Testing for potentially fatal afflictions.

[Coldfire]

For example, but not limited to HIV/AIDS

Should people be required by law to, let’s say upon reaching adulthood, be tested for evidence of contagious, incurable, potentially life threatening diseases and viruses?

If so, would it be right or wrong if the test results were made available for public knowledge? Not public knowledge as in “you’re a walking billboard with your illness shown everywhere you go,� but instead like the Jailbirds magazine where only those who look it up will find out.

[McCulloch]

We all have a fatal incurable life-threatening, inherited condition. It kills most of us who reach the age of ninety or so, but a few manage to eke out a few more years.

Wikileaks has shown that information privacy is illusory.

[Coldfire]

We all have a fatal incurable life-threatening, inherited condition. It kills most of us who reach the age of ninety or so, but a few manage to eke out a few more years.

Wikileaks has shown that information privacy is illusory.

I wasn't referring to natural death by old age. That was cute though.

Is it common knowledge within wiki leaks of every adult who has a contagious, potentially life threatening disease or virus? If not, how is what you said about it relevant?

I have to say, you did a pretty good job at dodging my debate questions. But regardless of how illusory information privacy is, I would still like to hear people’s opinions on the matter. Including yours.

[sarabellum]

I'm going with the double no on this one....

Good idea though.

[Coldfire]

I'm going with the double no on this one....

Good idea though.

can you please give reasons?

[Vince]

Should people be required by law to, let’s say upon reaching adulthood, be tested for evidence of contagious, incurable, potentially life threatening diseases and viruses?

See the thing about the diseases is that most of the one's that are dangerous enough that they become a public concern are diseases that have low incubation periods, which means you would need periodic tests to combat them. Being able to effectively test to account for the incubation of the worst diseases I think you would have a government program that is doomed to fail from the onset.

The other class of diseases that would warrant public attention are deadly, but they are rare. Running the sheer number of tests to find these diseases would again be financially unsupportable by a government.

So no, I don't think it should required by law, I think it would be both ineffective and expensive.

If so, would it be right or wrong if the test results were made available for public knowledge? Not public knowledge as in “you’re a walking billboard with your illness shown everywhere you go,� but instead like the Jailbirds magazine where only those who look it up will find out.

I know this question doesn't apply to me since I said no to the first one, but this is a flagrant violation of a patients rights to confidentiality. It would be wrong to make any kind of public list that had patients private medical information on it.

[McCulloch]

There are a lot of prejudices out there. The patient should choose with whom to share such information and whether to be tested.

[Coldfire]

Should people be required by law to, let’s say upon reaching adulthood, be tested for evidence of contagious, incurable, potentially life threatening diseases and viruses?

See the thing about the diseases is that most of the one's that are dangerous enough that they become a public concern are diseases that have low incubation periods, which means you would need periodic tests to combat them. Being able to effectively test to account for the incubation of the worst diseases I think you would have a government program that is doomed to fail from the onset.

The other class of diseases that would warrant public attention are deadly, but they are rare. Running the sheer number of tests to find these diseases would again be financially unsupportable by a government.

So no, I don't think it should required by law, I think it would be both ineffective and expensive.

If so, would it be right or wrong if the test results were made available for public knowledge? Not public knowledge as in “you’re a walking billboard with your illness shown everywhere you go,� but instead like the Jailbirds magazine where only those who look it up will find out.

I know this question doesn't apply to me since I said no to the first one, but this is a flagrant violation of a patients rights to confidentiality. It would be wrong to make any kind of public list that had patients private medical information on it.

I see your first point. It would be near impossible for a government to implement such a thing by the shear challenge it presents and the financial aspect. That is a very good point that I haven’t considered.

For the sake of argument, would your position change at all if finances, hypothetically speaking, were of no issue what-so-ever?

I see that this violates a person’s rights to confidentiality, but I was seeking an answer of whether it is morally right or wrong, not wrong by law.

Medical records are considered highly confidential because of the extremely personal information they contain, regardless of how it may threaten other people. Criminal records are extremely personal information and they often contain evidence of the behavior of an individual that could be potentially harmful to others. Why then, are criminal records considered public records?

There are a lot of prejudices out there. The patient should choose with whom to share such information and whether to be tested.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t this reduce the amount of prejudice (prejudgment made before adequate knowledge of a subject)? Wouldn’t we be able to make more accurate decisions about who we want to spend our life with or procreate with?

If the “patient� chooses, as they do now, who they let know about their life threatening disease, how is that fair to the person they meet at the club? How is it fair that they will wake up the next morning to a smiling face who says “oh, by the way, you have HIV now."

[sarabellum]

My reason for the double no....

Man power.
Testing everyone on the planet seems like a collosal undertaking.
Processing the information would also involve tons of people...

Seems like a waste.....

[Vince]

I see your first point. It would be near impossible for a government to implement such a thing by the shear challenge it presents and the financial aspect. That is a very good point that I haven’t considered.

For the sake of argument, would your position change at all if finances, hypothetically speaking, were of no issue what-so-ever?

I have an ideological problem with it as well, if we require government to 'check' us all to make sure we are healthy enough to not be on this list, how much of a stretch is it to remove the unhealthy from society?
I do not mean to invoke a slippery slope here and suggest that this is the only scenario. However, if we walk down that path, I do think it is a likely enough scenario that I would need a high degree of confidence that irrevocable laws were in place to protect people from possible abuse. (Church tax exempt status is an example of this, I'm obviously not benefiting from this, but as long as the first amendment stands strong I have no fear of oppression, I would need something equally as strong to protect the people to consider an idea like this.)

I see that this violates a person’s rights to confidentiality, but I was seeking an answer of whether it is morally right or wrong, not wrong by law.

I feel it is morally wrong to infringe on someone's right to privacy unless legitimate threat to to public safety can be demonstrated.

Medical records are considered highly confidential because of the extremely personal information they contain, regardless of how it may threaten other people. Criminal records are extremely personal information and they often contain evidence of the behavior of an individual that could be potentially harmful to others. Why then, are criminal records considered public records?

A criminal has forfeited some of their rights by breaking the laws of society, a sick person has committed no such crime. Notice it is criminal records that are public, not the prisoners health information. Only the portion of the criminals privacy that was a threat to public safety was made public. The prisoner violated our laws, as such our society has taken measures to protect itself against further deviance. The sick do not meet this criteria of threat to the public (except in the most extreme situations).

If the “patient� chooses, as they do now, who they let know about their life threatening disease, how is that fair to the person they meet at the club? How is it fair that they will wake up the next morning to a smiling face who says “oh, by the way, you have HIV now."

I would say that this is an acceptable risk in order to protect privacy, seeing that this behavior is already extremely rare, I don't think it represents enough of a threat to rescind anyone's right to privacy.