Thread: Is it better to let them die or risk further infection?

I am talking about AIDS. Should attempts to make the disease less painful or longer to kill you worth doing? I mean should people just try to create a cure or nothing at all? Most would realize this is not fair to people born with it or if they had it forced apon them. They won't live long anyways you could also say.

There are some ways hitler would take care of it, but I am sure that would be a last resort. What about sticking them all on thier own continent? Sure that would get rid of it. What about just not giving them medicine to prolong thier already greatly shortened life span? All of that money could be spent on a cure for it. In the long run it would save more lives. What if there was a way to enforce people with AIDS to only have sex with other people with the disease? That would also cause it to die down. Of course if you had that you could also ban drugs completely. But who would want the government to monitor them like that?

So what do you think? What is the best way to go about it? The most inhumane ways are the quickest but also down right evil. The best way for the people with the disease is the slowest and probably won't even work.

I think it's pretty much impossible to segregate the AIDs infected from non-infected, because it can hide in people for years and years undetected (this means it can spread to others, and stay undetected).

A cure would be great, but of course it isn't foreseeable now. I think it'd be a great step forward in prevention if the gels that are being developed for Africa are successful.

I think the World AIDS Con is being held now - or was held a couple of days ago...or maybe will be held sometime in the future. Does anyone know what came out of that?

My reply is just to let them be. If this is their fate...Then so be it.

My reply is just to let them be. If this is their fate...Then so be it.[/b]

The same case could be made against people who smoke. I don't think it's right to just "let them be", there are many many good people who have somehow come into contact with the AIDS virus (it doesnt have to be through sexual contact).

But strangely enough, the latest treatments of AIDS are to do as little as possible to treat the person. This is because drugs that target the AIDS virus are only able to kill the weaker viruses while the stronger ones are left and continue to replicate themselves and have more of a negative effect on the patient. Therefore, by not treating them, this keeps the weaker viruses at high levels. This turn means that the patient is less affected by the virus because the weak ones can do less damage.

Originally posted by bradybaker
But strangely enough, the latest treatments of AIDS are to do as little as possible to treat the person. This is because drugs that target the AIDS virus are only able to kill the weaker viruses while the stronger ones are left and continue to replicate themselves and have more of a negative effect on the patient. Therefore, by not treating them, this keeps the weaker viruses at high levels. This turn means that the patient is less affected by the virus because the weak ones can do less damage.

Also, as a quick sidenote, scientists have found that Apes, have built up an immunity to the immuno-defficiency virus of their own SIV. Perhaps humans will one day become immune to HIV? just a thought.

Originally posted by Crucible
So what do you think? What is the best way to go about it? The most inhumane ways are the quickest but also down right evil. The best way for the people with the disease is the slowest and probably won't even work.

That is evil. Which is why it won't happen.