home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=93TT0739>
- <title>
- Dec. 13, 1993: HIV Sufferers Have A Responsibility
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1993
- Dec. 13, 1993 The Big Three:Chrysler, Ford, and GM
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- ESSAY, Page 100
- HIV Sufferers Have A Responsibility
- </hdr>
- <body>
- <p>By Amitai Etzioni
- </p>
- <p>Amitai Etzioni is the founder of the communitarian movement.
- </p>
- <p> A major drive to find a cure for AIDS was announced last week
- by Donna Shalala, President Clinton's Secretary of Health and
- Human Services. Researchers from the private sector, gay activists
- and government officials were teamed up to accelerate the search
- for an effective treatment. Yet even highly optimistic observers
- do not expect a cure to be found before the end of this century.
- Still, as the Shalala announcement's exclusive focus on cure
- highlights, it is not acceptable to explore publicly the measures
- that could curb the spread of the disease by slowing the transmission
- of HIV, the virus that causes it. Indeed, before you can say
- What about prevention? the politically correct choir chimes
- in: You cannot call it a plague! You are feeding the fires of
- homophobia! Gay basher!
- </p>
- <p> Case in point: a panel of seven experts fielded questions from
- 4,000 personnel managers at a conference in Las Vegas. "Suppose
- you work for medical records. You find out that Joe Doe, who
- is driving the company's 18-wheeler, is back on the bottle.
- Will you violate confidentiality and inform his supervisor?"
- The panel stated unanimously, "I'll find a way." Next question:
- "Joe Smith is HIV positive; he is intimate with the top designer
- of the company but did not tell; will you?" "No way," the panel
- agreed in unison.
- </p>
- <p> We need to break the silence. It is not antigay but fully compassionate
- to argue that a massive prevention drive is a viable way to
- save numerous lives in the very next years. We must lay a moral
- claim on those who are likely to be afflicted with HIV (gays,
- drug addicts who exchange needles and anyone who received a
- blood transfusion before 1985) and urge them as a social obligation
- to come forward to be tested. If the test is positive, they
- should inform their previous sexual contacts and warn all potential
- new ones. The principle is elementary, albeit openly put: the
- more responsibly HIV sufferers act, the fewer dead they will
- leave in their trail.
- </p>
- <p> HIV testing and contact tracing amount to "a cruel hoax," claims
- a gay representative from the West Coast. "There are not enough
- beds to take care of known AIDS patients. Why identify more?"
- Actually, testing is cruel only in a world where captains of
- sinking ships do not warn passengers because the captains cannot
- get off. We must marshal the moral courage to tell those infected
- with HIV: It is truly tragic that currently we have no way to
- save your life, but surely you recognize your duty to try to
- help save the lives of others.
- </p>
- <p> "Warning others is unnecessary because everybody should act
- safely all the time anyhow," argues Rob Teir, a gay activist
- in Washington. But human nature is such, strong data show, that
- most people cannot bring themselves to act safely all the time.
- A fair warning that they are about to enter a highly dangerous
- situation may spur people to take special precautions. The moral
- duty of those already afflicted, though, must be clearly articulated:
- being intimate without prior disclosure is like serving arsenic
- in a cake. And not informing previous contacts (or not helping
- public authorities trace them without disclosing your name)
- leaves the victims, unwittingly, to transmit the fatal disease
- to uncounted others.
- </p>
- <p> Testing and contact tracing may lead to a person's being deprived
- of a job, health insurance, housing and privacy, many civil
- libertarians fear. These are valid and grave concerns. But we
- can find ways to protect civil rights without sacrificing public
- health. A major AIDS-prevention campaign ought to be accompanied
- by intensive public education about the ways the illness is
- not transmitted, by additional safeguards on data banks and
- by greater penalties for those who abuse HIV victims. It may
- be harsh to say, but the fact that an individual may suffer
- as a result of doing what is right does not make doing so less
- of an imperative. Note also that while society suffers a tremendous
- loss of talent and youth and is stuck with a gargantuan bill,
- the first victims of nondisclosure are the loved ones of those
- already afflicted with HIV, even--in the case of infected
- women--their children.
- </p>
- <p> "Not cost effective," intone the bean counters. Let's count.
- Take, for example, a suggestion by the highly regarded Centers
- for Disease Control and Prevention that hospitals be required
- to ask patients whose blood is already being tested whether
- they would consent to having it tested for HIV as well. The
- test costs $60 or less and routinely identifies many who were
- unaware they had the virus. If those who are thus identified
- were to transmit the disease to only one less person on average,
- the suggested tests would pay for themselves much more readily
- than a coronary bypass, PSA tests and half the pills we pop.
- And society could continue to enjoy the lifelong earnings and
- social contributions of those whose lives would be saved.
- </p>
- <p> There are other excuses and rationalizations. But it is time
- for some plain talk: if AIDS were any other disease--say,
- hepatitis B or tuberculosis--we would have no trouble (and
- indeed we have had none) introducing the necessary preventive
- measures. Moreover, we should make it clear that doing all you
- can to prevent the spread of AIDS or any other fatal disease
- is part and parcel of an unambiguous commandment: Thou shalt
- not kill.
- </p>
-
- </body>
- </article>
- </text>
-
-