DOJ Civil Rights Division Insanity Will Lead to More Prisoners Contracting AIDS

[tyme]

An at-risk person not knowing their HIV status is not privacy, it's stupidity, and unlike other brands of stupidity, this one does affect other people in aggregate.  More than terrorist attacks which have produced much more onerous restrictions than a simple blood test.

We have drivers ed to teach people how to drive.  I'd be in favor of having mandatory firearms education in secondary school.

All I'm arguing in favor of is a similar level of education regarding HIV.  Good drivers ed emphasizes the reality that it's not just others that pose a threat, but that we pose a threat to ourselves and others.  Good firearm safety education is similar: we can pose a threat to ourselves and others if we do not handle firearms properly.  It is impossible to conduct similar threat assessments for HIV without knowing who is infected, and since 1/5 (CDC estimates, see link in my first post) of the 1m+ living with HIV in the U.S. are undiagnosed and unaware, that represents, IMO, a breakdown in HIV education.

Why shouldn't HIV education start with knowing whether you're infected?  And how can that be implemented without mandatory testing, when 1/5 of people in the U.S. who are clearly at risk (because they are already infected) don't even know it?

If a program ostensibly to test for HIV is too offensive, how about a mandatory blood donorship program?

It still is because one of the highest infection rates continues to be in the gay community last time I saw numbers and still largely due to behavior.  

"It probably won't affect me, so why should I worry about it?"  Is homosexuality and/or drug use worthy of an increased chance at a death sentence?

I mean, sure, AIDS is very bad if you have it, but do  you know how low the likelihood of an individual person is to become infected? Do you realize that AIDS deaths are in decline in absolute numbers? [dropped below 16,000 total in 2002]

That's still a lot higher than terrorist threats that could, in combination with the government's reaction, turn the U.S. a virtual warzone.  The fact is we could reduce those HIV numbers dramatically simply by mandatory testing (no scarlet letters, but simply by informing anyone who tests positive).

[Jamisjockey]

I'm desperately trying to find in the constitution and subsequent amendments where the Government would have authority to conduct mandatory aids testing?
You pile it onto other issues like hey, since we're doing this already, we should do this, too. 
Drivers Ed:  There's a reason we're falling behind in the world. Teaching our children how to drive, put condoms on banannas, and about equality and diversity.  Your idea of mandatory HiV testing children...FAIL.

[Ned Hamford]

I'm desperately trying to find in the constitution and subsequent amendments where the Government would have authority to conduct mandatory aids testing?

Wouldn't this be akin to the mandatory cold vaccines they did once?

[Jamisjockey]

Wouldn't this be akin to the mandatory cold vaccines they did once?

I would argue that one cannot contract aids by sneezing in the classroom.  And just because vaccines are mandatory, doesn't make them right.

[Ned Hamford]

I would argue that one cannot contract aids by sneezing in the classroom.  And just because vaccines are mandatory, doesn't make them right.

Do you think there should be some sort of analysis matrix?  IE: Impact, rarity, ease of spread

I know I wouldn't want the super ebola carriers hanging out [sans encounter suits] at stadiums and think government intervention proper in that extreme circumstance.  I can see vaccines being a bit different, as they are a preventative imposition on believed non-carriers, rather than the more direct spread suppression.

There are a disturbing number of examples of ignorant/purposeful mass spreading of deadly diseases by individuals.  According to my insurance company, the college I attended was one of the top 5 VD carrying colleges in the nation. 

I would like for free [or highly subsidized by graduated income such that expense would not be an excuse] testing to be made available an legal consequences for negligent or purposeful spreading of serious diseases.  Perhaps even criminal charges for reckless or purposeful spreading. 

As for thread topic subject of prisoners [and I would extend it to military personal], rights were lost and the government is in control of associations.  Identification or at least segregation is a pragmatic necessity for the preservation of health.  The right of privacy is lost to an extreme degree and while broadcasting would be inappropriate, acting in preventative fashion [segregation and notification] would be entirely appropriate.

There is a fairly famous case out of NY where a police officer let her son [a straight A HS student] be arrested and locked up overnight for parking tickets as a lesson.  In custody he was raped and contracted HIV and later AIDS from the encounter.   

[Jamisjockey]

Government intervention hasn't done much for HIV prevention except waste money.  I would only support government intervention in the spread of involuntarily communciable dieseases that are a threat to the public.  HIV is spread through activity. 

As for thread topic subject of prisoners [and I would extend it to military personal], rights were lost and the government is in control of associations.  Identification or at least segregation is a pragmatic necessity for the preservation of health.  The right of privacy is lost to an extreme degree and while broadcasting would be inappropriate, acting in preventative fashion [segregation and notification] would be entirely appropriate.

Wholly agreed.  I can't even believe that some would argue against prisoners with communciable diseases being tested and segregated.  Especially with deadly STD's like HIV.  Prison rape should never be acceptable.  And worse, someone who's serving a debt to society is then saddled with a death sentance for, what? A few DUI's?  Embezzling money? Having pot and a gun in the same house?

[roo_ster]

Is homosexuality and/or drug use worthy of an increased chance at a death sentence?

Mother Nature & Darwin sure think so.

[Ned Hamford]

I can't even believe that some would argue against prisoners with communicable diseases being tested and segregated.  Especially with deadly STD's like HIV. 

And yet... that is what some folks in the government are doing.    

[MicroBalrog]

Mother Nature & Darwin sure think so.

Mother Nature thought we deserved to have smallpox, too.

Then we chased smallpox down and killed it.

[roo_ster]

Mother Nature thought we deserved to have smallpox, too.

Then we chased smallpox down and killed it.

Preaching to the choir, Brother.

Tell it to those who are chasing down HIV and giving it aid and succor.*




* Thereby getting an "...increased chance at a death sentence..."

[MechAg94]

"It probably won't affect me, so why should I worry about it?"  Is homosexuality and/or drug use worthy of an increased chance at a death sentence?

It is not homosexuality itself, but their own behavior that is spreading AIDS.  The story I keep hearing is that "risky" sex, one night stands, etc, etc are much more prevalent in the homosexual community.  That is behavior, not sexual orientation.  Heterosexuals have modified their behavior to a greater extent and the new infection rate is much less.  So, yes, if you put yourself at risk through your own behavior, you make yourself more worthy of a death sentence.  If they are doing it to themselves, I have little sympathy if feel stigmatized. 

[MechAg94]

As far as general disease control, would that rightly fall under the general welfare clause?  I know everything falls in that these days, but it seems to me that dealing with an epidemic would be something local or federal govt would/should take a leadership role in. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.plusnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=81939

http://www.haaretz.com/news/growing-number-of-hiv-carriers-knowingly-having-unprotected-sex-1.704

[freakazoid]

If you have an STD, unknowingly and knowingly, then pass it on to someone, should it be treated the same as say... a negligent discharge and hitting someone? Or something along those lines?

[Tallpine]

According to my insurance company, the college I attended was one of the top 5 VD carrying colleges in the nation.

I won't ask the circumstances under which they happened to mention that information 

[Ned Hamford]

I won't ask the circumstances under which they happened to mention that information 

The insurance company actually let me know before I headed off to college that they pointedly do cover, FULLY, a wide array of vaccinations and STRONGLY encourage me to get them.

I think that greatly affected some of my more wild excesses.  Each likely was viewed with frank assessment of the uhh, likelyhood. 

[brimic]

If you have an STD, unknowingly and knowingly, then pass it on to someone, should it be treated the same as say... a negligent discharge and hitting someone?

Ewwwww!

[Balog]

The difference between and STD and other communicable diseases is that one is involuntarily contracted, one is generally not. Preventing people with drug resistant forms of TB from wandering around infecting everyone you pass is different than people who engage in stupid and risky behaviour (unprotected sex, sharing needles etc) taking the consequences of their actions.

[MicroBalrog]

It's been stated in this thread that over a million people have HIV and not know it.

It's entirely possible for one of these people to get married, and infect their entirely-monogamous wife and children.

Besides, the risk of actually getting HIV by sexual contact is below 1% per contact. Assuming the other party is a carrier.

AIDS isn't a new Black Plague. There's no need to be painting white crosses.

[vaskidmark]

One gives up their freedom when they commit acts against the public trust.  Conversly, a prisoner shouldn't have to worry about being raped by an aids infected inmate. Nothing like serving out a relatively minor offense and being sentanced to death with a communicable disease.

I concur in part and respectfully disagree in part.

We - society - have an obligation to protect inmates from harm because we have taken away their ability to protect themselves.  That is done by locking away even further the inmate who physically or sexually assaults other inmates or staff.  That is also done by refusing to assign non-violent inmates with communicable diseases to job sites where they might spread their disease - kitchens, barber jobs, some jobs involving the use of certain machinery where the rate of industrial accidents is high, etc.  Keeping the bodily fluids inside the body is the best way to prevent the spread of disease caused by the spread of bodily fluids.

But it is not sound penal operation, nor is it sound penal management, to isolate/segregate each and every inmate who has HIV/AIDS/HepC (or A or B), or syphyllis or inactive TB or any of a raft of other potentially deadly diseases.  You lose the availability of inmate labor to run essential operations, you require more staff to meet both the basic security needs and the operation of the facility, and worst of all you are faced with a population that has at least one more reason to spend all day dreaming up ways to rage against their fate.

And again, like a broken record, I keep coming back to the fact that the law says you cannot disclose personal health information, even by segregation/isolation status.  Creating a segregation/isolation unit for those with communicable diseases is disclosing their personal health information.  Yes, it is perhaps the flimsiest of arguments when all is considered, but society has an obligationto itself to obey the laws it enacts, even when it finds that those laws occassionally get in the way of the easy way of dealing with life's little problems.  Trying to get some APS members to understand this is just as difficult as it was trying to get Dept. of Corrections administrators to understand it.  At least then I was being paid for my efforts.

stay safe.

[dogmush]

VASkidmark,

I [pretty much] agree, but would ask how does a society fufil the obligations in:

We - society - have an obligation to protect inmates from harm because we have taken away their ability to protect themselves.  That is done by locking away even further the inmate who physically or sexually assaults other inmates or staff.  That is also done by refusing to assign non-violent inmates with communicable diseases to job sites where they might spread their disease - kitchens, barber jobs, some jobs involving the use of certain machinery where the rate of industrial accidents is high, etc.  Keeping the bodily fluids inside the body is the best way to prevent the spread of disease caused by the spread of bodily fluids.

with the legal requirements of:

And again, like a broken record, I keep coming back to the fact that the law says you cannot disclose personal health information, even by segregation/isolation status.  Creating a segregation/isolation unit for those with communicable diseases is disclosing their personal health information.

It would seem even a reletivly stupid criminal could figure out pretty easy which inmates don't get license plate stamping or kitchen duty for no obvious reason.  Then there's also the whole prison rape thing. My understanding is it's rarely reported.  So how do we as a society protect the non-violent inmates from Claude the HIV+, serial prison rapist? 

The obvious (and expensive) solution would be to not allow any interaction between inmates at all.  But that would probably lead to phsych issues down the line.

And are we all in agreement that a STD test should be mandatory for all prisoners on incarceration?  That seems a minimum first step to ensure our prisoners health.

[MechAg94]

It's been stated in this thread that over a million people have HIV and not know it.

It's entirely possible for one of these people to get married, and infect their entirely-monogamous wife and children.

Besides, the risk of actually getting HIV by sexual contact is below 1% per contact. Assuming the other party is a carrier.

AIDS isn't a new Black Plague. There's no need to be painting white crosses.

We can use another color. 

[MechAg94]

And again, like a broken record, I keep coming back to the fact that the law says you cannot disclose personal health information, even by segregation/isolation status.  Creating a segregation/isolation unit for those with communicable diseases is disclosing their personal health information. 

Perhaps it is the law that needs to be changed.  You lose some things when you commit a crime bad enough to be thrown in prison.  Perhaps that medical privacy should be lost or modified for the time period they are in prison. 

[Jamisjockey]

Given the prevelance of male rape in the prision system, who's rights are greater? The infected inmate's right to privacy, or the rape-ees right to not contract a death sentance?

[MicroBalrog]

Given the prevelance of male rape in the prision system, who's rights are greater? The infected inmate's right to privacy, or the rape-ees right to not contract a death sentance?

How prevalent is male rape in the prison system?