If you have unprotected sex without revealing your status to your partner there is a penalty if found guilty (and if that partner lays a charge against you).
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Are you keeping your Prime subscription?
biometrics
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 71,856
- Reaction score
- 2,239
How are you going to enforce this? With RICA & FICA they could lock or disable your phone or bank account.
Tie it into the ID or something. Sure someone can figure out an effective system. Its not like they dont know where you live with RICA.
biometrics
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 71,856
- Reaction score
- 2,239
So the database would have public access?
killadoob
Honorary Master
Very simple. You either go for mandatory test or you will be rounded up and chucked in cell. Mobile vans through-out the country so nobody can bitch about transport.
If everyone knows their status we could actually fight this disease. People should not be allowed to hide a disease that kills 7000 people a day and infects god knows how many. The time has come to get on top of it. Ignoring it is not helping. Sadly you cannot trust the human species to be responsible.
Believe it or not marine we may love our freedom but sometimes it needs to reigned in for the good of the species.
It's time to take a hardline on one of the biggest killers, there is no known cure and 7000 die a day.
Sex while infected will carry a jail of term of 12-36 months.
I think they should make a compulsory test for political ideology. All those in favour of more regulation and socialisation shouldn't be allowed to vote.
There.
When we are talking about people not having choice, and punishing them by infringing on their rights, why stop at HIV testing?
killadoob
Honorary Master
So people with an airborne virus should also have the same rights? Should we be stopping them from flying? Should they be going into quarantine?
What makes the biggest killer in africa so different?
Mila
Honorary Master
Why do you see it as punishment? You can live longer with HIV than cancer. And nookie is not nearly as disgusting as smoking. HIV is manageable. We are not saying scream it from the roof tops. Just test everybody. Knowledge is power. If we know where and how to target education we can make a difference. Is that not what the campaigns are all about? Know yours status.
killadoob
Honorary Master
Used to be know your status but that infringed on people's privacy so now they have moved over to drugs being able to keep you alive longer than cancer, so nothing to worry about now.
not really a big issue that 7000 people died today from AIDS.
UnUnOctium
Expert Member
Do DA think they have 90% of the votes? Because it sure looks like they're throwing them away.
alloytoo
Honorary Master
Exactly.
Nanfeishen
Executive Member
Punishment no, "Without Consent" is the key wording.
Advocating forced HIV testing is giving government control over any and all medical testing they wish to conduct in the future.
It will also impact very heavily on employment, health insurance, retirement funding, and termination of employment.
There is a new bill in the pipelines:
To any intelligent person, HIV/Aids is clearly a permanent condition.
This bill will also allow employers to access personal information without consent:
http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/new-law-to-impact-medical-record-disclosure-1.1197722
So anybody with a medical incapacity such as HIV/Aids could be terminated from employment, lose their health care, or affecting their pension.
This can only benefit businesses, who can get away with saving huge amounts of money, while those who are affected land up with no support.
This is not in the publics best interests.
In this case, the right to privacy must remain intact, testing without consent will have too many negative ramifications, and will only lead to a larger more prolific ostracisation of those with HIV/Aids.
The first two pages of this thread almost made my lose hope in the sanity of my broadband. Think the all time low was when someone commented, that if we allowed compulsory Aids testing it would lead to gas chambers?!?!? Thankfully, page 3 came to MyBB's rescue, where some sense was finally being said. Especially killadoob who had a nice post explaining the logistics of how it could work.
Amongst all the crazy comments opposing this, thank you Nanfeishen for giving the only rational reason. Although, I don't think HIV/Aids will be valid reason for termination, as it doesn't incapacitate you in any way. However if employers are allowed to fire employees just because of their HIV status, then the bill you mentioned should be altered if and when Aids testing becomes compulsory.
The other arguments against boil down to socialism, lots of people already get tested, and lastly why stop with just HIV. To me the last two arguments "against" actually a reason for having it. If lots of people are already getting tested then they obviously don't have issue with it, and yes why not stop with HIV. What is wrong with people being aware of their health? It helps the individual as they can initiate means to prevent their state getting worse. It helps the general public because more people would be aware of their status so sexual partner would know what they getting into. Finally, it will benefit the government as they could use the data for statistical purposes and awareness.
If you feel there is a good reason against this that I have missed, please say so. Otherwise can we all just agree that this is a ridiculous discussion.
Amongst all the crazy comments opposing this, thank you Nanfeishen for giving the only rational reason. Although, I don't think HIV/Aids will be valid reason for termination, as it doesn't incapacitate you in any way. However if employers are allowed to fire employees just because of their HIV status, then the bill you mentioned should be altered if and when Aids testing becomes compulsory.
The other arguments against boil down to socialism, lots of people already get tested, and lastly why stop with just HIV. To me the last two arguments "against" actually a reason for having it. If lots of people are already getting tested then they obviously don't have issue with it, and yes why not stop with HIV. What is wrong with people being aware of their health? It helps the individual as they can initiate means to prevent their state getting worse. It helps the general public because more people would be aware of their status so sexual partner would know what they getting into. Finally, it will benefit the government as they could use the data for statistical purposes and awareness.
If you feel there is a good reason against this that I have missed, please say so. Otherwise can we all just agree that this is a ridiculous discussion.
Last edited:
killadoob
Honorary Master
http://www.avert.org/south-africa-hiv-aids-statistics.htm
The report reveals that the annual number of deaths rose by a massive 93% between 1997 and 2006. Among those aged 25-49 years, the rise was 173% in the same nine-year period. Part of the overall increase is due to population growth. However, this does not explain the disproportionate rise in deaths among people aged 25 to 49 years.
Most of the AIDS are not even close to the truth because the cause of death is very rarely put down as AIDS. Those numbers are frighting but let's worry about people's freedom first.
UNAIDS estimate that AIDS claimed 310,000 lives in 2009 - almost 850 every da
Bird flu / swine flu that never even killed 600 people world wide scared the bejesus out of everyone but AIDS that claims as many as 600 a day is all good
, i dunno VIO 600 a day in SA alone and we are doing nothing about it? Hmmm
Vrotappel
Bulls fan
What has South Africa done with all the money they were given for fighting HIV and AIDS?
Why do TPTB tell the public that AIDS is not a death sentence but an opportunity to create a better life?
How does 1 person getting told they are HIV+ stop the spread of the virus if they do not make it know to everyone involved with them that they have it or if the person giving the test does not tell them they have it and they could infect someone and they both could die?
This is nothing more then a money making racket by institutes that pretend to be doing something about educating the nation when they know full well the nation does not give a toss about HIV+ and AIDS. All they do is make some brochures and some T-Shirts and some flags and that's it, if people actually learn anything from this is anyone's guess.
Why do TPTB tell the public that AIDS is not a death sentence but an opportunity to create a better life?
How does 1 person getting told they are HIV+ stop the spread of the virus if they do not make it know to everyone involved with them that they have it or if the person giving the test does not tell them they have it and they could infect someone and they both could die?
This is nothing more then a money making racket by institutes that pretend to be doing something about educating the nation when they know full well the nation does not give a toss about HIV+ and AIDS. All they do is make some brochures and some T-Shirts and some flags and that's it, if people actually learn anything from this is anyone's guess.
I appreciate the thinking, and i agree a lot more has to be done, but it would help to take into account a few things:
A. The only way the spread of AIDS will slow down is if people change their habits in the bedroom, and thats just not going to happen. You can't tell me any amount of talking too is going to alter the basic fact that people in townships/everywhere get bored, and in the quiet of the night slide into each others beds. Thats the whole issue right there, and changing that is near impossible. Nearly every family in rural areas has been hit extremely hard by AIDS, many of them have suffered the horrific pain of watching a loved one slowly withering and dying. If that isn't enough to get it in their heads they need to change their sexual habits, nothing will.
B. ARV's when taken properly(which i would argue is a small percentage) keep people around longer, which oddly enough increases the spread of AIDS because the infected have more time to infect people. Thats basic logic, although admittedly it extremely cold, but its also the truth.
C. ARV's when not taken properly(probably a high percentage) exacerbate the drug resistant problem, which hurts those who are taking them properly because people don't stop having sex just because they have AIDS.
D. Even if you can convince a township couple to use condoms 80% of the time, which would be very high considering cultural dogma(i don't eat a banana with the skin on, etc), that still leaves 20% of the time for the infection to get passed from person to person. That means if a couple has sex 500 times in 5 years(twice a week), they would have had unprotected sex 100 times during that period which is more than enough for transferal.
The bottom line: the only real answer is a cure. Before that we are just spinning our wheels.
A. The only way the spread of AIDS will slow down is if people change their habits in the bedroom, and thats just not going to happen. You can't tell me any amount of talking too is going to alter the basic fact that people in townships/everywhere get bored, and in the quiet of the night slide into each others beds. Thats the whole issue right there, and changing that is near impossible. Nearly every family in rural areas has been hit extremely hard by AIDS, many of them have suffered the horrific pain of watching a loved one slowly withering and dying. If that isn't enough to get it in their heads they need to change their sexual habits, nothing will.
B. ARV's when taken properly(which i would argue is a small percentage) keep people around longer, which oddly enough increases the spread of AIDS because the infected have more time to infect people. Thats basic logic, although admittedly it extremely cold, but its also the truth.
C. ARV's when not taken properly(probably a high percentage) exacerbate the drug resistant problem, which hurts those who are taking them properly because people don't stop having sex just because they have AIDS.
D. Even if you can convince a township couple to use condoms 80% of the time, which would be very high considering cultural dogma(i don't eat a banana with the skin on, etc), that still leaves 20% of the time for the infection to get passed from person to person. That means if a couple has sex 500 times in 5 years(twice a week), they would have had unprotected sex 100 times during that period which is more than enough for transferal.
The bottom line: the only real answer is a cure. Before that we are just spinning our wheels.
Last edited:
Pitbull
Verboten
I fully support this and here is my reason why:
People are afraid of getting tested, however testing and getting a result is the best no matter the result. If you're negative you don't have to stress about it no more, if however you're positive then you get on treatment asap. Not enough is being done to combat HIV in this country and we need to do something.
Whenever you go to Europe you need to have a chest X-ray to show you don't have TB as an example. So make an HIV test mandatory and if positive proof that you're on treatment or something to that effect. I'm not saying discriminate against people who has HIV. Thus if you're on treatment you are accepted as any normal person on earth. If not, be deported back as an example.
No harm can come of this, only good.
People are afraid of getting tested, however testing and getting a result is the best no matter the result. If you're negative you don't have to stress about it no more, if however you're positive then you get on treatment asap. Not enough is being done to combat HIV in this country and we need to do something.
Whenever you go to Europe you need to have a chest X-ray to show you don't have TB as an example. So make an HIV test mandatory and if positive proof that you're on treatment or something to that effect. I'm not saying discriminate against people who has HIV. Thus if you're on treatment you are accepted as any normal person on earth. If not, be deported back as an example.
No harm can come of this, only good.
porchrat
Honorary Master
Man I really don't know what to think here. I don't like the idea of mandatory testing but at the same time it would do so much good. 
The thing is though that then what if these people are positive? You're going to force ARVs down their throats?
I think ultimately I have to side with no mandatory testing. After all short of rape or coercion or something, if you get infected it is your own damn fault for not insisting on precautions.
The thing is though that then what if these people are positive? You're going to force ARVs down their throats?
I think ultimately I have to side with no mandatory testing. After all short of rape or coercion or something, if you get infected it is your own damn fault for not insisting on precautions.
Man I really don't know what to think here. I don't like the idea of mandatory testing but at the same time it would do so much good.
The thing is though that then what if these people are positive? You're going to force ARVs down their throats?
One thing though, if you are HIV positive and its been confirmed and you are irresponsible with sex, you victim has more legal recourse. Well thats what I was thinking. Im like you. Not so happy about the idea of "having" to do something, but my own selfish desires are trumped the greater good it would do to the community.