If HIV status was public information, would it reduce HIV transmission?

  • We can socially accept them

    If you know that someone is HIV positive you would not risk having sexual relations with them, despite the fact that there is protection,which is not 100% safe. No social discrimination is available since we have been able to accept people with HIV and AIDS in our society so their status should be made public and they will reduce chances of transmission

  • Public would be aware.

    If you were to the dentist or a surgeon and no one knows that you're HIV positive, they would not give you any special attention, which could result in the death of you and the slow death of the doctor treating you, as he has to come in contact with your blood during the procedure. However, it's a different story if your HIV status is mentioned in your medical card.

  • I believe that public information of HIV status would reduce transmission, because potential partners would be aware of the status.

    If one's HIV status were public information, any potential partner would be able to see whether or not a person had the disease. After seeing that knowledge, they could decide to avoid said person sexually and, thus, prevent the transmission of HIV.

    Posted by: PuzzledCharles70
  • I think that if there would be a way to find out if a person is HIV positive it would decrease the risk of others being infected through sexual contact.

    I think if given the opportunity to find out the status of certain aspects of a person's health history, HIV, hepatitis, etc., I do think that it would decrease the risk of infection to other people, especially through sexual contact. I think that sex is a choice and by choosing a sex partner, you should be privy to information that could potentially be life changing or life threatening to yourself. Some people are not forthcoming and by not sharing this information they are deliberately putting someone else at risk.

    Posted by: UnsuitableRigoberto99
  • I do think that, if everyone's HIV status was public, it would reduce the disease's transmission, because non-infected people would be able to use the information to protect themselves.

    Since no one out there wants to be infected with HIV, I think making HIV infection statuses public would reduce transmission. HIV-infected people would be forced to take responsibility for their status, while non-infected people could avoid infected partners or, alternately, take proper precautions if they have or choose an infected partner.

    Posted by: ToughEfrain26
  • It would be an invasion of privacy, but it would protect others, because it would allow the spread of information, even when some don't care about infecting others.

    Not all, but some people with HIV don't care about infecting other people, or don't take measures to protect themselves. I think the spreading of HIV would diminish, but so would the chance for those people to live, work, and lead a semi-normal life. Their children could also suffer.

    Posted by: CeIIoBurke
  • I believe to a certain degree that public status would reduce the amount of HIV transmission and reported cases.

    To a certain extent, I believe that publicizing one's HIV status would reduce transmissions. However, I also agree that it should be done in a professional and discreet way, as many of those who are HIV victims, were either born with the disease (having the disease through no fault of their own), or unknowingly infected by a spouse or partner.

    Posted by: Quibarce
  • Knowing who the criminals are reduces crime; knowing who is infected would reduce infection rates.

    Why are the names of sex offenders published within a neighborhood? So that parents can watch for those offenders and thus prevent reoffense. Why do we not take precautions with HIV status when sex with an HIV positive person can kill the unknowing victim? Why do we prevent knowledge of who is HIV positive when there are known cases of HIV infected persons seeking to kill as many as possible through unprotected sex? This is not to advocate active discrimination against the HIV positive, since many are infected through no fault of their own. But if we can run a criminal back ground check and pull the academic records of potential spouses, why can we not also see whether they have a fatal transmissible disease? If knowledge is power, knowing who can kill you with more than a kiss will save lives.

    Posted by: Pir4And
  • If peoples HIV status was public the spread of it wouldn't be so prevalent because people who had it would be known.

    If people who had HIV was public information you could check the database before you slept with someone and even before you got into a serious relationship with someone. Making HIV status public would keep predators with HIV from being able to deceive unknowing victims and then infecting them with the disease.

    Posted by: B3rkIffy
  • If HIV status was public information, it would reduce HIV transmission.

    There are many people in the world today who have tested positive for the HIV virus that were not informed by their partner that it was an issue. I do feel that if HIV status was public information there would be many people who would chose not to have sex with an HIV positive individual if they knew the truth. The spread of HIV is not something most negative people would want to take a chance on even with a condom. I do feel that people that are positive for HIV should have to tell their partners about their tests but as for making it public knowledge it would be an invasion of their privacy.

    Posted by: w00tboycomic
  • It would INCREASE transmission.

    The problem with an HIV registry is the fact that it's a serious invasion of privacy. This is part of a patient's medical history which is confidential due to laws. Herpes, HPV, and even Non-STDs such as Tuberculosis are also responsible for causing problems in society (apart from health, I'm talking about Social Stigma)... So why don't we make registries for all of these also?

    Even if we wanted to do this registry, chances are it will HIGHLY underestimate the amount of people actually living with the disease. People who decide to take treatment actually lower their chances of spreading the disease (especially if they're conscious of their sexual partner's status and want to preserve their status)...These are the people who would be in the registry. The problem then comes from the people who refuse to get tested, for reasons X, Y and Z. These people will not receive treatment, meaning that as the virus grows in count inside them, they become more probable to infect others. If these people assume their status is positive and do not want to get tested, they can continue spreading their disease by continuing to practice unsafe sex. This is from personal experience, but sex without a condom feels much different than sex with a condom (Also, I'm in a monogamous relationship). I know I have the consideration that if I was single, I wouldn't dare to not use a condom if I didn't know my partner that well. Not all people are like this, and some people who might assume they are positive (untested) may continue this because it feels good to them (Not everyone out there is nice, and not everyone really cares about who you are...)

  • Creation of a HIV positive register is a terrible idea

    Most HIV transmission is by people who don't know they have HIV. Most people who know they have HIV don't purposely spread it and also are taking treatment that suppresses HIV therefore reducing further the chances of infecting others by accident or otherwise. Creation of a (assuming involuntary) register of infected people would have the effect of creating pariahs in many areas of life other than sexual intercourse as people are stupid and believe things like hiv can infect you by shaking hands (I know a guy who got tested because he shook hands with a gay). Therefore to avoid being put on this register to avoid the bad social consequences of this more people who would have gotten tested wont and wont get treatment and wont know they have aids and therefore it is obvious that a register would INCREASE hiv infection rates.

  • Making HIV status public would cause a backlash rather than reduce transmission.

    If HIV status was made public, then people known to be positive would feel like outcasts from society and would most likely be viewed the same way as well. Most likely, rather than being open about their STD, they would come up with fake identities so they could continue to have sex. It would only slightly reduce the rate of transmission if everyone was openly honest about their status and if many people who were sexually active took the time to review the database.

    Posted by: SoWinif
  • No, making HIV status public would not reduce transmission, as most people with HIV don't know they have it.

    Making HIV status public would not help reduce transmission rates, as many people with HIV don't know they have it. The problem isn't that people know they have HIV and are lying about it, the problem is that people aren't getting tested and assume they are safe from HIV. What is needed instead is education, and free testing.

    Posted by: PreciousMiguel78
  • People don't pay attention to most of the information that is public already, why would they start with HIV?

    There are sex offender registries, with lots of people on them, and very few people pay any attention to this information. There is publicly accessible information of all types that is generally ignored by the majority of the population and a lot of that information is of value to the public. There is no reason to assume that public information about HIV would be utilized to any greater degree than any of this other pertinent and already available information.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • Making the HIV status of a person public would not reduce HIV transmission, because everyone deserves medical privacy.

    I do not believe the vast majority of people who know they have HIV knowingly transmit the disease. HIV is a disease, and we have a right to medical privacy. Thinking that making public the HIV status of a person, to reduce the transmission of AIDS, is the same as thinking publishing a list of those with the flu will reduce the transmission of the flu virus.

    Posted by: N4PFerIi
  • No, not at all. It would only make life harder for people with HIV.

    Undetected people would still have it, and people would likely avoid being tested in order to avoid the consequences and stigma of having it. Until there is a cure for it, or a vaccine to prevent it, publicizing HIV patients would most likely increase the spread of HIV, and cause more deaths from AIDS due to people refusing to be tested.

    Posted by: NikiM5n
  • The highest rate of infection is between people who don't know their status

    One of the highest rates of infection in western nations is not between 1 person who knows they are positive and another who knows they are negative. It is when 1 person in positive and doesn't know it. Symptoms of HIV infection can take years to appear. Meanwhile people think they are negative and are passing the virus. Because they are not treating the disease they are also have the highest level of virus in their bodies and are the most contagious. Publishing people's status would decrease testing rates and actually INCREASE the number of new infections. It is a terrible idea.. It doesn't protect people and it is a violation of a person's rights.

  • I disagree with making HIV status public as I believe people would still get caught up with sex and drugs despite knowing the world would know they contracted a disease.

    HIV is contracted through various ways but unprotected sex and drug use are a couple of the top ways to pass the disease to another person. I feel that these two issues are things that people are either "addicted" to or they lose their sense of being safe.

    If knowing that you can DIE from HIV is not enough to stop people from putting themselves at risk, then why would some possible embarrassment stop them?

    Posted by: BraK00l
  • No, making HIV a certain status to the public would not decrease HIV transmission.

    Homeland security has already failed with public statuses when it comes to terrorism alerts. Doing the same sort of thing with HIV would only be a governmental type of fear mongering, and would not produce any results. Only individuals themselves can be responsible for their sexual life, and that is a private matter. Making all of these problems public will not improve disease. Only people's lifestyle's can do this, and that will not be dictated by some public status.

    Posted by: D Callahan

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.