, Research Paper

Taking Away the Right of Privacy

The planetary AIDS epidemic is holding really strong societal impacts on many societies. AIDS is being compared with the Bubonic Plague which swept Europe in a huffy rage go forthing merely two tierces of the original population alive. Peoples speculate that this disease is traveling to be the be all and stop all of the human population as we know it. It has been sent to us to stop our being because of what we have done incorrect, to the Earth and to each other. These are the beliefs of many really scared people who fear the death of the human race from this lay waste toing disease. There has been extended research done on this subject so people know how it is transmitted and how to avoid contraction of it, yet sometimes, that is what scares them.

Many people infected do non cognize they are infected, seting others in sexual contact with them at a high hazard degree. Besides, many know they are infected and do non care what happens to the others around them. There have been many proposals of compulsory HIV showing and proving for these grounds. Some people want compulsory proving for HIV for all people in a certain age scope. This seems like a good thought at first because it would decrease the hazard of undertaking HIV. People would cognize if they were infected, but there are some jobs with this. If people knew they were infected, would they needfully unwrap this information to all people it should be told to? To battle this job, some people think that this information should be available to people in contact with the septic individual. This so would be a direct misdemeanor of privateness. So, is this misdemeanor of privateness allowable because it would protect the community? Is this a misdemeanor of the Prima facie rights given to us as worlds? In analyzing these inquiries, I will utilize two essays found in Contemporary Issues in Bioethics by Beauchamp and Walters. The first, used merely for statistics, by Cochran and Mays is called & # 8220 ; Sex, Lies, and HIV. & # 8221 ; The second is the focal point of this paper and it is called & # 8220 ; Mandatory HIV Screening and Testing & # 8221 ; by Childress.

In the essay & # 8220 ; Mandatory HIV Screening and Testing, & # 8221 ; Childress argues why compulsory HIV testing is indefensible. It is a misdemeanor of regard for liberty, regulations of autonomy, regulations of privateness, and regulations of confidentiality. The manner he argues this is by saying what must be the conditions for overruling leading facie rules and regulations. He states and explains these regulations one by one an makes it highly clear why the Prima facie rules can non be violated on this issue. Harmonizing to Childress, there are five conditions which must be met & # 8220 ; to warrant violations of these [ Prima facie rules and ] regulations & # 8221 ; ( Childress 559 ) . The first of these conditions is effectiveness. In this instance, person would hold to demo that go againsting these regulations would profit and protect the wellness of society. But, & # 8220 ; a policy that infringes the moral regulations but is uneffective merely has no justification ; it is arbitrary and freakish & # 8221 ; ( Childress 559 ) . The 2nd of these conditions is proportionality. It involves the existent regulations being violated and the effects of this misdemeanor, yet it besides includes the effects that may happen in the hereafter because of the misdemeanor of this regulation. Following Childress describes that status is necessity. If there is a better pick, or even a sensible option, the pick or option should be taken. The 4th status is that of least violation. This is explained best by a quotation mark from the essay. & # 8220 ; When autonomy is at interest, the society should seek the least restrictive option ; when privateness is at interest, it should seek the least intrusive and invasive option ; and when confidentiality is at interest, it should unwrap merely the sum and sort of information needed for effectual action & # 8221 ; ( Childress 559 ) . The concluding status is the rule of regard. This rule is really big and entails a batch of item. & # 8220 ; Even if it is indispensable to conflict a individual? s rights in order to protect the public wellness, that individual should non be reduced to a mere means to the end of public wellness & # 8221 ; ( Childress 560 ) . These are the five conditions that must be met to conflict the Prima facie rules and regulations. Childress explains why a compulsory HIV trial does non run into all of these conditions and hence can non be allowable. There are other sensible options which give less invasive results.

Medical guidance or even instruction will assist protect the public wellness without go againsting the right to privacy or any other Prima facie rules. This is the chief point of Childress? essay. He goes on to discourse compulsory testing under certain fortunes including obtaining a matrimony licence, holding a babe, and being admitted into a infirmary. They are merely more specific statements about the same large image. That is why T

hey are non the focal point of my statement. Childress? existent thesis was merely that a compulsory HIV trial is non allowable. This subject is really confusing in some facets. A compulsory HIV trial can be argued for because it will salvage many lives and protect the society. It will do people more cognizant of the gravitation of the state of affairs because if everyone must be tested, it must be a really large job. So, in that facet, it is a truly good thought. But privateness is an tremendous issue. If there was compulsory HIV testing, would those consequences be available to the populace? Would the consequences be given to people in sexual contact with the patient or even given to the patient? s employer? Because if it was available to some people, that is a complete invasion of privateness and there are Torahs of confidentiality that this state is envied for. But, if this information was non available to people, would it be of usage to take the trial in the first topographic point? Harmonizing to a survey of 665 pupils ages 18 to 25 at colleges in Southern California, the compulsory HIV trial without uncovering information to relevant people would non make every bit much good as would be hoped. Harmonizing to this information, 20 per centum of work forces stated that they would lie about holding a negative HIV antibody trial, 34 per centum of work forces have told a prevarication in order to hold sex, 60 per centum of adult females have been lied to in order to hold sex, and 47 per centum of work forces, and 43 per centum of adult females would minimize the figure of old sexual spouses ( Cochran and Mays 539-340 ) . This information shows that even if everyone was forced to take an HIV trial, if there was no revelation of information to others to protect the privateness of the HIV positive person, there is a good opportunity that the person will non portion that information with people at hazard of undertaking the disease from him. Another ground the mandatary HIV trial would non work every bit good as it sounds is that HIV can remain in the organic structure without demoing up for up to six months. So unless an HIV trial was required every six months for the remainder of your life, it would non be worth it. If person has an HIV trial and before that month contracts HIV, there is a possibility the trial will still come out negative and hence that individual can still infect others without cognizing. The favoritism this state has towards people that are different from the “normal” people is highly rough. If the information about HIV trial were made public, those positive people would hold problem acquiring occupations and be treated otherwise by many people. Although there are anti-discrimination Torahs in topographic point in this state, there are ever ways to acquire around them and it is really hard to turn out the ground for either fire or non engaging was really favoritism. This is another negative consequence that a compulsory HIV trial with revelation of information would do. The above stated statements against a compulsory HIV trial are the grounds I feel the trial should non be obligatory. I wholly agree that there are certain rules regulating the Torahs our state can do and in this instance do it impermissible to hold a compulsory HIV trial. Childress makes a really good point. But he misses the inside informations. He argues that the trial can non be allowable merely for the ground that it does non run into the five conditions to interrupt the Prima facie rules. This is a really good point but there are other grounds besides. The grounds I mentioned above are the grounds I believe to be more of import. I think that Childress believes that a compulsory HIV trial would assist salvage lives and do people more cognizant of their actions, yet he has come to the same realisation that I have. It is merely non executable. The manner to assist battle this epidemic is evidently non the compulsory trial. There are excessively many grounds that it would non work. The manner to non let this disease to take over the universe and to non let the prognostication that it is the terminal of the universe to come true is instruction. It is the lone manner that rights will non be violated and people will go more cognizant of the gravitation of the state of affairs. “Because of the physical and societal ruin this infection occasions, we can non afford to be ambivalent toward those who unreasonably risk infecting others or who will non portion information that can literally salvage lives” ( Schoeman 547 ) . The manner to halt these people from infecting the universe is the instruction of the society. The lone manner to non acquire HIV is to non portion acerate leafs and to non hold any type of sexual contact. This is an unreasonable petition of people but if people understand how non to acquire the disease, they can utilize that information when taking a sexual spouse. They can assist distribute the information to their friends. Although it is non a unfailing method of acquiring rid of HIV and there are still people that will contract it, it will at least assist the state of affairs. It is the lone manner to battle this slayer without go againsting the rights of the people in our society.

347