Should people with STIs/STDs be tattooed?

[Faint]

Considering that infected persons pose a risk for those of us who are not infected, do you think our governments should take action to require mandatory tattoos of anyone who tests positive for HIV or herpes?

For example, let's say a man goes to a clinic, he tests positive for HIV, his personal information (testing is no longer anonymous in this scenario) is then sent to some enforcement agency, and he is given a certain amount of time (maybe one week) to have himself tattooed by a specialist in a specific region of his body (let's say somewhere generally out of sight, like just below the belt buckle). After the tattooing, he must report back to the enforcement agency for tattoo inspection, and he must continue to do this regularly (maybe once a month?) so the enforcers can make sure he has not removed or covered the tattoo. The point of this of course to that the tattoo will serve as a warning to anyone the man (or woman) chooses to get "intimate" with.

Do you think this would help?

And which is more important--the safety of the uninfected population or the personal cosmetic liberties of the infected individual?

 

[SoyLeche]

Or... people could take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[Aqualung]

I don't think this would help significantly. There's already enough people can do to make sure they aren't getting STDs from anybody, and this one extra step would be an unncessesary waste of money.

 

[Darkdale]

No, but I think if someone who knowingly has AIDS passes it on, they should be prosecuted for 2nd degree murder.

 

[SoyLeche]

No, but I think if someone who knowingly has AIDS passes it on, they should be prosecuted for 2nd degree murder.

On a first read, without thinking about it too much, I agree with you on this. I may change my mind later.

 

[jewscout]

hmmm singling out the undesirable folks in society so that they don't "contaminate" the public....




.....wait i've heard this before somewhere...let me think...hmmmmmmm

 

[Mike182]

Considering that infected persons pose a risk for those of us who are not infected, do you think our governments should take action to require mandatory tattoos of anyone who tests positive for HIV or herpes?

For example, let's say a man goes to a clinic, he tests positive for HIV, his personal information (testing is no longer anonymous in this scenario) is then sent to some enforcement agency, and he is given a certain amount of time (maybe one week) to have himself tattooed by a specialist in a specific region of his body (let's say somewhere generally out of sight, like just below the belt buckle). After the tattooing, he must report back to the enforcement agency for tattoo inspection, and he must continue to do this regularly (maybe once a month?) so the enforcers can make sure he has not removed or covered the tattoo. The point of this of course to that the tattoo will serve as a warning to anyone the man (or woman) chooses to get "intimate" with.

Do you think this would help?

And which is more important--the safety of the uninfected population or the personal cosmetic liberties of the infected individual?

i agree whole heartedly, because the best way to protect society is to disregard every individuals basic rights within that society :sarcastic

im sorry, but the sort of embarrasment a law like this would entail does not bear thinking about, it could seriously damage the persons health by causing depression, low self esteem, and possibly suicidal tendencies. if a person discovers they are HIV+ it is a big shock, it can alter ones entire life, why add more stigma and disgrace to them?

plus people would simply not go for medical tests, for fear of maybe having one of these and then being marked - remember, we want to help people with these conditions, not shame them into hiding

 

[Faint]

Or... people could take responsibility for their own actions.

I'm not sure how you mean this. Are you saying that a girl needs to be responsible for sleeping with a guy who neglects to tell her that he is HIV positive, even if they use a condom? Or that the guy needs to be responsible and tell her the truth? Both? Either way, you seem to put an absurdly large amount of faith in humans doing what they should. People could also stop lying so much, stop smoking, stop eating junk food, stop being obese, stop driving recklessly, etc.

 

[Jaymes]

Either way, you seem to put an absurdly large amount of faith in humans doing what they should. People could also stop lying so much, stop smoking, stop eating junk food, stop being obese, stop driving recklessly, etc.

Exactly. Let's get the government to be responsible for us, and ban all junk food, cigarettes, cars...

You can't force people to be responsible. Tattooing someone for having an STD is one of the worse ideas I've heard.

 

[Aqualung]

People could also stop lying so much, stop smoking, stop eating junk food, stop being obese, stop driving recklessly, etc.

Yes they could. But we don't give tattoos to liers, people who eat junk food, obese people, or reckless drivers. Do you think we should start giving people specific tattoos for whatever possibly detrimental behaviour they are doing?

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm not sure how you mean this. Are you saying that a girl needs to be responsible for sleeping with a guy who neglects to tell her that he is HIV positive, even if they use a condom? Or that the guy needs to be responsible and tell her the truth? Both? Either way, you seem to put an absurdly large amount of faith in humans doing what they should. People could also stop lying so much, stop smoking, stop eating junk food, stop being obese, stop driving recklessly, etc.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you choose to sleep with someone that you don't know well enough to know whether or not they have an STD, then you face the chance of getting an STD.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the plan in the OP would discourage people from checking to see if they are HIV positive.

 

[jonny]

If you don't have sex you won't get an STD. If you don't have sex until you are married and you marry someone who has never had sex with anyone else you also have a slim chance of getting an STD. If you have unprotected sex with everyone and their dog, you'll probably get an STD and pass it on to a lot of people. People know the risk. You make a decision on whether or not you are willing to take on that risk when you start having sex. We don't need the government to brand people to protect us from behavior that we can avoid.

 

[SoyLeche]

If you don't have sex you won't get an STD. If you don't have sex until you are married and you marry someone who has never had sex with anyone else you also have a slim chance of getting an STD. If you have unprotected sex with everyone and their dog, you'll probably get an STD and pass it on to a lot of people. People know the risk. You make a decision on whether or not you are willing to take on that risk when you start having sex. We don't need the government to brand people to protect us from behavior that we can avoid.

Yay!! My chances are slim!

 

[Faint]

i agree whole heartedly, because the best way to protect society is to disregard every individuals basic rights within that society :sarcastic

So infected individuals have the right to infect the noninfected? Or the right to lie about their current health status?

im sorry, but the sort of embarrasment a law like this would entail does not bear thinking about, it could seriously damage the persons health by causing depression, low self esteem, and possibly suicidal tendencies. if a person discovers they are HIV+ it is a big shock, it can alter ones entire life, why add more stigma and disgrace to them?

This is why the tattoo would be out of sight to all except someone who might be about to have sex with them, like in the pubic region (as I said). Although, knowing people's "Star Bellied Sneeches" and "us vs. them" tendencies, I'm sure that fashion revealing the tattoo zone would soon be popular among the uninfected. Extra-low-cut jeans for example...

plus people would simply not go for medical tests, for fear of maybe having one of these and then being marked - remember, we want to help people with these conditions, not shame them into hiding

Yes, actually this would be a big problem with the idea. Of course, without treatment, their conditions would progress much more quickly. Perhaps fear symptoms (and a shortening of life for those who don't get HIV treatments) would prod people to get tested? I'm not sure, but there are always ways to fix such problems. Off the top of my head I can imagine something like a certified, clean health report being required by the government once a year (like taxes).

 

[Jaymes]

So infected individuals have the right to infect the noninfected? Or the right to lie about their current health status?

So we should brand them like cattle? :sarcastic People know if they have unprotected sex with someone they don't know, or even someone who they haven't seen paperwork for testing, they are running a risk. They might have HIV or crabs or herpes... they might not. We can't force people to be cautious, we can only educate them about what could happen if they're not.

This is why the tattoo would be out of sight to all except someone who might be about to have sex with them, like in the pubic region (as I said). Although, knowing people's "Star Bellied Sneeches" and "us vs. them" tendencies, I'm sure that fashion revealing the tattoo zone would soon be popular among the uninfected. Extra-low-cut jeans for example...

What about people who believe it goes against their religion to be tattooed?

Forcing someone to have a tattoo that "most people won't see" doesn't make it any less of a violation of their right to do what they want with their body.

 

[jewscout]

What about people who believe it goes against their religion to be tattooed?

Forcing someone to have a tattoo that "most people won't see" doesn't make it any less of a violation of their right to do what they want with their body.

hey, it didn't stop Hitler

i got an idea lets keep all these "sick" people in "medical camps" where they can be overseen and "protected"

 

[Faint]

Tattooing someone for having an STD is one of the worse ideas I've heard.

Nothing else seems to be working now does it. We've made headway with safe sex, and sex ed, but it clearly isn't enough. The problem comes down to people not doing what they should. That's why we make new laws--to MAKE people do what they should.

But we don't give tattoos to liers, people who eat junk food, obese people, or reckless drivers. Do you think we should start giving people specific tattoos for whatever possibly detrimental behaviour they are doing?.

Liars, people who can't control their eating habits, and fat people don't necessarily endanger MY health in that I can't catch any of those things from people. Reckless driving is already enforced against, but since you can't read someone's mind, all the police can do is ticket/arrest the offenders as it happens. HIV in a bloodstream is a sort of poison. I'm just advocating a warning label on the container.

If you don't have sex you won't get an STD. If you don't have sex until you are married and you marry someone who has never had sex with anyone else you also have a slim chance of getting an STD. If you have unprotected sex with everyone and their dog, you'll probably get an STD and pass it on to a lot of people. People know the risk. You make a decision on whether or not you are willing to take on that risk when you start having sex. We don't need the government to brand people to protect us from behavior that we can avoid.

Aside from this abstinence fantasy world, do you truly believe that your spouse/future spouse would never cheat on you?? Hopefully you assume it, if you choose to marry the person, but it is never a guarantee. Wouldn't you rather your cheating partner was able to choose someone uninfected, rather than catching a disease and then bringing it home to infect you?

 

[Mike182]

This is why the tattoo would be out of sight to all except someone who might be about to have sex with them, like in the pubic region (as I said). Although, knowing people's "Star Bellied Sneeches" and "us vs. them" tendencies, I'm sure that fashion revealing the tattoo zone would soon be popular among the uninfected. Extra-low-cut jeans for example...

in our school, we had swimming classes

we had to use public changing rooms

anyone who appeared in any way different to everyone else was public humiliated, one boy in our school even tried to kill himself from being bullied so much about something as trivial as a mole on his bum - kids can be born with HIV, you want to brand them from the word go for a school life of bullying, humiliation, leading to depression, very low self esteem, and suicidal tendancies

i don't know about anything else, but in my honest oppinion, this is unjustified

 

[standing_alone]

I think tattooing someone with an STD is an irrational idea, as others have already pointed out. It sets those infected with STDs apart from society, like they are less of a member of society. Putting a tattoo on somebody isn't going to a whole heck of a lot to prevent the spread of STDs - there will be those out there who will still "get intimate" with them, or they'll find some way to get "what they want." Also, would it all be like, "one day we're tattooing these people, and well, we sure hope that everyone who sees this tattoo knows what it means." The simple solutions to prevent STDs is either abstinence or using protection. If someone refuses to do this, they take the chances. Also, how would the tattooing thing work if the person had so many tattoos that they just didn't have room anywhere to put it?