California May Start Tracking HIV Pat...

California May Start Tracking HIV Patients by Name

There are 1116 comments on the KTLA-TV Los Angeles story from Jan 18, 2006, titled California May Start Tracking HIV Patients by Name. In it, KTLA-TV Los Angeles reports that:

Opposition has lifted to legislation that would allow California health authorities to track HIV patients by name, effectively ending a years-long debate over privacy concerns and paving the way for the bill's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KTLA-TV Los Angeles.

Second Thoughts

Boron, CA

#42 Jan 27, 2006
newt wrote:
<quoted text>

What? HIV started spreading through first animal->human contact, and then through heterosexual contact in Africa. The only place it was first predominantly spread among homosexuals was in the US.
Let me reiterate. Either you didn't see my posting,or you chose to ignore it. I'm talking about the etiology of the HIV virus in the U.S.
Second Thoughts

Boron, CA

#43 Jan 27, 2006
Chayia wrote:
<quoted text>

Intolerance ruins us. Not Gay Pride. Bigotry ruins us. Hatred ruins us. Forcing your set of very narrow morals and using the Bible as your sword ruins us. I work for a living. I pay taxes, have 3 children and 5 grandchildren (none of whom are gay). We live in fear from people like you.
Who are you to sit in judgement of anybody? Where do you get off making statements like the above? Do you honestly think that Jesus would allow you to cast your hatred like stones? Have you learned nothing from his lessons?
The only intolerance that I see are coming from those who claim to be tolerant. Before you carry around the banner of tolerance, take a good look at how you, yourself, react to those you deem intolerant. You're only tolerant to those who are tolerant to your beliefs.

As for shoving beliefs down someone's throat, isn't that what the gay community is doing to the rest of society? You have the Rainbow Coalition, you have the Gay Pride Parade, you have the infiltration of the gay community and it's propaganda within out schools. And God help those who have the backbone to call right right and wrong wrong. They're labeled homophobe, angry, intolerant, mean-spirited, etc. All they're doing is keeping the moral compass point in the right direction and attempting to prevent the U.S. from going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah. And what do they get in return? They get called intolerant by the real intolerant, angry by those who are the angry ones, mean-spirited by those who are mean-spirited, and homophobic by the heterophobic. As if there's some redeeming factor in being the first to call someone else names.
Second Thoughts

Boron, CA

#44 Jan 27, 2006
newt wrote:
<quoted text>

If society was 100% Islam, chances are we would not have a free society. If society was 100% Christian, as for example most of Europe was till a century or two ago, we wouldn't have free societies either. Our society is made richer and strong by diversity. I wouldn't want it to be 100% straight or 100% gay, there's room for all of us.
At least society would still exist. Let's continue the line of reasonning with the gay community...if society were 100% gay, society would cease to exist after this generation passed. Would you rather have a non-free society, or none at all?

So, by definition homosexuality is anti-social, it seeks to destroy a society, not build it up.
Tim

United States

#45 Jan 27, 2006
Second Thoughts wrote:
<quoted text>

At least society would still exist. Let's continue the line of reasonning with the gay community...if society were 100% gay, society would cease to exist after this generation passed. Would you rather have a non-free society, or none at all?

So, by definition homosexuality is anti-social, it seeks to destroy a society, not build it up.
Just because we are gay does not mean that we cannot procreat. Think your thoughts all the way through, otherwise you look foolish. If we had a 100% homosexual society, we could reproduce very easily. Or are you just assuming that all homosexuals are men and there would be no womb, or that we are all women and there would be no sperm? And by the way, your worst nightmares are actually true right now, we are reproducing, some through invitro and others in the tried and true hetero way.
Tim

United States

#46 Jan 27, 2006
Second Thoughts wrote:
<quoted text>

Let me reiterate. Either you didn't see my posting,or you chose to ignore it. I'm talking about the etiology of the HIV virus in the U.S.
You are mistaken on the etiology of the HIV virus in the US. It did hit the gay community harder than the hetero community, largly due to the fact that hetero's in the 70's and 80's used condoms to prevent pregnancy, which we in the gay community did not need to do. But the disease was never a gay disease. It was a disease transmitted by bodily fluid to bodily fluid contact. Not all of the cases were in gay men. It may seem that way to you, but just repeating your misinformation does not make it true. The reason you think it was a gay disease is because, statistically, the gay population was hit harder than the straight population. But your fellow hetero's still got the disease along with the gay people. No where in the world has this disease stayed strictly within one sexuality. The places hardest hit by this disease are places where condoms are not used with regularity.
brotherly love

Redmond, WA

#47 Jan 27, 2006
From the sounds of all these different sides of debate, not one of you have any clue as to how AIDS/HIV started. Do yourselfs a favor and do a google search on how HIV/AIDs started.

http://rense.com/general68/gayex.htm

And by the way, You can also do a search in the Libary of Congress to verify what is mentioned in the above link.

Tim

United States

#48 Jan 27, 2006
brotherly love wrote:
From the sounds of all these different sides of debate, not one of you have any clue as to how AIDS/HIV started. Do yourselfs a favor and do a google search on how HIV/AIDs started.

http://rense.com/general68/gayex.htm

And by the way, You can also do a search in the Libary of Congress to verify what is mentioned in the above link.
Actually, this theory is a good one, but HIV and AIDS take a long time to take over a human immune system, and there are cases of AIDS that happened well before the 80's. Not that I think this theory can be completely disregarded. It cannot be completely proven either. I do not believe that medicine and science have an accurate account of the origins of this disease, and neither do most doctors and scientists.

Since: Dec 05

Palo Alto, CA

#49 Jan 27, 2006
Second Thoughts wrote:
<quoted text>

Let me reiterate. Either you didn't see my posting,or you chose to ignore it. I'm talking about the etiology of the HIV virus in the U.S.
Ok, well its silly to talk about the etiology of a virus in reference to political borders, unless you take it in context to its external etiology. It going from the homosexual population to the heterosexual population has much different meaning when you take in the fact that outside the US it first went from the heterosexual population to the homosexual population

Since: Dec 05

Palo Alto, CA

#50 Jan 27, 2006
See, the funny thing is that if you replaced each reference to "gay" with "uppity African-American" in your post, it'd take us back 40 years ago to the Deep South.
Second Thoughts wrote:
<quoted text>

The only intolerance that I see are coming from those who claim to be tolerant. Before you carry around the banner of tolerance, take a good look at how you, yourself, react to those you deem intolerant. You're only tolerant to those who are tolerant to your beliefs.

As for shoving beliefs down someone's throat, isn't that what the gay community is doing to the rest of society? You have the Rainbow Coalition, you have the Gay Pride Parade, you have the infiltration of the gay community and it's propaganda within out schools. And God help those who have the backbone to call right right and wrong wrong. They're labeled homophobe, angry, intolerant, mean-spirited, etc. All they're doing is keeping the moral compass point in the right direction and attempting to prevent the U.S. from going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah. And what do they get in return? They get called intolerant by the real intolerant, angry by those who are the angry ones, mean-spirited by those who are mean-spirited, and homophobic by the heterophobic. As if there's some redeeming factor in being the first to call someone else names.

Since: Dec 05

Palo Alto, CA

#51 Jan 27, 2006
Is a married couple chosing not to have children, anti-social? How about priests who have no children? Are they doing a disservice to society? No one is talking about a 100% gay society except you, for the sole purpose of fear mongering. Your logic is inherently flawed by taking a situation to the absolute extreme. I can think of a lot of good things in our society, that if you took to their extremes would destroy it.
Second Thoughts wrote:
<quoted text>

At least society would still exist. Let's continue the line of reasonning with the gay community...if society were 100% gay, society would cease to exist after this generation passed. Would you rather have a non-free society, or none at all?

So, by definition homosexuality is anti-social, it seeks to destroy a society, not build it up.

Since: Dec 05

Palo Alto, CA

#52 Jan 27, 2006
Me thinks I hear a conspiracy nut...
brotherly love wrote:
From the sounds of all these different sides of debate, not one of you have any clue as to how AIDS/HIV started. Do yourselfs a favor and do a google search on how HIV/AIDs started.

http://rense.com/general68/gayex.htm

And by the way, You can also do a search in the Libary of Congress to verify what is mentioned in the above link.

Shane Matthews

Maple Ridge, Canada

#53 Jan 27, 2006
Scott McLean wrote:
Government doesn't seem to care about privacy rights. HIV patients and all people have a right to keep their health records private.

We need to reform our government by electing only people who will never support such a bad law.
AIDS is a public health issue. Similar laws already exist for infectious diseases commonly imported from other countries; only because AIDS is recent and no similar law alredy exists for it, and the fact that the communities most afflicted with it tend to be politically restless anyway, makes this any kind of issue.

Unlike malaria and other tropical diseases, AIDS is incurable. But the government has no accurate estimate of how many people have it, because they can't track it. The same AIDS patient could visit half a dozen clinics or hospitals and each would log him separately but anonymously, thus greatly inflating estimates of the numbers afflicted. CDC needs this information to do its job.

Privacy is a legal fiction and a social more, not law. You have no Constitutional right to privacy. And when it comes to tracking infectious diseases that are invar, particularly those among one of the most reckless and indiscriminately promiscuous demographics in recent history but can spread to anyone, I'd say public safety trumps privacy. NO right is absolute.
Shane Matthews

Maple Ridge, Canada

#54 Jan 27, 2006
Bob Easterday wrote:
Yes, I have MUCH to hide and if you have any class whatsoever, so do you.
Some more than others, Bob.:-)

I shouldn't have to point out that the threshold of privacy for information sought in an effort to curb the spread of an incurable malady (such as whether you have AIDS) is in a different category than information that is completely inconsequential (such as whether your underwear has little rocket ships on it).
Shane Matthews

Maple Ridge, Canada

#55 Jan 27, 2006
newt wrote:
I can think of a lot of good things in our society, that if you took to their extremes would destroy it.

<quoted text>
Such as the right to privacy?
Shane Matthews

Maple Ridge, Canada

#56 Jan 27, 2006
brotherly love wrote:
From the sounds of all these different sides of debate, not one of you have any clue as to how AIDS/HIV started. Do yourselfs a favor and do a google search on how HIV/AIDs started.
How it started is irrelevant. No one knows how the Black Death started either, or where, or when. That doesn't mean we don't take steps to stop it from spreading. A database of the infected would make possible concerted efforts at proactive planning, as opposed to the current ad hoc, reactionary response.
Tim

United States

#57 Jan 27, 2006
Shane Matthews wrote:
<quoted text>

How it started is irrelevant. No one knows how the Black Death started either, or where, or when. That doesn't mean we don't take steps to stop it from spreading. A database of the infected would make possible concerted efforts at proactive planning, as opposed to the current ad hoc, reactionary response.
And how are we to go about getting an accurate database? Mandatory HIV testing of every citizen? Plus mandatory quarenteen upon arrival into the US to wait for testing? The disease takes anywhere from 3 to 10 months to germinate enough to be detectable. How do we enforce the mandatory 10 month waiting period for sex? Should we provide chastity belts to every citizen? All the database will be good for is to track those already infected and who test positive. It will do nothing to curb the epidemic, in fact, there is a great bit of evidence to the contrary. Start tracking by name and you will see a sharp decline in the number of newly reported cases, but only because people will stop getting tested. If there is education and the disease become destigmatized, then your idea may work, but with it being stigmatized as it is currently, you have no hope of getting an accurate record.

Since: Dec 05

Palo Alto, CA

#58 Jan 27, 2006
Yes in fact. Privacy can be taken too far, when it puts member of society in harms way. But in the case of disclosing the names of people with AIDS, there needs to be a careful balance between protecing the public good, and protecting that person's civil rights. But all that is really mute, as this bill has nothing to with disclosing names to the public.*Hopefully* there won't be any technical screw ups that cause that to happen.
Shane Matthews wrote:
<quoted text>

Such as the right to privacy?
Shane Matthews

Maple Ridge, Canada

#59 Jan 27, 2006
Tim wrote:
And how are we to go about getting an accurate database? Mandatory HIV testing of every citizen? Plus mandatory quarenteen upon arrival into the US to wait for testing? The disease takes anywhere from 3 to 10 months to germinate enough to be detectable. How do we enforce the mandatory 10 month waiting period for sex? Should we provide chastity belts to every citizen? All the database will be good for is to track those already infected and who test positive. It will do nothing to curb the epidemic, in fact, there is a great bit of evidence to the contrary. Start tracking by name and you will see a sharp decline in the number of newly reported cases, but only because people will stop getting tested. If there is education and the disease become destigmatized, then your idea may work, but with it being stigmatized as it is currently, you have no hope of getting an accurate record.
The same way we get accurate databases of every other infectious disease, Tim--by recording the afflicted on a case-by-case basis. Since any North American infected with AIDS or HIV is going to seek treatment at some point, the info will come out then. Note that the legislation proposes tracking PATIENTS, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Stop sounding off. A person is only going to know they have HIV if someone who has done a test tells them so. These tests are usually given at a doctor's urging, although you do also have the right to ask for one. Granted, you'd have a few nut bags who'd rather die of an unknown ailment than face the truth, but those should be few and far between. It's not like we'll be branding the letters HIV onto their foreheads.

At any rate, the record will be a lot more accurate than it currently is, and any improvement is helpful.
Shane Matthews

Maple Ridge, Canada

#60 Jan 27, 2006
newt wrote:
Yes in fact. Privacy can be taken too far, when it puts member of society in harms way. But in the case of disclosing the names of people with AIDS, there needs to be a careful balance between protecing the public good, and protecting that person's civil rights. But all that is really mute, as this bill has nothing to with disclosing names to the public.*Hopefully* there won't be any technical screw ups that cause that to happen.
Privacy is not a civil right, Newt. And the word is "moot"--rhymes with your name.:-)

I agree there should be a balance. But since this information would be confidential, I'm afraid the "no" camp has little to throw on their end of the scales.

Since: Dec 05

Palo Alto, CA

#61 Jan 27, 2006
I never said privacy was a civil right. However protection against discrimination is, specifically under the Civil Rights act of 1964; certain aspects of privacy are also protected under the Privacy Act of 1974.. Its a sad truth that people with AIDS are very much discriminated against in our society, and unless there is a very clear and proven reason as to why their names should be released to the public (for example a HIV+ sexual predator who is purposefully infecting people), I see no reason such action should be permitted. But this is a completely separate issue from securely collecting names of HIV+ patients, for statistical tracking.
Shane Matthews wrote:
<quoted text>

Privacy is not a civil right, Newt. And the word is "moot"--rhymes with your name.:-)

I agree there should be a balance. But since this information would be confidential, I'm afraid the "no" camp has little to throw on their end of the scales.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Privacy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Privacy issues Gone internel with Spying impla... Jan '18 Francy 1
Peivacy No More Folks!...This is what is and ha... Jan '18 Francy 1
News Did China purchase leading gay site to penetrat... Jan '18 Whamabamadingdong 5
News House passes NSA spying bill after Trump tweets... Jan '18 Christsharians on... 3
News Uproar as Capitol Hill pharmacist dishes on pre... Oct '17 Red Crosse 2
News Why does your identity depend on one number? Se... Sep '17 Data 1
News Credit agency pushes feds to give it access to ... (Jul '17) Jul '17 Tell em Get lost 1
More from around the web