Proposed Kansas law could ‘quarantine’ people living with HIV and AIDS
Proposed Kansas law could ‘quarantine’ people living with HIV and AIDS
by PinkNews.co.uk Staff Writer; 27 March 2013, 7:40pm
A proposed Kansas law could lead, claim campaigners, to people living with HIV or AIDS to effectively being quarantined.
The law would negate the need for a firefighter or paramedic to secure a court order to test a victim’s blood for infectious diseases. If tested positive for HIV, these victims would be able to be quarantined.
The proposed law would overturn a ban on the practice passed in 1988.
“They didn’t get that whole idea of being discriminated against,” said Cody Patton of Positive Directions said. “They didn’t get that that stuff still happens today. My concern is that there’s a lot of people in this state that are still fearful of HIV that don’t look at factual information.”
Elena Ivanov, Executive Director, Douglas County AIDS Project (DCAP) said: “I am disappointed and saddened that people living with HIV/AIDS are no longer exempt from quarantine under current law in Kansas. The Kansas Senate has voted to pass HB 2183 and has rejected the amendment to exempt people living with HIV/AIDS. This bill will harm people living with HIV/AIDS and stands as poor public health policy.
“Under the bill people who have HIV can be separated and have their movement in Kansas restricted. The use of quarantine and isolation powers by the state officials will exasperate many sensitive issues related to the civil liberties of these individuals and create unnecessary and prolonged hardships for all those infected and affected by HIV/AIDS.
“This bill will further decrease their low self-esteem and deepen their suffering from anxiety and depression. Moreover, it will further increase the stigma, associated with the chronic disease and hamper the efforts of organizations, such as Douglas County AIDs Project (DCAP), which combat its spread. These individuals will now worry about punishment, fines, and imprisonment if they refuse to be isolated by the state authorities or if the quarantine order established by the Kansas Senate is broken.”
This is truly scary.
I have long been in opposition in regards to having to "register" once you recieve a positive diagnosis.
I dont care how confidential they claim the system is...they know exactly where you are and how to find you.
All it takes is the wrong nutjob to access the information and its over...so much for privacy.
[quote]I have long been in opposition in regards to having to "register" once you recieve a positive diagnosis.
I've never heard of this. All but the last HIV test I took was at a clinic where they didnt ask your name or for your ID. How can they forcibly make you give them your ID?
R6 - all it takes after a positive test is looking at who is buying the very specialized medications. For all intents and purposes, it is a registry.
R7 That makes even less sense. All a prescription has on its label is the name you gave the doctor when they prescribed them. They dont have your address, your phone number or your social security number. The only way they can connect you is if you willingly give up that information.
I'm no expert but I'm guessing you can't go into a pharmacy in a trench coat, dark glasses and a bag of cash to buy these things. Given the cost, you are either going to be using insurance or public assistance. Both of which are rather diligent on knowing who their customers are.
R9 So the alternative is not treat the illness and just let yourself die?
You're making less and less sense with each post. I suggest you do what you did yesterday when your status as a troll was revealed and you got laughed out of another thread. Cut and run is your best move.
Have they been dreaming about this since the 1980s
Moron, I'm not saying people shouldn't get treated or anything remotely close to that. HOWEVER, you would be a simpleton to think if any government wanted to build a registry they wouldn't be able to do it quickly with readily available data.
I didn't cut and run, I get bored with people that only see one side of any argument. People that blindly follow one side of any discussion are too tiring to deal with.
[quote]I'm not saying people shouldn't get treated or anything remotely close to that.
I never said you did say that. I only asked a question. One that you refused to answer. And the only side to your argument was predicting how the GOP was going to come back bigger and better then before.
You cant read. You lie. And your sloppy posting reveals what you really are. Are you tired now, baby?
Red state definition of government staying out of people's lives: I'm a white (emphasis on the "h"), Christian, hetero male.
"could lead"; "effectively being quarantined."
Actually, those words accurately describe the law as it stands today.
Good lord, r13, you're tiring ME out. Do you know what the term "thread killer" means?
I am not for this type of segregation, but it would be helpful if Poz people were upfront about status with every partner everytime they had any form of sex.
[quote] All a prescription has on its label is the name you gave the doctor when they prescribed them. They dont have your address, your phone number or your social security number.
Most pharmacies require an address and phone number to be provided prior to filling a prescription.
Agree with R17.
Look, no one's going to allow a quarantine, ultimately. It's nuts and most reasonable people can see that. Freepers can rant and bellow all they like, it aint gonna happen.
However, there's also the issue of the unbelievable irresponsibility of gay men still spreading this disease, and THAT needs to be addressed within our community.
Note the law allows for testing of "infectious diseases" yet OP assumes this is target solely to HIV positive people. There are very good reasons first-responders might need to know whether someone has "an infectious disease."
Also, you panty-wetters might like to know that it is perfectly legal for the government to imprison communities of people as a "public safety" measure. With or without this law, it "could" happen.
[quote]Most pharmacies require an address and phone number to be provided prior to filling a prescription.
That doesnt mean you give it to them. Make something up. I always do. There is no reason why they need my phone number.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Shadings of Nazi Germany.
R13 - you need to up your meds. You are clearly suffering from some serious issues. Translation - you are fucked in the head.
Was that non-sloppy enough for you?
R21. Are you paying cash? Otherwise, there is an absolute data stream to track.
R24 If I really didnt want any paper trail of something I was buying, then yes, I would use cash. But I am not overly paranoid about those things. If the government wants to keep a file on me, let them. Hell, for all I know they already have one. Chances are, if anyone wanted to read it they would have a hell of a time finding it and be very disappointed in its contents. I'm more bothered by telemarketers, junk mail and spam, thats why I seldom reveal my contact info to anyone.
R23 Thats the best you can do? Really? I pointed out you are a liar and the best way you can defend yourself is to call me names? Thank you. You did more to undermine any points you will ever make than I could ever dream of.
R23 - all I was saying that if people were so desperate to have a registry it would already be there. There is nothing preventing it from happening now. Any idiot that thinks people with HIV are going to register or be put in concentration camps is beyond paranoid.
R27 is actually right. The government already has the power to quarantine people with infectious diseases. Instead of getting paranoid, it's REALLY time for gay men to ask why we are still spreading this disease to each other. We've got to have THAT conversation. Instead the preoccupation is not to stigmatize POZ guys so they won't get laid. It's insane.
First responders do not test people for infectious diseases. People may get tested for many things at a hospital if their symptoms dictate. Medical personnel deal with HIV positive patients the same as any other patient, because they assume all patients have bloodborne disease. There is no reason to quarantine someone with HIV. There is no lab aboard ambulances or fire engines.
It is targeted on people with HIV. You have to understand the Kansas mindset.
R27 and R28 are bullshitting fascists. The last time there was talk like this what happened....people went to any lengths to prevent being tested, resulting in more spread of HIV.
r5 (and others), you really shouldn't say things like "I've been an opponent to 'registers'" when it doesn't happen. Could it happen based on information that can be collected by insurance? Yes, but so can other forms of illness based on medicine. You shouldn't try to scare people with that (false) language.
So, this is the fallback position when gay marriage passes. Let's assume all queers are diseased riddled typhoid Marys and we can round them up and put them in camps and thus retain the old social order.
I have AIDS and let me tell you, no negative person, straight or gay, is preoccupied about NOT stigmatizing us. They either do stigmatize or they don't and NOBODY is legislating them either way. Plenty of blaming the epidemic on the victims, as if negative people have no say on whether or not they turn positive. It's been 30 years plus of the epidemic and people have known for at least a couple of decades how the infection passes.
If you're having unprotected sex with anyone, whether you get infected or not, you are actively responsible for your sero-status. And yes, that includes me. But it also includes you, r28 and your ilk.
I would never have sex with a negative man. And I haven't since my diagnosis. And yes, not everyone POZ is like me. But unfortunately, plenty of negative men were like me when I was negative: pretending that it was my right to have un-protected sex in the age of AIDS. And that all the responsibility feel on the positive guys. Unless you're raped, it takes two to spread the disease. I learned that the hard way.
I'm really tired of POZ guys being characterized as morally deficient sex addicts who lie about and obscure their status in order to get laid.
Not saying it doesn't happen, but the assumption and assertion that it is common is total urban myth.
[quote]However, there's also the issue of the unbelievable irresponsibility of gay men still spreading this disease, and THAT needs to be addressed within our community.
My BF is HIV+, I am not. Please quit posting passive-aggressive shit implying that HIV is spread by irresponsible gay men.
R33, not all HIV- people are so paranoid/ negative about HIV. I'm not.
It is the gay community's responsibility to make sure they share their status no matter what the sexual contact. There is no excuse in this day and age for HIV to continue to be spread. To not disclose is criminal and said person is a murder.
It's interesting how because it's a gay outbreak in the united states people say not knowing and spreading is akin to murder.
In Africa where it's a hetero problem you don't hear that type of conversation.
If I were having sex, anonymous sex, I would treat everyone as if they were positive, you are your own protection.
R31. Try to gain experience and knowledge outside of mommy's basement and come back.
In Africa they rape babies for a cure r37!
[quote]negative people have no say on whether or not they turn positive.
Actually, we do.
We sure do.
Great! Let them! Any self-respecting gay guy living in Kansas deserves what they get, you know, "The will of the people" and all. Why not snap out of your Stockholm Syndrome, grow a set of balls and MOVE OUT!