Should people with STIs/STDs be tattooed?

[standing_alone]

Can you not explain, Faint? If you find branding up the sick for your convenience necessary, wouldn't disposing of them entirely be more efficient? We are talking about the public good here, aren't we?

Come on, if you just kill these people, you won't get to give them some really neat tattoos against their will and turning them into a social outcast. Come on, we all know killing is immoral and it is our moral duty to brand the sick against their will and ostracize them.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

You had a very, very, very slim chance. It wouldn't have been easy. :banghead3

Excuse me? 4 units. Whole blood. 1978. No screening at that time but plenty of infected blood around the place. It's a damn site easier to catch a virus when they're pumping it directly into a vein than it is from anal sex. If it's so easy to catch it from the little bit of blood that may end up in a syringe from the person you're sharing it with then it's pretty much a monty from a blood transfusion.
And you reckon you're banging your head against the wall.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

Tatoos: as long as it is the correct number.

666

 

[Faint]

Can you not explain, Faint? If you find branding up the sick for your convenience necessary, wouldn't disposing of them entirely be more efficient? We are talking about the public good here, aren't we?

If I truly thought that you were unable to comprehend the difference between tattooing someone and killing them outright, I wouldn't know where to begin with you. Is your moral radar so out of whack that you also have problems telling the difference between rape and consensual sex, for instance? Do I need to explain why a man shouldn't beat his spouse? I doubt it. Therefore, I see no need to humor this straw man of yours.

Chicken pox and mono are both potentally fatal...
What about the 'silent eppidemic' that is Hep.C very easily transmitted it kills by distroying the liver and other organs. . . a disease doesn't have to be long-term to kill you. Remember Influenza?

Living in general is "potentially" fatal.

For your examples, chicken pox is rarely fatal, and once you've had it, you're done with it (unless you scratch and cause yourself to scar). It is also not contagious once your immune system has destroyed it. Mono is not a big deal. Most of the people I know (including myself) have had it--you get sick for a week, and then you're right as rain. I don't advise trying to compare these things with HIV--you won't win that arguement.

The flu changes too quickly and is killed by most people's immune system so it would be pointless to tattoo a warning of this on someone. Moreover, it is airborne. Don't know how you would tattoo the air that people breathe.

Hep. C on the other hand should also be tattooed along with HSV 2. We could start a list...

 

[Jaymes]

Cold sores (HSV 1) around the mouth are not such a big deal (unless you have an important first date or appointment for a photoshoot). Also, do some homework--you can't catch herpes from a drinking fountain, since the virus will not survive on the cold metal

I was talking about drinking after someone as in sharing a drink with them; forgive me for being unclear.

I'm only talking about contagious, incurable, long term, chronic or likely fatal diseases. Chicken pox does not count. Nor does mono (there is no cure, but the symptoms vanish quickly), or type 1 herpes (same deal).

I'm pretty sure those that break out in shingles often or get painful cold sores all the time would consider them chronic. I don't see how this is any different than something like genital herpes, except you just drink after someone instead of having sex to get it... logically they should be the first to be tattooed, as some poor thirsty sap could end up getting painful cold sores the rest of their life because they drank after someone one time. We don't have drink-bottle condoms.

 

[Aqualung]

So immorality is not the principal action that bears AIDS? If so, moral behaviour is an insufficient safeguard.

What?! I didn't say that!!! ARGH!! I said that AIDS is not a punishment for immoral behaviour. I did not say that people who behave immorally have a much higher chance of getting AIDS!! :banghead3

 

[Popeyesays]

There's a couple of things to considedr:
1)According to the Supreme Court for more than two centuries, tatooing and branding are cruel and unusual punishments.
2) Having a disease is not a crime.
3) Most STD's, STI's are treatable, and when treated what are you going to do, erase the tatoo?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quoth The Raven]

For your examples, chicken pox is rarely fatal, and once you've had it, you're done with it (unless you scratch and cause yourself to scar). It is also not contagious once your immune system has destroyed it. Mono is not a big deal. Most of the people I know (including myself) have had it--you get sick for a week, and then you're right as rain. I don't advise trying to compare these things with HIV--you won't win that arguement.

Actually, once you've had chicken pox you're not done with the virus for the rest of your life...it's hunkered down in your nerve roots waiting for an excuse to pop up. And while we're on the subject, obviously your immune system HASN"T destroyed it, has it? No, it hasn't...and if you have an outbreak of shingles you are contagious, and you can give other people who haven't had it chickenpox. Approximately 2 people die per week in the US from chickenpox. (CDC) Not a lot of people, but you'd hate to be one.

(and mono may not have been a big deal for you. but I guess you're not one of the people who ended up with a ruptured spleen, Bells palsy, hemolytic anaemia,myocarditis, aseptic meningitis,encephalitis or Guillain-Barre syndrome from it.)

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Is there an echo in here? We have been researching a cure for over two decades--where is it? What if there is no cure? All that money down the drain...

Well hell, let's stop looking for a cure for cancer...and while we're at it let's tell those people with MS that screw them, why should we waste all that money looking for a way to make them better...what if there isn't a cure?! Why waste time with a tattoo? Just give 'em a bell and let them walk down the street ringing it and shouting,'Unclean!':banghead3
Actually, it'd be so much easier just to put them all in their own colony like we used to do with lepers. Put a big wall around it and a locked gate, because it's not like they necessarily have body parts rotting off, and you'd hate to have one of them get out and run amok through the clean population because we didn't know who they were.

 

[Flappycat]

Actually, once you've had chicken pox you're not done with the virus for the rest of your life...it's hunkered down in your nerve roots waiting for an excuse to pop up. And while we're on the subject, obviously your immune system HASN"T destroyed it, has it? No, it hasn't...and if you have an outbreak of shingles you are contagious, and you can give other people who haven't had it chickenpox. Approximately 2 people die per week in the US from chickenpox. (CDC) Not a lot of people, but you'd hate to be one.

(and mono may not have been a big deal for you. but I guess you're not one of the people who ended up with a ruptured spleen, Bells palsy, hemolytic anaemia,myocarditis, aseptic meningitis,encephalitis or Guillain-Barre syndrome from it.)

Yeah, this is true. It can stay dormant in you for decades, and it breaks out in the form of shingles. It's a nasty stuff, really, and it's actually, if I'm not mistaken, related to herpes.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

What?! I didn't say that!!! ARGH!! I said that AIDS is not a punishment for immoral behaviour. I did not say that people who behave immorally have a much higher chance of getting AIDS!! :banghead3

Before you start banging your head again, refer to post #42, I think it was, which was your post in which you said something very much along the lines of 'people have a higher chance of getting HIV through immoral behaviour.'

 

[mr.guy]

If I truly thought that you were unable to comprehend the difference between tattooing someone and killing them outright,...

It isn't "tattooing" you're suggesting. It's branding. Don't confuse the issue.

Is your moral radar so out of whack that you also have problems telling the difference between rape and consensual sex, for instance?

My sense of morality is irrelevent. You've declared your campaing on moral grounds:

Ultimately, it is for the good of the human race, and I think it is "immoral" to oppose such an idea.

Ultimately, removing all instances of transmission (killing and incinerating the infected) is more beneficial to the human race. It bears some resemblance to your bigotry towards the sick, and is also a qualifier for your vein of ideas in this thread: namely, it's thoughtless, impractical, hysterical and all together horrible. I should count on your whole-hearted support.

Do I need to explain why a man shouldn't beat his spouse?

Yes, you should be able to. Lots of people feel moraly justified and culturally endowed to beat their wives. Are they all morally crippled?

 

[Aqualung]

Before you start banging your head again, refer to post #42, I think it was, which was your post in which you said something very much along the lines of 'people have a higher chance of getting HIV through immoral behaviour.'

Until you quote the site that says that people who don't have extra- or premarital sex, and who don't do drugs, have a higher percentage of AIDS than people who do, I stand by my statemesnts.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Until you quote the site that says that people who don't have extra- or premarital sex, and who don't do drugs, have a higher percentage of AIDS than people who do, I stand by my statemesnts.

That's fine...just pointing out that you had actually said what you were getting angsty over people saying you had said. All anyone has ever said is that there are perfectly moral ways of getting HIV.

 

[Popeyesays]

Yeah, this is true. It can stay dormant in you for decades, and it breaks out in the form of shingles. It's a nasty stuff, really, and it's actually, if I'm not mistaken, related to herpes.

Chicken Pox and shignles are infections of Herpes zoster, not Herpes simplex.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Aqualung]

That's fine...just pointing out that you had actually said what you were getting angsty over people saying you had said. All anyone has ever said is that there are perfectly moral ways of getting HIV.

I never denied that. I just said it was much, much, much more uncommon.

 

[Faint]

There's a couple of things to considedr:
1)According to the Supreme Court for more than two centuries, tatooing and branding are cruel and unusual punishments.

Things change.

2) Having a disease is not a crime.

Never said it was.

3) Most STD's, STI's are treatable, and when treated what are you going to do, erase the tatoo?

When we find the cures we can remove the tattoos.

It isn't "tattooing" you're suggesting. It's branding. Don't confuse the issue.

If you're going to start debating the terms that I use, I advise you to first get your definitions right. There is no hot iron or fire involved in tattooing. You would be better to say "marking" or "applying a warning label to..." for instance.

Ultimately, removing all instances of transmission (killing and incinerating the infected) is more beneficial to the human race.

Except that you have conveniently forgotten that the infected are also part of the human race. Again you're trying to twist my argument into some kind of campaign for treating the sick like they aren't human. Meanwhile, the wise will understand that after the tattooing is out of the way, the infected can continue living their lives to the best of their abilities (considering their symptoms). No one here has yet to provide a good arguement as to how tattoos are going to ruin these peoples lives.

Yes, you should be able to. Lots of people feel moraly justified and culturally endowed to beat their wives. Are they all morally crippled?

Yes, they are morally crippled. We should apply hot irons to them. Brand them as it were.

 

[mr.guy]

If you're going to start debating the terms that I use, I advise you to first get your definitions right. There is no hot iron or fire involved in tattooing. You would be better to say "marking" or "applying a warning label to..." for instance.

The definition holds perfectly. Got any Nike brand gear?

Except that you have conveniently forgotten that the infected are also part of the human race. Again you're trying to twist my argument into some kind of campaign for treating the sick like they aren't human.

I'm not twisting your argument, i'm presenting you with an alternative that borrows from yours; Isolating the undesirable for my own convenience.

...the infected can continue living their lives to the best of their abilities (considering their symptoms).

Don't forget the additional stygmatization you intend to burden them with.

No one here has yet to provide a good arguement as to how tattoos are going to ruin these peoples lives.

You've ignored the best ones so far.

Yes, they are morally crippled. We should apply hot irons to them. Brand them as it were.

Of course, you haven't said why. Plenty here would tag your branding advocacy as a moral failing. I'd agree.

 

[mr.guy]

Until you quote the site that says that people who don't have extra- or premarital sex, and who don't do drugs, have a higher percentage of AIDS than people who do, I stand by my statemesnts.

No problem, aqualung. But you can understand how the rest of us who don't adhere to your church get a bit irked when we hear we'll get aids because we're immoral. I have no problem with general pragmatic prevention and "morality" agreeing, be it by plan or coincidence. But i would balk at the statement that immoral behaviour increases the odds of AIDS transmission.

 

[Faint]

The definition holds perfectly. Got any Nike brand gear?

Sorry, I only wear cool clothing. Are you saying that I'm saying that we should mark the infected with a consumer product label? Not sure where you got that idea. Just keep digging that hole...

Don't forget the additional stygmatization you intend to burden them with.

Everyone has problems, and this would not cause much (if any) stygmatization considering the tattoo would be out of sight (ECHO ECho echo...). Or do people often expose their genital regions in public where you live? (sounds fun actually)

You've ignored the best ones so far.

Nah, I responded to them, but they couldn't hang. It happens a lot.

Of course, you haven't said why. Plenty here would tag your branding advocacy as a moral failing. I'd agree.

So you think people should beat their spouses? This is off topic anyway--start a new thread and I'll tell you why this is a ridiculous idea.