So this guy finds out his AIDS is cured. Lo, the scientific community suddenly finds him interesting. No, really interesting. They ask him if he'd lend his body over for study, he's got red gold running through his veins and millions infected the world over need whatever magic's in his blood to cure them. He refuses: Is this wrong?
Eh. His body's probably somehow evolved a way to kill the virus. Life always finds a way to keep on livin'...
No, it's his body. Maybe he feels it is wrong to interfere with natural population checks?.. Personally though, I would 'lend' myself to the scientists.
Xerxes: True enough. But should one force him? Isn't a refusal from him technical mass murder? James: Ok. Now would you force him?
What if you were to kidnap him, study him, then market the drug, because as an evil pharmaceutical company, you could?
No. The scientific community starts off with the wrong premise in that it assumes that the body works on its own, uninfluenced by the mind. And if they tear the man to shreds, do all the tests, they won't find anything in him that they could remake and market, in order to "cure" other people.
If it is in fact true that he has shaken off HIV, then it is terribly wrong for him to deny further medical studies. I mean, all the guy has to do is give a few samples of blood - and what is so hard about that? He may hold the lives of tens of millions in his hands - and now what, he's just going play fugitive with the scientists? However, all of this assumes that he did in fact become infected with HIV in the first place. There is always a certain error rate in these tests; it is around 1.2%, if I remember correctly. I have learned of it as an example in statistics class. The probability of either one of both tests showing up as the opposite leads me to believe that the premise of the article could be misleading. In exaggeration, the tests could have been sequentially positive, if one tests repeatedly, until an erroneous reading occurs on the nth try. This could also be an alternative explanation as to why he's denying further tests - the media sensation and hope in him might be shattered just like that if another positive reading shows up on the next test.
Yeah, I heard this a while back. He somehow rid himself of the world's deadliest disease and he refuses to even help the scientific community. Now, a sane man would do that to hide something i.e, it was a lie. An insane man would do it for no good reason. I would kidnap the guy and force tests on him. It would be like rediscovering the wheel if a cure was found because of him and to be honest the chance of saving the millions of infected people in the world is well worth any ethical 'infringements'. The good of the many out weighs the good of the few. Nothing truely great comes from standing aside and doing nothing.
Philandering idiots having unprotected sex.. we're better off without them, I say Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You are correct, but if we dishonor the rights of even one person what is the point of having rights?
In fact, it's probably fair to say that the majority of people with AIDS today got it from having unprotected sex. Philandering idiots? No. Most of these people live in Africa. Contraception is not always available, and the Catholic Church in some areas does not even allow it. Some people are also uneducated and do not even know of the risk of AIDS.
Seeing as how most of the cases of AIDS occur in Africa, I would bet money that the stats (that you haven't provided) that show that "the majority of people with AIDS today got it from having unprotected sex" are innacurate guesses at best. This, I will agree with.
If people would rather die than keep their pants on, that's their choice. The word on AIDS has had plenty of circulation time. Plus, I don't get laid enough to have sympathy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Cotton I'd suggest you read: 2004 Report on the global AIDS epidemic by UNAIDS This is part of what they say in regards to condom use: Hmmmm.. 19% is not that high now is it? That's but one of the reports out there. Gendy While the guy's a bastard for refusing to allow them to test him, no one should force him as it is his body and his right to refuse. He's told he has red gold flowing through his veins and is asked to lend his body to science. What does this little peon see? Others making money off his blood. However, it is his body and his right to refuse.
He did the right thing. There are too many people, and AIDS is helping clear out the incautious ones.
Facial: Don't get me wrong- I'd blow every last one of you to crud given ammunition and balls but I'd like to know why someone would consider this man a mass murderer. You didn't care for him when he was about to commit suicide given teh news of being HIV positive- does this make you his murderer for not intervening that night? You didn't console him, didn't send flowers, didn't call, didn't send him a bundle of money, you didn't even know he existed and yet he's considered a murderer and not you had he died. Why not? If he's a "cruel meany" for killing millions of people he's never even seen, then you too might as well hang for not feeding Kenyan parasites slowly rotting in their slums right now. You might as well hang for every UNICEF commercial you let play without calling. You might as well hang for letting me sit here broke which will eventually lead to my whoring me and your mother for money and then dying of perforated anus. You might as well hang for killing people you never even knew existed. This make sense? In other words, murder is a calculated offense- his actions are defensive. He guards his blood and body for the same reasons you put panties on- the stuff is YOURS. How is this murder? James: Force him to give blood and lend his body to your science For the Sake of All Humanity. Is his refusal mass murder? Thor: Insane, how? Insane is you fancying your entitlement to anything that's mine. Bells: Precicely. The far lefts and rights nicely lock in disagreement, but here's this one man who'd like to remain private and the oversocilized suddenly commune to kvetch that one oversocialized mantra "He's an inhuman monster! Mass murderer!!!111!!!!" Uhm, no. Roman: Then we wouldn't have this charming snag of individual rights vs. the collective, now would we? Water: Really? Then....if I were to tear you to shreds right now, milk your pancreas of its insulin, analyze its molecular components to artificially reproduce it by the millions in tiny 6 ounce bottles- I've a committed fantasy?
gendanken: Could be justifiable. How much blood is needed? Would he suffer any long-term inconvenience if his blood was taken? If not, it's probably justified. If so, things might be different. Also, how much is actually known about this guy? Was he HIV positive, and now he is HIV negative? Or what? What is known for sure? Murder generally requires action, not omission. But ethically, his actions could be almost equivalent. It depends on the particulars.
