5 Things to Know About the First Drug to Prevent HIV

[garbon]

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.

I don't believe that. Part of the fear/dread of HIV, here in the West where you could take such a test, is more irrational than the actuality of the disease with treatment (for those who can afford it)...so I don't think a pamphlet could make a positive test seem like less of a psychic blow.

[garbon]

Btw, we already have take home HIV tests, you just don't get very quick results.

[grumbler]

This thread delivers! 

I'd toss in my two cents' worth, but Berkut already has it so well-covered I'd be redundant.

CDM's position is like that of a man who thinks that the rules to ASL shouldn't be included in the box, because someone seeing them in the privy of his own home might freak out and punch their counters; the rules should only be provided, and read, at Origins with the authors in attendance to give guidance and hope.

[crazy canuck]

This thread delivers! 

I'd toss in my two cents' worth, but Berkut already has it so well-covered I'd be redundant.

CDM's position is like that of a man who thinks that the rules to ASL shouldn't be included in the box, because someone seeing them in the privy of his own home might freak out and punch their counters; the rules should only be provided, and read, at Origins with the authors in attendance to give guidance and hope.

Yeah, because if someone punched their counters that would definitely be life threatening.

[Berkut]

I don't understand the issue with this being "life threatening". Lots of things are life threatening - that doesn't mean we should not let people find out if their life is threatened because we are afraid some set of people may not react to the knowledge well.

After all, having HIV is MORE life threatening to themselves and others if they are not aware they have it. So why would you want to restrict peoples ability to find out in a simple and easy manner? That should be the over-riding concern if we really care about peoples lives - more people die because there is a population of people who are HIV positive and do not know it than this speculated danger of how people might react without nannystate there to counsel them...surely?

If someone invented a cheap and effective home test for breast cancer, would we argue that it should not be made available because some women may not react well to the news? Other forms of cancer?

How many people have to *potentially* react poorly to justify denying information to everyone? Is there a study that shows how many people will react in such a negative manner to justify denying information to millions of people about their own health? Has that study been done? Where are the number to justify such draconian restrictions? Or is this really just someone imagination?

And what about the fact that restricting this information harms the vast majority of people who would use the test and find out they are NOT HIV positive, which I suspect most people taking the test are not? Is their peace of mind and privacy not valuable as well?

But again, these are all practical issues - the fundamental one is what I find most odious. That the state should take it upon themselves to deny people the right to find out information about their own health on the justification that the state knows better than they how and when they should be allowed access to that information is truly a fundamental abridgement of the very basis of a liberal society.

[crazy canuck]

I don't understand the issue with this being "life threatening". Lots of things are life threatening - that doesn't mean we should not let people find out if their life is threatened because we are afraid some set of people may not react to the knowledge well.

After all, having HIV is MORE life threatening to themselves and others if they are not aware they have it. So why would you want to restrict peoples ability to find out in a simple and easy manner? That should be the over-riding concern if we really care about peoples lives - more people die because there is a population of people who are HIV positive and do not know it than this speculated danger of how people might react without nannystate there to counsel them...surely?

If someone invented a cheap and effective home test for breast cancer, would we argue that it should not be made available because some women may not react well to the news? Other forms of cancer?

How many people have to *potentially* react poorly to justify denying information to everyone? Is there a study that shows how many people will react in such a negative manner to justify denying information to millions of people about their own health? Has that study been done? Where are the number to justify such draconian restrictions? Or is this really just someone imagination?

And what about the fact that restricting this information harms the vast majority of people who would use the test and find out they are NOT HIV positive, which I suspect most people taking the test are not? Is their peace of mind and privacy not valuable as well?

But again, these are all practical issues - the fundamental one is what I find most odious. That the state should take it upon themselves to deny people the right to find out information about their own health on the justification that the state knows better than they how and when they should be allowed access to that information is truly a fundamental abridgement of the very basis of a liberal society.

My point was mainly directed to the issue Garbon and I were discussing since Grumbler referred to the thread in general.  On that point we dont let people take anti-biotics whenever they feel like it because mis-use of antiboitics endangers us all.  Misuse of this drug will according to the concerns expressed in the report in the OP will have similiar consequences.

On the issue of restricting learning about lab results, there is a reason doctors wish to see their patients to discuss certain lab results and not simply tell them over the phone.  You seem to assume that everyone is as well educated and as well adjusted as you (or some mythical natural man which upon which classical liberalism is based) but it aint so.

[grumbler]

I don't understand the issue with this being "life threatening". Lots of things are life threatening ...

CC was responding to my silly post with a silly response.  He'd be a moron to have meant his response to be taken seriously.

[garbon]

My point was mainly directed to the issue Garbon and I were discussing since Grumbler referred to the thread in general.  On that point we dont let people take anti-biotics whenever they feel like it because mis-use of antiboitics endangers us all.  Misuse of this drug will according to the concerns expressed in the report in the OP will have similiar consequences.

Well sure, however people won't be able to take this whenever they want. It isn't an OTC and it isn't cheap.

[crazy canuck]

I don't understand the issue with this being "life threatening". Lots of things are life threatening ...

CC was responding to my silly post with a silly response.  He'd be a moron to have meant his response to be taken seriously.

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

[Berkut]

My point was mainly directed to the issue Garbon and I were discussing since Grumbler referred to the thread in general.  On that point we dont let people take anti-biotics whenever they feel like it because mis-use of antiboitics endangers us all.  Misuse of this drug will according to the concerns expressed in the report in the OP will have similiar consequences.

We let people take anti-biotics with a prescription from a doctor, who presumably is trained to make sure it is not proscribed in a manner that increases that risk. The claim here is that we should not allow people to take the drug even with a prescription. So that isn't really comparable.

On the issue of restricting learning about lab results, there is a reason doctors wish to see their patients to discuss certain lab results and not simply tell them over the phone.

That is a choice made by a doctor, who is a private citizen, and if my doctor insists on not telling me things over the phone, it is my choice to find another doctor.

Presumably doctors are in fact trained in what they should and should not tell people over the phone, and can make informed judgement about how to do so (and when not to). Again, this is not analogous - the demand here would be that the state make it illegal for doctors to tell people over the phone, because SOME people might not react well, therefore EVERYONE should be dragged into their doctors office no matter what.

  You seem to assume that everyone is as well educated and as well adjusted as you (or some mythical natural man which upon which classical liberalism is based) but it aint so.

No, I assume that people have the right to make choices for themselves. You assume that EVERYONE is too poorly educated and well adjusted, since your demand is that the law would apply to everyone.

See, this is the fundamental issue here - the state cannot make laws that only apply to the poorly educated and poorly adjusted, so if they deny the people who might not react well to information, they have to also deny all the people who WILL react will. This goes to the core of why societies that pay more than lip service to "liberty" and "freedom" restrict the states ability to impose these kinds of onerous restrictions. It demands that everyone be treated as if they were the most uneducated, most poorly adjusted.

There is nothing at all "mythical" about the idea that human being have the right to decide for themselves what they can and cannot handle. Most people are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what information they would like to know about their own health, and how they would like to find it out. If in fact they feel they may need support and counseling when finding the answer, they can go to a clinic or their doctor for the test. If they feel they can handle the information fine with the support of their family, or maybe the support of nobody at all, they can get the home test.

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".

[CountDeMoney]

This thread delivers! 

I'd toss in my two cents' worth, but Berkut already has it so well-covered I'd be redundant.

CDM's position is like that of a man who thinks that the rules to ASL shouldn't be included in the box, because someone seeing them in the privy of his own home might freak out and punch their counters; the rules should only be provided, and read, at Origins with the authors in attendance to give guidance and hope.

Hey, man...prematurely punching counters is not a laughing matter. 

And of course the ASL rulebook needs to be sold separately.  It is a living document.

[crazy canuck]

We let people take anti-biotics with a prescription from a doctor, who presumably is trained to make sure it is not proscribed in a manner that increases that risk. The claim here is that we should not allow people to take the drug even with a prescription. So that isn't really comparable.

It is, given the fact that antibiotics are over prescribed and that has led to some worry by health professionals that eventually antiboitics will no longer be useful which in turn has led to a significant push to decrease the usage of antibiotics.

That is a choice made by a doctor, who is a private citizen, and if my doctor insists on not telling me things over the phone, it is my choice to find another doctor.

Again the classical liberal view oversimplies things.  Doctors are not merely private actors akin to some mythical natural man.  They act within a complex web of regulatory, professional and legal obligations and restrictions.

Presumably doctors are in fact trained in what they should and should not tell people over the phone, and can make informed judgement about how to do so (and when not to). Again, this is not analogous - the demand here would be that the state make it illegal for doctors to tell people over the phone, because SOME people might not react well, therefore EVERYONE should be dragged into their doctors office no matter what.

Now you are getting it.  There is a need to impart certain information in the presence of a trained professional.  But then you drop the ball by asserting that just because some people might not be damaged without such precautions we should risk everyone being damaged.

There is nothing at all "mythical" about the idea that human being have the right to decide for themselves what they can and cannot handle.

Your right.  That particular idea is not a myth. But that idea derives from the myth of the natural man upon which your world view seems to be based.  Also, making public policy decisions based on such a myth can lead to disasterous results.  If followed in all cases we would simply allow everyone to decide for themselves whether they should take antibiotics or not.  What a disaster that would be. 

[garbon]

I wonder if there is a segment of people who would be more likely test at home because they want to avoid disapprobation from a physician/clinician.

[Berkut]

We let people take anti-biotics with a prescription from a doctor, who presumably is trained to make sure it is not proscribed in a manner that increases that risk. The claim here is that we should not allow people to take the drug even with a prescription. So that isn't really comparable.

It is, given the fact that antibiotics are over prescribed and that has led to some worry by health professionals that eventually antiboitics will no longer be useful which in turn has led to a significant push to decrease the usage of antibiotics.

And all this is happening without the need to have the state step in and just outlaw the use of anti-biotics? I think you are making my argument for me.

That is a choice made by a doctor, who is a private citizen, and if my doctor insists on not telling me things over the phone, it is my choice to find another doctor.

Again the classical liberal view oversimplies things.  Doctors are not merely private actors akin to some mythical natural man.  They act within a complex web of regulatory, professional and legal obligations and restrictions.

Indeed they do - but you are demanding that in this case, doctors should simply be restricted from giving information over the phone altogether, and MUST in all cases tell their patients that they ahve to come in, because some subset of patients may react poorly to being told over the phone.

Again, there is no law that says that doctors cannot give results over the phone - we rely on their training and discretion to understand when and how to divulge results.

Presumably doctors are in fact trained in what they should and should not tell people over the phone, and can make informed judgement about how to do so (and when not to). Again, this is not analogous - the demand here would be that the state make it illegal for doctors to tell people over the phone, because SOME people might not react well, therefore EVERYONE should be dragged into their doctors office no matter what.

Now you are getting it.  There is a need to impart certain information in the presence of a trained professional.  But then you drop the ball by asserting that just because some people might not be damaged without such precautions we should risk everyone being damaged.

You drop the ball because you assert that because some people might be damaged, everyone must have their freedom curtailed. And without even bothering to show that there will really be any significant damage that would outweight the damage the restriction will cause!

Again - this is the fundamental disconnect that shows that most people don't really give a shit about actual liberty. The onus is on the person demanding that the state restrict EVERYONES liberty to show that it is necessary. Not on me to show that the reverse.

There is nothing at all "mythical" about the idea that human being have the right to decide for themselves what they can and cannot handle.

Your right.  That particular idea is not a myth. But that idea derives from the myth of the natural man upon which your world view seems to be based.  Also, making public policy decisions based on such a myth can lead to disasterous results.  If followed in all cases we would simply allow everyone to decide for themselves whether they should take antibiotics or not.  What a disaster that would be. 

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

We are talking about the claim that information is so dangerous to people that the state has a compelling interest to not let them know if they have HIV because some people think they cannot handle the information, and it should be held back from them.

[crazy canuck]

I wonder if there is a segment of people who would be more likely test at home because they want to avoid disapprobation from a physician/clinician.

I am sure there would be some.  To avoid that problem there are several clinics here in Vancouver set up precisely for that purpose.

There was a story on the news this morning about one that is attached to a local bathhouse.  Apparently they get clients who would not feel comfortable, for a whole variety of reasons, in a more formal health care setting.