The Instigator
Almusha
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LatentDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should People with HIV inform other about their status?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
LatentDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,391 times Debate No: 29595
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Almusha

Con

Every citizen, regardless of their origin or disease is entitled to privacy and to protection of honor and dignity.
LatentDebater

Pro

While I agree that they have the right to privacy I think if that in anyone's set of morals, to inform one of your condition would be something you ought to do and should do because if you don't you'd only spread the disease further if they were to unwittingly have sex with your HIV infected body.
Debate Round No. 1
Almusha

Con

The obligation for person with HIV-infection to public information about his/her status will lead to Discrimination from society.
It is necessary to recognize that in our society people living with HIV, excluded from "mainstream" society. Modern society is full of stereotypes, fears and phobias in relation to HIV-infected. Society doesn't recognize HIV-infected people with the high-grade part.
LatentDebater

Pro

The resolution is not about making informing of HIV obligatory it is a debate over whether one ought to inform others about their status (whether one should do it).

Sure one is entitled ot choose not to but undoubtedly they ought to do it and thus should.
Debate Round No. 2
Almusha

Con

Disclosure of HIV status will not help to reduce the spread of HIV in the society.

Disclosure of the status of HIV does not lead to the best control of HIV-infected. More effective work on use of methods of protection, information work on population education, namely distribution of free means of protection, needles for injections and other will be more effective measures. AIDS is an illness of the poor states, with low level of the income and life and bad knowledge of this illness. This is where governments should and need work.
LatentDebater

Pro

The problem my opponent is facing is the resolution is totally different to the topic they are pro on.

This is what my opponent appears to be supporting: It's a waste of governmental time and resources to enforce a law that would obligate people suffering from HIV to voice their condition.

Well I am also pro on that topic and really don't care for that topic within the realms of this debate.

My opponent has not even once explained why, if suffering form HIV it is not one's duty to inform others of the disease, especially potential sexual mates. I have given two reasons, firstly is the issue of disease spreading that would be prevented if the person was well-informed and could ensure sufficient protection is worn during the sex, perhaps going out of their way to buy a condom despite the woman being on birth control or something like that. The second point I raised was that if one ought to do it to save the lives of others and prevent spreading of disease amongst humanity then they undoubtedly would conclude that people with HIV should inform others about their status.

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ladybug 4 years ago
Ladybug
The fact of the matter here is that HIV/AIDS is not spread through day to day contact. You are not going to catch "it" from talking to someone or even sharing their drink. There have also been no documented cases of the virus spreading through kissing. The only way to get the virus is to have sexual intercourse and blood to blood contact (which is rare). It has also never been transmitted through a needle stick.

Now to the burning question. Should you tell others? Well it depends on who the others are and ethics. If the person with HIV is in casual contact with others, no, there is no reason to tell. If they are going to have sexual relations, yes, always, always, always tell. (this is where the problem comes in, people dont tell). Health workers such as docs, nurses, dentists and others who come in contact with a person's fluids having HIV face an ethical problem here. While they are not required to tell, I, as a doc with aids, would find another profession for the sake of my patients but I would not be obligated to tell.

I do not think that as a general rule it should be spoken of. I dont tell you when I have a headache or a cold. You will get a cold from others log before you will get HIV. I do not think that a database with names and addresses with people with HIV/AIDS is necessary or constitutional. We are afforded certain liberties in this government. It should stay that way. Health is private and should remain so.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
I like it. I may take this.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
If they are having sex? Or in everyday life?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
AlmushaLatentDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument to Pro. Con has the burden of proof. Regardless of Pro/Con choice, the initiator posed the resolution to this debate and the initiator has burden of proof. Con, therefore, has to provide evidence to explain why people with HIV should not have to inform others about their status. Con argued that disclosure of the disease would not prevent the spread of the disease but did not have evidence to support this assertion. Pro rebutted the arguments, even pointing out that Con started taking Pro's side, so argument to Pro.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
AlmushaLatentDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had burden of proof, and did not justify it.