Should HIV/AIDS positive workers have to tell their employers of their status?
Yes
Side Score: 24
|
 |
NO
Side Score: 23
|
|
|
|
|
Before I answer the question of this debate, allow me to first answer some prerequisite questions that will lead into a reasonably conclusive answer. 1) Do we want to stop the spreading of incurable, infectious viruses? Yes. 2) Can we stop the spreading of incurable, infectious viruses? No. 3) Can we reduce the spreading of incurable, infectious viruses in the U.S.? Yes. 4) Can we increase the spreading of incurable, infectious viruses? Yes. 5) Do we want to increase the spreading of incurable, infectious viruses? No. 6) Does anybody want to be infected with an incurable, infectious virus? No. 7) Is the ignorance of who is a carrier of an incurable, infectious virus a major factor in the spreading of the same? Yes. 8) Would the knowledge of who is a carrier of an incurable, infectious virus reduce the spreading of the same? Yes. 9) Do the known virus carriers have a responsibility of preventing the infection of others? Yes. 10) Is HIV/AIDS an incurable, infectious virus? Presently yes. All persons who are aware that they are carriers of an incurable, infectious virus owe everyone the knowledge that their exists a possibility that they can be infected with an incurable, life threatening virus by contact with their blood or by sexual intercourse with them. I agree that what I shall propose seems cruel to say the least, but it is more cruel, and almost criminal, to facilitate the spreading of an incurable, infectious virus by protecting the carriers by the ignorance of others. I propose that all individuals who are known carriers of any incurable, infectious virus receive a conspicuous indicator that can be seen by the public in public. (Where? That’s another debate.) I've done it now! Bring the torches and pitch-forks. Side: Public awareness
That would be a nightmare, doctor tags you after the results -,- HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION:We work together cleaning houses, I have HIV and I do not tell you. Thats it. Unless we are A) both sharing needles B) having unprotected sex C) or me getting my blood on an open wound on your arm. What are the chances of that? Ow I just cut myself, what you did to? Quick rub our arms together! Side: No
What makes you certain that I too am not a carrier of an incurable, infectious disease. And if my infection is spread to you by some unforeseeble circumstance, you are therefore a carrier of two diseases. The combination of the two might be far more life threatening than the single infection of either virus. Public knowledge will enable everyone to be mindful of the physical health of those near them. Are you certain you want to hide your health condition from another disease carrier? And what if he too desires to hide his health condition? Side: Public awareness
Your argument is flawed because of the following reasons: 1. People who are ignorant of someone's HIV status are not in the mercy of those that carry the virus. They can still do something that is sufficient enough to protect themselves: practice safer sex. In the workplace, health and safety measures have already been introduced in order to prevent any practice that would put people at risk. So, although to disclose your status to someone in order to warn them is honorable, you cannot force them to do so by means of a mark because the other person already has a few options to protect themselves. 2. The nature of this virus is such that it can only be detected in your body a few months after you've contracted it. During this time you still have the virus and can pass it onto other people, but the test would nevertheless say you are clear. To mark people that carry the virus would mislead the public into thinking that if you don't have the mark then you are virus-free. 3. You have built your argument around the principle of "quarantine". Although you are not saying "lock them up in a bunker", this method nevertheless would only work by means of social isolation, i.e. the public has to avoid having sex with these people until all the carriers die. In order to implement this method, the entire population would have to be tested. However, due to the nature of the virus (number 2 above) we would never have ALL the carriers in that quarantine. The public misconception that everybody who is not in the quarantine (unmarked) is "healthy" would lead to an increase in unprotected sex. This would fuel the spread of the virus uncontrollably. 4. So the fact that you cannot be sure who has the virus coupled with the fact that this virus has now spread so geographically widely, makes it more evident that the best way to defeat it is not to focus on identifying the carriers, but to identifying exactly how it is spread and through public announcements introduce legislation and practices that would kill the spread of the virus, i.e. wear condoms, don't touch blood etc etc. If these practices are implemented by everyone at work for example, the employer doesn't need to know who has the virus because no one is allowed to do anything that will spread the virus. In other words, it's best to presume that everybody has it. That way, even if you don't know your status, you are still required to take precautions, and no one has to bear any marks. Quarantine the virus, not the people. Side: No
My argument is flawed? Unlike formal debate, vis a vis the opposition, at CD you can think your arguments through to conclusion before responding in opposition. You can therefore formulate a well worded argument that is precise and rational in discourse. Having stated such, I am certain you have over-looked some of the implications and denotations of your argument. However, if you disagree with my assessment, I will respond to your rebuttal. Side: yes
I am actually doing a paper on this for a class right now. I believe that forcing some one to tell another about their personal medical situations is taking away the right to pursuit of happiness. They have the right to live normal lives and not let their career be affected by the disease. The only time it should be necessary is when some one is working around something that could potentially spread the disease to some one else. Most jobs don't have that risk therefore people have the right to have their privacy. Side: No
In hospitality and food industries it should be compulsory. In areas where there is potential for wounding yourself with sharp utensils someone with hiv could be potentially and selfishly be spreasing their diseases to many others. Futhermore why do people with aids shake others hands and sometimes insist on doing so?. What if they did have a small cut and not realise it. Is it worth harming others to feel not discrimated against. Aids is a truelly horrible disease but not disclosing hiv is not about issues concerning stigma or privacy in such industries. Aids should be disclosed it is about having respect for others lives. In my opinion anyone who is infected should respect the lives of others, and take responsibility for themselves and their actions for once; like choosing jobs that are safe etc...sleeping around sharing needles and unsafe sex all reflect a lack of respect one has for their own self and these values should not be shared. It is completely negligent to potentially harm others. Yes, people should keep their diseases to themselves in environments where they could be fatal. Anyone who spreads the disease is a selfish murderer as far as I am concerned. All humans need to learn the three R's . . . Respect for oneself; Respect for others; Responsibility for all my actions, and other life ...and that ignorance is not bliss. Side: yes
1
point
look at it this way, sure its rare, and more then likely injuries in the work place will happen and no one will bleed, bleed on each other, or bleed into each others wounds, or bleed into each others wounds and one of them is HIV/AIDS positive. but the one in whatever billion that does have it when something like that may happen will spread it. thats one more person. sure they aren't going to get into another uncanny accident like that, but I'm sure they are sexually active. many people nowadays have sex before marriage. good for them, but they have a lot of it. with a lot of people. and when you don't tell someone, guess what? they are gonna have a very unpleasant surprise sometime down the road. and they wont know for awhile themselves, so they will probably just do the same to another person. however they got it, or whenever they got it. its only fair to tell their employers. i suppose its not as important for the employees, but what happens when the person just kills over one day....then the boss is unprepared. now, i do know that sounds harsh, but come on, when i have ANY illness, no matter how temporary, i tell my boss. and a virus isn't going anywhere. you should have to let your boss know. but as far as advertising it....if you are dumb enough to sleep around and catch it, or if you are dumb enough to do the drugs with needles and catch it...then survival of the fittest. bye bye. Side: yes
The way you put everything together was very confusing to say the least. Just because someone has sex with another does not automatically give the other person HIV/AIDS. I do not really know what the hell you were talking about in most of your argument since everything was a jumble of nonsense. We are talking about the workplace not sharing needles with your friends or strangers. The point is that the chances are way to slim. I have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than contracting aids in my workplace. The reason you tell your boss is because ...? You want to do less work I'm guessing. If you are inflicted with HIV/AIDS you are very weak very physically drained almost all the time. The point is you know your boss correct? If you are applying for a job and your employer asks as 1 of the first questions when he meets you does that sound alright? Being forced to tell your boss of your 'problems' ? Would you mind if a stranger walked up to you on the streets and said " hey hey sir do you have HIV? Yes no? just curious!" I know I wouldn't like it. Side: No
To the guy that says, "If you stupid enough to have sex with various people and catch the disease...." Some people don't sleep around, they may sleep with their Husband/Wife who happen to be sleepin around. Or contracted it at birth, you never know. When we're young we do alot of things not thinking of the consequences, but that doesn't mean they should be criticized or judged for the rest of their lives for a mistake that they made, even if it's something as serious as HIV. I think it should be a decision made by the person who has it. That type of virus or any disease for that matter is personal, and people deserve their privacy and respect. Side: No
1
point
1
point
I personally think that workers need to tell their employers because i work in a nurses station at a chicken processing plant. The people are in direct contact with the chicken, standing shoulder to shoulder, with knives. I have had anywhere from 5 to 30 people come in with cuts from the knives in one week. That blood is in the chicken that we pack and ship across the country. Of course we don't ship it submerged in blood but the chicken will have been in direct contact for about 15 minutes depending on where that employee was standing. I have a feeling that if we didn't know if they were HIV/AIDS positive and we sent the chicken across the country and someone got HIV/AIDS from our chicken then it would be a law suit. If we ask in post-offer interviews, that would also be a law suit. So the question here is; Would you rather pass it on to millions of people just because you didn't want to admit to something that you can not change or Admit something that could change the success of your work site? Side: yes
1
point
well of course but not all people wash their hands after handling the raw chicken. I think they should but you cant control what people do, ya know? Even if they did, what if they get an itch? or something gets in their eye?...... no one ever knows what bizaar thing could happen... just like getting cut, no one knows when something is just going to happen. Side: NO
1
point
Yes, it should be and it is a must.. honesty will always leads you to a better feelings and a god fearing person. Tell them the truth instead. Anyway, there are various interactive and comprehensive health care features at http://www.interactivecare.ca/ mobile health app, you can try that to at least have better way of getting health updates on the go. Side: Yes
|
3
points
It can only be transmitted wound to wound, what jobs do you know of where guys cut themselves and quickly rub their bleeding wounds with each other? High injury jobs like what? Football is high injury but I dont think you have a very high chance of getting AIDS from that guy who just broke his leg. Unless the job is like David said being porn stars that do not use protection the likely hood of obtaining HIV/AIDS from a fellow employee are slim, very very slim. Side: No
1
point
The employer may not have the right to inquire but their insurance company does! The risk factors must be considered as well. Is there a high or marginal possibility that the job may be dangerous or hardly so? Once a person bleeds everyone needs to be very careful of touching that blood. Of course terrible accidents can happen no matter what one does for a living but the normal risk factors should dictate yea or nay. Side: No
Unless it's progressed to the point of poor job performance, it's really no one's business. Even at dangerous jobs. It's impossible to contract HIV from a puddle of blood on the ground, or some similar accident. There pretty much always has to be fluid transfered, HIV dies almost immediately in the open. Here are things it is almost impossible to get HIV from that people sometimes don't know: 1. Kissing unless both people have bleeding ulcers or gums, even then there's some bad luck involved, 2. sharing a glass, spoon, fork, etc. The HIV simply cannot survive in that environment. 3. a mosquito, or any insect, that bites someone with HIV then you, 4. protected sex. That's right, wear a condom the right way, and it's almost impossible to contract HIV. So unless your job is a porn star who doesn't use protection, the work place is very safe for everyone. Side: No
You are 1000% correct sir HIV is only Transmitted from direct fluid transfer. I build knives for a living and its no one business but my own. If i cut myself i take the proper precautions to keep everyone around me safe and our first aid persons ALWAYS use gloves when dealing with biohazards. HIV should not be your worry Hepatitis is far more likely as it can survive for about 16 hours at room temp but not more than 4 days Side: Yes
Are they having sex with their employers? Or sharing needles? For the average job, I think this should remain a private matter. However, I think all HIV positive people should carry a card around with them to notify paramedics, phlebotomists, etc of the condition. Also, I think anybody working in a hospital should have to tell the head of the hospital. Side: No
1
point
Considering that this question does not specifically state the where the HIV+ person works and their position, I would say no. Employers do not have a right to nose into someone else's business unless it is work related. If there business is a cathouse, then maybe (but that would be illegal, heh). Side: No
Depends on the job. If it’s healthcare related then yes. Otherwise, no. If Hiv+ person is in the food,medical fields or such they are required to answer about their status when asked. But there is no law stating you have to reveal your status in say a retail field or the likes, but if someone becomes infected from your passing it on to them without telling ahead of time of your status you can be charged with attempted murder.Otherwise it’s no bodys bussines if your infected or not. Side: depends
1
point
I say no because most people who actually have HIV become mentally unstable about their sexuality. With an argument i had read before, the Debater had told us ways that the HIV virus could not be spread that most people hadn't known such as most people thought that the HIV virus would be spread through kissing, but the fact is incorrect, only if both have bleeding ulsars as well as wearing a condom the correct way. It is well known that there are many possiblities that are life changing in sexual activities, Now im not saying "hey, don't have any more sexual activites because you have HIV" i honestly wouldn't care, i say go make babies. Like i said, HIV can be mentally destroying, such as being raped or molested. I suggest they keep dating, and find someone who loves them enough to accept what they have, and live with them through it. Sex is a natural thing, sure others are scared of receiving it, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who accept the fact that we live in a Disease ridden earth, and will love that individual for it. Now for the employers? just as another Debate argument had said, it's easy enough for the employer to call for a blood file that would tell them what that employee has. To me i feel that a person who has HIV can make up their mind on their own, they can decide to tell someone or not, it shouldn't matter. It's not like their Employer is wanting to have sexual activities. I do advise however, that the person with HIV informs their significant other (Wether work colleague or not) about their status. In other words it shouldn't matter if their employer knows unless that employer is their significant other whether before or after being employed. Other than that, if the Carrier isn't expecting to have any sexual activities with a co-worker, then i say let them make up their own mind. Side: NO
1
point
The infectivity of HIV is massively overstated. From my link: There is less than a 1% risk of contracting HIV when sharing needles with an infected person. Being the receptive partner in unprotected anal sex carries a likelihood of infection of just over 1%. Both of these represent significantly more exposure than, say, two people injuring themselves on the same object at different times- even less so if cleanup is performed after an injury, as policy should demand. I don't believe the chances are high enough to warrant mandatory disclosure to ones employer. If we're going to mandate that, why just HIV? Why not any and all potentially infectious diseases? What's so special about HIV that makes it the exception to the rule? I think if the debate was over whether we should be disclosing our entire medical history to our employer, it would be an overwhelming No. Side: NO
1
point
|
