To keep quiet about HIV/AIDs

[sixtyandaquarter]

I came to a conclusion. AIDs (I'll just count HIV with Aids on this, really come on) is treated different. It is. We had that whole "gay disease" idea in our heads, and then when those movies of the week showing the little boy who got Aids from bad blood injections and was tormented by being called fagot and such, we felt bad. We watched My Teenage Life - I think it was that show - and felt all sobby when the gay friend got the disease.

We felt guilty. Philadelphia hits, and Tom Hanks changes half our mindsets. Because of our mindset, and now to make up for it we are bending the rules - I honestly believe it.

How come I can have genital warts, herpes, Hepatitis B. - anything. I can have any STD (minus HIV/AIDs) and I must have a list of people I've slept with. People who may or may not have caught it. I must go back x years and have a list - and if I miss one, I can be a legal target. But, if I have AIDs I'm given much more leeway.

I had an STD. I won't say what, but it was something that you got and it would - if you kept up with it - go away. It's gone. I had to have a list, I was in HS and I was freaked out because I was told if I didn't have one by xx/yy date I could find myself having to explain to my mother that I need a lawyer. My friend has HIV, found out last month, and she's freaking out because her doctor told her to make sure to use protection - and to tell anyone she thought should know. So if she didn't care, she wouldn't have to tell anyone. I had something that was just a little annoyance and I was threatened legally.

So, why is HIV so special we can let it stay secret.? Let people not be told that they might have gotten infected at that all night bender last October. Why are we so quiet about HIV and AIDs?

 

[Meticlan]

I really don't know; but I'm not going to speculate. Nevertheless, our attitudes about sex and sexuality in the US are a bit outdated to begin with - which may be part of the problem.

I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts.

Also, while not exactly what you asked for but kind of on the same topic - I work for a public school district. When you become an employee, you are required to inform the district if you have any blood-born diseases (the forms specifically mention HIV/AIDS) and you must undergo an online "course" about how to safely handle any kind of accident should someone bleed out.

The district requires a test for tuberculosis, but not for any other kind of disease. TB is certainly more communicable than HIV, though.

 

[Venetia]

I never really thought about that before, but I guess you're right. Gonorrhea and Genital Warts are dirty but AIDS is something to be pitied, like cancer.

Well ... Fact of the matter is, the only other STD that's gonna kill you is Syphilis, and that's only if you live in a 3rd world country and you can't get a quick dose of penicillin or its counterpart for people who're allergic to that.

Hepatitis B and C have not been proven to be communicable sexually. There is a very small likelihood, since it can be transmitted via the womb in about 5% of cases, but it mostly lives only in blood. Were it to be classified an STD, it would surely be in the same category as AIDS. Especially Hep C-- that's nearly as much of a death sentence as AIDS if you don't catch it early enough.

I don't know why anyone would keep quiet about AIDS. People who contract HIV can have their lives significantly prolonged if it's caught in an early stage, even by decades in some cases. I know that if I got HIV from someone and they kept it from me, I'd sue the living hell out of them, because they effectively signed my death warrant.

But you need to wear kid gloves when dealing with the terminally ill. Sure, anyone could walk out and get hit by a bus right now, but actually having a note with your time of termination on it is another animal entirely. People should be compassionate toward them. Just because they got it from screwing doesn't make them any less of a person than, say, someone with pancreatic cancer.

There really should be more pressure toward HIV patients to tell those they've slept with; I never knew there wasn't any. Not only is it the right thing to do, it can also save someone years of their life.

And protection won't do much against AIDS but decrease its transmittability a small percentage. The virus is small enough to fit through the semipermeable membrane of a condom. The best course of action when facing an STD is to be celibate until it's absolutely gone (which unfortunately means never again to those with HIV).

 

[LosAngeles]

Interesting thing. I never thought about this before. But after a little research it seems you're right. People with HIV don't need to tell their sex partners about their state as slong as the safer-sex-rules are being followed according to the german network of aids-aid, which I think is totally wrong, just can agree with the aboves, it's a moral thing to not tell your partner. It's almost like cheating to him/her, an issue of trust...

Additionally I'm of the same opinion as Venetia here:

There really should be more pressure toward HIV patients to tell those they've slept with; I never knew there wasn't any. Not only is it the right thing to do, it can also save someone years of their life.

But the pressure should also come from the doctors. I don't understand why he said she doesn't have to tell everybody, only the ones she likes. He should have the ethics of advicing her to tell everybody!

 

[arcthemonkey]

What that doctor told that girl makes me sick to my stomach...

And we wonder why it won't go away?

Think god I'm abstainant. It's a frikkin mine-field out there.

 

[Lene]

Wait, wait wait!

It used to be illegal to not tell your sex partner/health department/etc that you had AIDS. Technically it's not illegal anymore, but doctors usually report these things to the Health Department. Then said person from the HD will be around to get a list of partners from you. And as far as I can tell, they are able to call those people and tell them that they may have put themselves in a risky position.

Now if you have sex with someone and that person discovers they have an STD and you didn't tell them...well you can't go to jail, but they can sue your ass.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

People wonder why there are so many STD's. You get people who say it's because the youth are growing up to fast and not being responsible. As a youth who grew up to fast and wasn't responsible I had a lot of scares, but nothing more. I can attest that that will be part of the reason.

But if this is our approach to this, I can't wonder why, I know.
If we are too worried about the offense that comes with the demand of responsibility on those with this infection on the individual who has it - but all other infections are fine to demand such responsibility (TB and damn near any STD or highly infectious disease, infection, fungus, parasite, what-have-you) - then that would be the exact reason why so many kids don't know what to do, how to protect themselves, or know the simple reality of truth. It's laws like that.

I can go and have unprotected sex knowing I have an illness, and what? Get sued? If I went around knowing I had a needle or something sharp in my pocket and I didn't tell the cop, that could easily be another charge on my head, what's the difference? The needle/something sharp could very well be nothing more than a small cut inflicting object that if the cop didn't do anything about just might get infected - or it may carry aids. So what's the big divider here that demands a separate set of rules?

As a kid for me HIV was something my friends would get, not me. Sure that's how it turned out, but this is the pipe dream most of the youth has, and it's because of doctors like this I'd think. The people who are more concerned with keeping this quiet, because the disease carries too much weight. That's just sickening.

 

[craybest]

I think doctors in general are less forceful for you to tell your past sexual dates when you have HIV because they know that it's very frown upon, and people reactions to it can be even dangerous.
A friend of mine has HIV (sadly he had to start using medicines a few days ago) and when he first knew he got it he told all the people he had been with lately, one of them startd telling everyone about it, partically killing most of his social life, and another beated him up, calling him "murderer". So it's not as easy as with other STD's where at most you get lighter insults like "promiscuous" or whatever. The less people know about your HIV state, the more normal you life will be, you can't tell in your job, in your school, college, even in family. you have to be very careful with who you tell it to, because most of the time it changes completely the way people look at you. I still think the responsible thing to do is tell your sexual partners about it, but i can't blame those who are to afraid to say so. And as far as I know, the HIV virus CAN'T get through a good condom, my friend told me that the doctor told him that. (or maybe it does, but in such a small quantity that it can't really be contagious) but of course condoms can break, or be of lousy quality, or not properly put.
I think when society is ready to see people with HIV with normal people, and not like promiscuous, or people who deserve pity, then those who have it will be a lot more willing to tell others about the HIV state.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

A condom can only do so much, I've never heard of a condom being fool proof in any way - even if it doesn't break.

I don't think because it's something to pity, or because people will think poorly of you is a good enough reason to not tell people - or rather I don't think if your patient might end up with a bad social life it's okay to give them the impression that silence is the best solution.

Especially when for all anyone knows 1 single person might not know they could be infected, let alone 4. 5. 23. I can't see silence being anywhere close to understandable or even admissible.

 

[BlueScope]

A condom can only do so much, I've never heard of a condom being fool proof in any way - even if it doesn't break.

Dude, aside from not having sex at all, a condom is the best way of protecting yourself from sexual disease. That's why it's commonly used in addition to a pill or whatever: Because it doesn't only make sure that your semen stay on your side, but also that whoever you sleep with keeps his diseases for her- or even himself. Also, if they don't break and you put them on correctly, they're 100% efficient in means of preventing whatever stuff you don't want to get. Also, the chance of one of those breaking which isn't caused by wrong usage (aka opening the pack with your fingernails, or stuff) is very slim.

For the overall problem, it's funny to read your first post, because over here (that's Germany), didn't had the 'gay disease' image at all, at least since I'm on the line. It's also not a taboo topic, but it doesn't really surprises me that it is one in the 35er-USA... kinda like "It brings up stressy topics we'd need to discuss with out children, so better not tell them at all" - yeah right. ':|
I don't know about the legal outlines of that topic, but looking at the numbers of people suffering from HIV and AIDS over here (and yeah, despite all open-mindedness, we have quite a bunch because quite some German youngsters tend to be stupid as hell...), something is not the way it should be... then again, we have a large paragraph about personal rights, like the freedom of speech stuff, which also includes something about your physical and mental diseases may not be given to anyone by the treatening docs. So I guess you could keep it a pseudo-secret (with only your doc knowing), and without questioning the use of that paragraph, I think it's no use if it leads to even more infected people, because I've heard people going like "I have AIDS, but I don't care, since until I die, I can infect all those fucking bitches I got this from with it!"... Guess I've had one or the other physical discussion with those fags as well...

Well, I guess in the end you can say that protecting yourself is like the only option you have, since you can never be sure that your partner (both short or long time) tells you the truth. Wear condoms, mkay? :p

 

[LosAngeles]

Also, if they don't break and you put them on correctly, they're 100% efficient in means of preventing whatever stuff you don't want to get. Also, the chance of one of those breaking which isn't caused by wrong usage (aka opening the pack with your fingernails, or stuff) is very slim.

Sorry to disappoint you here, but it's not 100% save...
http://www.zeitgeist-aktuell.de/Wie_sicher_sind_Kondome_wirklich.pdf

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

A condom is, if you are going to have sex BlueScope, much safer - but not fool proof no matter what you do. I could look at Los Angeles' link there, but I can't read German and don't feel like going threw the hassle of doing a translation...

And the "gay image" was more the 70's. Some in the 80's but when I was 6 I was more informed about the disease and alternate lifestyles than most people, I guess it was a generation gap deal.

 

[BlueScope]

@LA: Interesting, though the main part of it reads as "Bravo and Gebt AIDS keine Chance are bad, don't trust them!", as well as those ridiculous 'experiments' at the beginning... Well, 100% is always a risky thing to state, so I'll step away from that and correct it to 'very very very very safe', but I'm not really convinced from the studies quoted there... it's basically the same issue as for condoms and getting pregnant, it's said that it isn't 100% safe, but that is because the chance of someone screwing the attachment of it up is always there... happens even to the most experienced of us, which is why some folks use two condoms at once, but yeah... we all can imagine that sperm can't teleport through a condom, so if it's intact from the begin with and none of the participants screws it up during opening or putting on, they would be 100% safe. So I guess those statistics just say how many condoms are damaged from the begin with or how many folks mess the putting-on process up. It's of course different for AIDS, as it can even be passed on by oral sex, but in the area that's covered by your friendly neighbourhood condom, I doubt there's a chance you could get infected through it, as AIDS is passed on by fluids...

 

[craybest]

Pretty much what bluescope said, a correctly used condom (and not defectuous, that is) is pretty much 100% safe. A doctor told that to my friend, and that doctor is pretty much the most important figure of HIV/AIDS studies and treatements around here.
Also, might be different over there, but around here more than 1/3 od the people living with HIV doesn't even know it. So as a responsible person, you should have safe sex, because your partner might not know his/her HIV status. But, there's ALWAYS a risk, even with the safest of sex, everyone knows that, so engaging in a sexual act, is a shared responsability between the two (or more) people who are doing it. So even if the other person results being an asshole for not telling you his/her HIV state, you're just as much guilty for not having safe sex, because let's not lie to ourselves, MOST of the time, people get HIV for not having safe sex, there's only a few cases where it happens otherwise.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

"a few cases"?
Up until a few years ago, the base consensus I was always taught was that my chances of getting HIV was more likely to come from my -at the time- drug habit than my -at the time- sex life. Doctors, police, Junior High Guidance Councilors. I still almost remember the study I was constantly showed almost on a weekly basis.

Somewhere in the 40% are the folk absolutely certain that unprotected sex is the absolute cause. Somewhere in the 30's is the drugs. Not to mention the non counted percent (this study was adults) of childbirth infections, and breast milk infections. That's here, at the very least in my state. I wouldn't call a whole 10% difference "few".

Unless things massively changed in the last 7 or so years since last I was shown that damn booklet, I'm pretty sure the percentages are somewhere close to what they were. I mean, safe sex increased, supposibly yet more people get Aids - according to the surveys. So I'd say that increase would come from other things outside of sex.

 

[craybest]

Sorry, I meant in sexual intercourse. I'm not talking on drug uses or childbirth. But in terms of sexual relations, MOST of it happens with unprotected sex. just a few with protected sex, that's what i meant.

 

[Venetia]

A condom is a semipermeable membrane, much like your skin. That means that, on a microscopic level, it resembles a net of sorts, wherein other molecules can pass through. Sperm are not large enough to pass through the semipermeable membrane for the most part, but fractures and tears in the very delicate membrane of latex can form even from very light duty intercourse.

A condom by itself only has a tested effectiveness of 70% against preventing pregnancy. With spermacide, that's increased to 99%. But STDs are only prevented in small amounts, because while bacterial STDs are much too large to escape the semipermeable membrane, viruses are incredibly tiny and can pass easily.

So HIV, being a particularly aggressive virus, cannot be restrained with a condom, and when dealing in chances of death, it's best to cut your losses and stay abstinent. Getting off with your hand and not killing someone else is much better than the alternative.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Ah, I get ya know craybest.

Ven, is that the actual percentage? I always thought it was -not that much- higher than what you gave.

One thing no one is bringing up is something that's happening on a "dangerous level" according to some experts. And that is people with HIV/AIDs finding other infected individuals for sexual intercourse, both using and not using protection for a number of reasons. The idea being, if you're sick already what's the difference? Regardless that you can reinfect individuals and worsen a condition. Though sexual relations - and to be fair just companionship is a powerful desire in humans, and many people feel they can't have it because of their illness, or have even been denied it by reactions from others. So...

 

[Venetia]

I haven't looked it up recently, and I can't right now 'cause I'm at work, but that's the percentages given to me in my highschool textbooks. It stuck with me because it was so low, and I was so astonished about it.

If you think that's bad, diaphragms prevent only about 40-60% of pregnancies. I can't believe people still use them sometimes!

 

[craybest]

I'm sorry Venetia, but I have a doctor expert in viral infections, and head of the HIV research in my country who says that HIV cannot get trough the condom (or as I said before, in such little quantity that it's not enough to actually infect someone)
So I'll stay with his opinion.