is a fundamental principle, or it should be, and curtailing it should only be done when there are clear and defensible reasons to justify that curtailment.

There are certainly many examples of this, where in fact we do restrict freedom for the greater good of society, or where one individuals freedom conflicts with anothers.

But arguments that we should restrict individual freedom, not because of any danger to society, but because some busybody like Seedy has decided that the information is too dangerous to the individual in question is a load of shit. He is not arguing that letting people take a HIV test at home should not be allowed because it is a risk to others, but because it is a risk (in his mind) to the person taking the test!

There is nothing more dangerous than the man who will take away your freedom for your own good. I think I read something like that somewhere...

[Martinus]

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?

This is a straw man. Prescription drugs are drugs that can potentially harm you - not because of the "social" side effects as we consider here but because of them actually being poisonous. Arguing that the anti-HIV drug should be available on prescription (or worse yet banned) because it could cause people to engage in risky behavior thinking themselves immune is like arguing aspirin should be available on prescription because people may think it cures certain diseases it does not cure and thus forego other drugs and die.

aspirin is a bad example, as it is a very dangerous drug that was only grandfathered in to being over-the-counter.

But in any event - it is an example that some substances need experts to decide whether you should take them or not.  Either you agree with that statement or you do not.

I think noone disagrees that some drugs should be available with an assistance of a medical professional. Not to mention that the anti-HIV drug is to be available that way and the original objection from Berkut (which I support) was that some people were arguing that the drug should not be available at all.

Again, arguing absolutes may be fun but it is not very productive.

[Martinus]

But the test isn't being denied to people, just denied to take at home. you can still get the info in a place that has people who know how to council you. Being home alone in the bathroom probably isn't the best place to find out about having HIV. People do stupid shit in situations like that. Like i said, in this particular case i don't really agree, i'm just against Berk's use of freedom to say that the home test should be made available.

But haven't you read what I said? This is a false alternative. Most people who live with HIV do not know that (and as a result, are much more dangerous - not just because they are more likely to engage in risky behavior but because someone who is being treated for HIV have a virus count so low that they are almost unable to infect someone else even when engaging in a risky behavior). A lot of people who would take a test at home would not go to a doctor to get tested because they are afraid of the stigma or medical costs (sure HIV tests are available for free, but usually in places where only "druggies and faggots" go and in places like this you are asked a lot of questions about your sexual life since they are more of social/research clinics - that's why I prefer to get tested in a private clinic) or simply cannot handle this psychologically (I get tested every 6-9 months and I can take you waiting for the results is NOT a nice feeling - I would much rather take the test at home).

Of course releasing the HIV test without education would be a mistake. You need to 1) tell people this is not 100% certain so if you get a positive result, you still should go to see a doctor to recheck this so don't panic 2) and if you are positive this is what you should know and 3) these are people you should contact, at the very least.

[Berkut]

But the test isn't being denied to people, just denied to take at home.

On what grounds?

you can still get the info in a place that has people who know how to council you.

Who is to say I need counseling? Who gets to decide that *I* need counseling?

Being home alone in the bathroom probably isn't the best place to find out about having HIV.

How about at home in the kitchen? At home with your family? At home alone? At home after careful and rational consideration of what it all means?

Why do you get to decide for EVERYONE how they can and cannot find out information about themselves?

People do stupid shit in situations like that.

So?

People do stupid shit in lots of different situations, all the damn time.

That doesn't mean it is the job of the state to step in and stop everyone from doing things because SOME of them might do something stupid.

This is what "freedom" means. The freedom to make mistakes, to do stupid things. Freedom means nothing if it is within such a restrictive society that seeks to save us from the consequences of our choices.

Like i said, in this particular case i don't really agree, i'm just against Berk's use of freedom to say that the home test should be made available.

UNless the state can show a clear and compelling case for why ALL individuals should be denied liberty, it should stay the hell out.

When it comes to personal choices about their health that only effect them, it should definitely stay the hell out.

[Martinus]

I think both sides of the argument are missing one fact that it actually took anti-HIV activists a long time to realize, too: when it comes to HIV and sex, people do not behave rationally. You need to take how they behave and build prevention and treatment methodologies around that, and not around some ideal "rational person" model.

Which is why home tests are actually a good thing - because people are not rational and will not go to get tested even if they have a reason to believe they have HIV very often, but would be more likely to take a test at home.

[Berkut]

I think both sides of the argument are missing one fact that it actually took anti-HIV activists a long time to realize, too: when it comes to HIV and sex, people do not behave rationally. You need to take how they behave and build prevention and treatment methodologies around that, and not around some ideal "rational person" model.

Which is why home tests are actually a good thing - because people are not rational and will not go to get tested even if they have a reason to believe they have HIV very often, but would be more likely to take a test at home.

It is a classic case of cutting of your nose to spite your face. Or not seeing the forest for the trees. Or something like that.

The largest problem in the spread of HIV is not people freaking out when they find out they have it - it is people not knowing they have it and spreading it.

Here we have technology that allows effective, accurate, and inexpensive testing in the privacy of someones home, and the response?

"Oh, people are too weak/stupid/shallow to handle that information on their own! Force them to go to a doctor to get tested!"

The result will be that fewer people will get tested, of course.

I didn't really want ot make this argument though, since it is one based on practical issues, rather than the fundamental principle, which is that the state has no business denying information to people because they think people cannot handle it. That is the very height of nanny-statism.

This is the EXACT same argument used to deny kids sex education or access to condoms.

[Josquius]

In another study involving heterosexual couples in which one partner was HIV-positive, the uninfected partner had a 75% lower risk of contracting HIV if they took Truvada.

Now this I don't get.
You know its a hole of poison and death yet you keep sticking your thing in it?

[Martinus]

I think both sides of the argument are missing one fact that it actually took anti-HIV activists a long time to realize, too: when it comes to HIV and sex, people do not behave rationally. You need to take how they behave and build prevention and treatment methodologies around that, and not around some ideal "rational person" model.

Which is why home tests are actually a good thing - because people are not rational and will not go to get tested even if they have a reason to believe they have HIV very often, but would be more likely to take a test at home.

It is a classic case of cutting of your nose to spite your face. Or not seeing the forest for the trees. Or something like that.

The largest problem in the spread of HIV is not people freaking out when they find out they have it - it is people not knowing they have it and spreading it.

Here we have technology that allows effective, accurate, and inexpensive testing in the privacy of someones home, and the response?

"Oh, people are too weak/stupid/shallow to handle that information on their own! Force them to go to a doctor to get tested!"

The result will be that fewer people will get tested, of course.

I didn't really want ot make this argument though, since it is one based on practical issues, rather than the fundamental principle, which is that the state has no business denying information to people because they think people cannot handle it. That is the very height of nanny-statism.

This is the EXACT same argument used to deny kids sex education or access to condoms.

100% agreement.

[katmai]

Berkut loses because of Marti taint.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

You're equating 8th grade Sex Health Education, where they show kids how to put a condom on a banana, to a providing a clinical framework for newly diagnosed HIV+ individuals?  Please tell me you're making that equivalency.

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.

I see no threat to "Liberty", "Freedom", "Consumer Choice" or any of your other fruity buzzwords in maintaining a context in dealing with those individuals that provide a public health risk.