First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
It's My Body!
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/09 , edited 1/14/09
About 1 in every 1,000 European ands Americans and Europeans have a genetic immunity to HIV. Recently in Germany a patient suffering from HIV and leukemia was cured when he received a bone marrow transplant from one of these Europeans. Berlin researchers say that he shows no signs of either disease. (BBC News.)

In 2002 Andrew Stimpson tested positive for HIV. According to medical experts there is absolutely no chance that the test was incorrect. The hospital claims that there was no clerical error, and that they’re 100% certain the tests both came from the same person. Andrew attempted to sue the hospital but their claim held up in court.

One year later Andrew Stimpson tested negative for AIDs. Medical experts say that there is absolutely no chance that the test was wrong. In other words, Andrew Stimpson is a walking cure for HIV. He’s not genetically immune. Andrew contracted HIV. Later, however, he was cured. This is a medical miracle, no doubt.

Doctors have urged Andrew to step up for the millions of people suffering from AIDs and HIV around the world. Now, I have a hypothetical situation. Let’s say that Andrew tells his doctors to go screw themselves. He refuses to let them study his body. Even after he dies he insists he be cremated. That his bones be crushed into dust and thrown into a south Pacific wind. That his ashes be abandoned in an Antarctic ice-berg.

According to global statistics provided by BBC news and the Center for Bioethical reforms as well as various AIDs Awareness programs:

4.9 million people were infected with HIV at the beginning of 2004. 3.1 million died from HIV related deaths. By the end of 2004 an estimated 39.4 million people were infected. These people have a right to live, don’t they?

Well, Andrew the Scotsman tells them to screw off. It’s his body, and he has a right to his body. He doesn’t want it to be researched for whatever reason. Maybe he feels that it will prevent him from achieving personal pursuits. Maybe he feels that he just has no obligation to give these people a chance to live. Maybe Andrew feels that they’re subhuman. By his definition they’re just biological robots, living meat. I don’t know.

Should the government intervene? Should they force him to allow them to use him for their studies? What about those Europeans and Americans? Shouldn’t the government do whatever is necessary to protect its people from this epidemic? Should it force these people to let themselves be used for experiments? HIV is becoming more prominent as well. The rate at which it is spreading is actually accelerating. One day it may be near impossible to have intercourse without contracting it. This could potentially end humanity.

On one hand I want to say, “Strap the selfish bastard up and save lives!” On the other hand, Hitler did the same thing. He used human subjects for experiments. Much of our modern medical knowledge was actually derived from these studies. Should we subject ourselves to fascism; sacrifice the individual’s rights for the greater good?

Would it be hypocritical to do so? I mean, what about abortion? It’s the mother’s right, isn’t it? Many people feel that stem cell research encourages women to attain abortions. Assuming that’s true then isn’t that a form of fascism? What about Gaza and Israel?

Israel is building a wall around its borders. Israel has a right to do this, but in doing so it’s starving Gazans. Egypt has also closed its borders to Gazans. Now people are starving and dying. They’re being denied humanitarian aid, food, water, clothing, medicine, electricity, and shelter-they’re being isolated. Egypt and Israel are both within their rights.

A river runs through two farms. To get to the second farm it must pass through the first. The first farmer decides to blockade the river’s flow. He builds a dam and now the other farmer’s crops die. It’s his land! He has a right to do whatever he wants with anything that he owns! By definition such items and objects are –his- and it is his human right to do with what he pleases.

Should Andrew’s rights be upheld under any circumstances? Isn’t that a bit extreme? Isn’t it trespassing on the rights of men, women, and children all around the world to prevent them from possibly being cured of a disease that prevents them from living life to the fullest, pursuing happiness, and achieving physical well being? A disease that actually threatens their very lives! Not only their lives, but the lives of their lovers, their children!

Food for thought, please discuss your opinions and reasoning.



NOTE:

I think I gave this guy a very harsh image. I feel bad so I want to clarify, he hasn't made any decision yet. I was speaking hypothetically. Chances have it he’ll wind up selling his blood to a pharmacy. He’ll get rich and they’ll work towards a cure. Again, hypothetical situation.



5156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 1/14/09
hmmmmmmm i'll get back to u on that one
8715 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / North Carolina
Offline
Posted 1/14/09 , edited 1/14/09
Strap that bitch down and test him. I don't give a damn about the guy, he seems like a selfish bastard, and if he dies during the process... Oh well! Many, many people's lives can be helped by this study, and if the government has to bend the rules a bit to save lives, power to them. Maybe some crazy kids will protest it, but damn it they ain't going to do a thing. Again, strap that bitch down and test him.

Saving that aborted baby isn't likely to save lives... It's his body, and I don't give a damn if he doesn't want it or not.
8221 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / yamaku
Offline
Posted 1/14/09
He has the right to say no, so technically he's not doing anything wrong. No one can make him a study subject against his will. It does seem a little selfish of him though
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

HokiePokie wrote:

Strap that bitch down and test him. I don't give a damn about the guy, he seems like a selfish bastard, and if he dies during the process... Oh well! Many, many people's lives can be helped by this study, and if the government has to bend the rules a bit to save lives, power to them. Maybe some crazy kids will protest it, but damn it they ain't going to do a thing. Again, strap that bitch down and test him.

Saving that aborted baby isn't likely to save lives... It's his body, and I don't give a damn if he doesn't want it or not. :D


How far do we go with this? How many people have to benefit from sacrificing an individual’s right’s before it’s acceptable? This topic leads to many questions. It’s hard to address it so brashly. What about Hitler? Before Hitler we didn’t know how much pressure was necessary to abort a woman’s fetus by pressing on her abdomen. Now we do, because he…aborted a woman’s fetus by pressing on her abdomen. So, he essentially murdered these women’s children against their will by violating their rights. Thanks to that, however, doctors are now able to warn women against certain activities to prevent such emotional, and physical, anguish.

Hitler also taught us how hot water has to be before it boils human flesh of the bone. He did this by dipping children into…hot water. Through forced chemical experiments he taught us the effects of different medicines. Was that right? So far he’s done more bad, but these gifts continuously give. Eventually the good Hitler did will technically outweigh the bad. It will take time, but it will happen.

So, how far do you go, under what circumstances, and if we’re going to allow this then who gets to make the decision? Don’t you feel that ‘strapping the bitch down,’ could be a step in a…frightening direction?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

h3ntie wrote:

He has the right to say no, so technically he's not doing anything wrong. No one can make him a study subject against his will. It does seem a little selfish of him though


I disagree. He’s not doing anything illegal, but just because you have the right to do something doesn’t make it morally correct to do so. I have the right to call your mother a whore, but I don’t. That’s because it would be rude, and it’d be hateful, and uncalled for, and ignorant-all of these things are bad. I can also advocate genocide.
8221 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / yamaku
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


h3ntie wrote:

He has the right to say no, so technically he's not doing anything wrong. No one can make him a study subject against his will. It does seem a little selfish of him though


I disagree. He’s not doing anything illegal, but just because you have the right to do something doesn’t make it morally correct to do so. I have the right to call your mother a whore, but I don’t. That’s because it would be rude, and it’d be hateful, and uncalled for, and ignorant-all of these things are bad. I can also advocate genocide.


Huh? I didn't say he was doing anything illegal..
I said that no one can make him do something he wants to do. I then went on to say that he seems a little selfish.
8715 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / North Carolina
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


HokiePokie wrote:

Strap that bitch down and test him. I don't give a damn about the guy, he seems like a selfish bastard, and if he dies during the process... Oh well! Many, many people's lives can be helped by this study, and if the government has to bend the rules a bit to save lives, power to them. Maybe some crazy kids will protest it, but damn it they ain't going to do a thing. Again, strap that bitch down and test him.

Saving that aborted baby isn't likely to save lives... It's his body, and I don't give a damn if he doesn't want it or not. :D


How far do we go with this? How many people have to benefit from sacrificing an individual’s right’s before it’s acceptable? This topic leads to many questions. It’s hard to address it so brashly. What about Hitler? Before Hitler we didn’t know how much pressure was necessary to abort a woman’s fetus by pressing on her abdomen. Now we do, because he…aborted a woman’s fetus by pressing on her abdomen. So, he essentially murdered these women’s children against their will by violating their rights. Thanks to that, however, doctors are now able to warn women against certain activities to prevent such emotional, and physical, anguish.

Hitler also taught us how hot water has to be before it boils human flesh of the bone. He did this by dipping children into…hot water. Through forced chemical experiments he taught us the effects of different medicines. Was that right? So far he’s done more bad, but these gifts continuously give. Eventually the good Hitler did will technically outweigh the bad. It will take time, but it will happen.

So, how far do you go, under what circumstances, and if we’re going to allow this then who gets to make the decision? Don’t you feel that ‘strapping the bitch down,’ could be a step in a…frightening direction?


I don't think the government should be able put boiling water onto his skin to find out things, but there are simpler ways they can test on him that doesn't do him much harm. The research is extremely important, I would think it'd be gruesome if they did anything drastic as Hitler, and I think it could never be justified. I'm not a christian and I have no religion I follow, so I believe there is a chance that there is or isn't a after life, that's a harsh thing for me to think one man's last days being filled with torture and pain for the sake of others who I must say in nicest way were a bit "dirty" (I ran out of words that I could think up of) and their reckless actions caused it onto them (not including those born with it or those who got them through blood transfusions or anything similar.) I don't think they should force him to be a test subject for the rest of his life, but a little safe testing every now and then won't hurt him...
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/09 , edited 1/14/09
I don't know if the government has the right to force him, but it is extremely selfish to prevent help to millions of people. He should consider him blessed that he is the one in roughly 40 million who got cured and possesses the cure. I think at the very least, the government should be able to deny him his last wishes (cremation or whatnot) because afterall, when you die it really doesn't matter what happens to the body. I am not too sure on where I stand on this issue. One could argue that he should be forced to because of the greater good it holds for humanity, to help prevent a deadly disease that is spreading around the globe. One could almost rationalize making him comply with testing with the same arguments regarding taxation (we are forced to do it for the greater good of the citizens), the exception is that this is on an individual level, and not so much on a state level. However, counter to this it is the man's body, he can be as selfish as he wants with it. I think this almost comes down to the question of "Is it wrong to not prevent a crime if it is within your power?" Somewhat like if someone is robbing a store, but a civilian possesses a gun or something that could stop him. If it wrong of the man to not stop the crime? Is he guilty of it two because of his lack of action? I think this guy should definitely help by providing some testing and giving his body to medical science when he dies, but I'm not sure if the government has the power to force him to do it. I think someone should force him (or at least pay him/convince him to help) but I am not sure if the government should hold the power to force him (I support smaller government with less power of individuals)
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 1/14/09
Share this few articles first for anyone who may want to read a little on it.

BBC news caution over health care -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4432564.stm

A similar case in China was reported -
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/03/content_7190756.htm

Regarding the issue of whether we should detain him should he refuse to subject his body for research purposes "For the good of the many", its wrong and encroach on basic human rights and his personal choice. Consultation should be the key, having close family members and friends speak to him, giving a large reward for his co-operation, still the choice ultimately belongs to him, should he reject the notion to allow his body to be researched, his views must be respected. Government should also encourage healthy debate as well as educational aids on the issue of providing our body for science before or after death, and also encourage people to volunteer for blood donation drives or donate organs (kidney transplant).

This argument will fall apart though if humankind existence was in dire peril, to the point of extinction and he is the only one person and last possible hope for the cure against the rampagin' HIV virus, then yes, strap him to the chair and do all those experiments whether he wanted to or not.
.

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/14/09 , edited 1/14/09

HokiePokie wrote:

I don't think the government should be able put boiling water onto his skin to find out things, but there are simpler ways they can test on him that doesn't do him much harm. The research is extremely important, I would think it'd be gruesome if they did anything drastic as Hitler, and I think it could never be justified. I'm not a christian and I have no religion I follow, so I believe there is a chance that there is or isn't a after life, that's a harsh thing for me to think one man's last days being filled with torture and pain for the sake of others who I must say in nicest way were a bit "dirty" (I ran out of words that I could think up of) and their reckless actions caused it onto them (not including those born with it or those who got them through blood transfusions or anything similar.) I don't think they should force him to be a test subject for the rest of his life, but a little safe testing every now and then won't hurt him...



Northboundsnow wrote:

Share this few articles first for anyone who may want to read a little on it.

BBC news caution over health care -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4432564.stm

A similar case in China was reported -
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/03/content_7190756.htm

Regarding the issue of whether we should detain him should he refuse to subject his body for research purposes "For the good of the many", its wrong and encroach on basic human rights and his personal choice. Consultation should be the key, having close family members and friends speak to him, giving a large reward for his co-operation, still the choice ultimately belongs to him, should he reject the notion to allow his body to be researched, his views must be respected. Government should also encourage healthy debate as well as educational aids on the issue of providing our body for science before or after death, and also encourage people to volunteer for blood donation drives or donate organs (kidney transplant).

This argument will fall apart though if humankind existence was in dire peril, to the point of extinction and he is the only one person and last possible hope for the cure against the rampagin' HIV virus, then yes, strap him to the chair and do all those experiments whether he wanted to or not.
.



Personally, I don’t think all elements of fascism are bad. I think that if we have the means to help millions of people we have the obligation. Neglecting to do this over a sentiment about human rights is unacceptable. Trespassing on one’s rights is an evil, sure, but a greater evil still is to allow HIV to claim millions of lives and do immense damage all around the world.

We fight wars. These violate basic human rights, but we do it. We have a right to live, but when we fire weapons into cities and kill militants as well as civilians-US, UK, Australia, France-we’re violating that basic human rights. Yet, we do it! We do it because it’s necessary to protect our people!

HIV is the fastest growing health concern in the UK. Now it’s being given an opportunity to eleminate a threat to its citizens and it’s refusing to do it…because it’s concerned about the rights of one selfish man? What about the rights of those victims? They didn’t choose to contract HIV. Many people inherit it through their mother. Condemned to death before birth, harsh.

I’m not saying pull a Hitler, but force the man to give blood samples? Yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I agree with Hokie.
34522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
ಠ_ಠ
Offline
Posted 1/14/09
Negotiate-Detain-Research.

The thoughts of a single selfish man, does not overweight the suffering, and possible death of millions of others. I understand that he doesn't want to do it as he is alive, but for him to go as far as to cremate himself after he dies and reject the thoughts of millions of people whom suffer everyday from this disease is just horrible.
Just as you said that Hitler did inhumane actions that led to new discoveries and methods of medical practices, this is one of those things that should be justifiable to help the suffering of many that have limits to how they live their lives. Compare the Holocaust to HIV if you will as an example since you brought the thought of Hitler into this.
Think about it like this. Would you give your life to save the millions of men, women and children that were being imprisoned in those death camps having their lives limited when you know you can help? Or would you be selfish and say "screw them" and ignore the whole matter itself. It's the almost the same thing here. Would you rather save the millions of people whom are suffering from this disease by giving your life to research if you knew that you could be a possible cure to mend the suffering of those men and women affected by it. Or would you tell them, "screw off" like this man did.
Though I do agree that he does have his personal rights and choice, there is also a line where that must be drawn to how much of one's rights can be kept for the greater good (since I cannot find a better phrase to put this as). Since instead of Hitler where he only had a specific group of people he wanted to exterminate, this can spread and eliminate everyone, without mercy and or second thought.

/rant
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 1/14/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

HokiePokie wrote:
I don't think the government should be able put boiling water onto his skin to find out things, but there are simpler ways they can test on him that doesn't do him much harm. The research is extremely important, I would think it'd be gruesome if they did anything drastic as Hitler, and I think it could never be justified. I'm not a christian and I have no religion I follow, so I believe there is a chance that there is or isn't a after life, that's a harsh thing for me to think one man's last days being filled with torture and pain for the sake of others who I must say in nicest way were a bit "dirty" (I ran out of words that I could think up of) and their reckless actions caused it onto them (not including those born with it or those who got them through blood transfusions or anything similar.) I don't think they should force him to be a test subject for the rest of his life, but a little safe testing every now and then won't hurt him...



Northboundsnow wrote:

Share this few articles first for anyone who may want to read a little on it.

BBC news caution over health care -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4432564.stm

A similar case in China was reported -
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/03/content_7190756.htm

Regarding the issue of whether we should detain him should he refuse to subject his body for research purposes "For the good of the many", its wrong and encroach on basic human rights and his personal choice. Consultation should be the key, having close family members and friends speak to him, giving a large reward for his co-operation, still the choice ultimately belongs to him, should he reject the notion to allow his body to be researched, his views must be respected. Government should also encourage healthy debate as well as educational aids on the issue of providing our body for science before or after death, and also encourage people to volunteer for blood donation drives or donate organs (kidney transplant).

This argument will fall apart though if humankind existence was in dire peril, to the point of extinction and he is the only one person and last possible hope for the cure against the rampagin' HIV virus, then yes, strap him to the chair and do all those experiments whether he wanted to or not.
.


Personally, I don’t think all elements of fascism are bad. I think that if we have the means to help millions of people we have the obligation. Neglecting to do this over a sentiment about human rights is unacceptable. Trespassing on one’s rights is an evil, sure, but a greater evil still is to allow HIV to claim millions of lives and do immense damage all around the world.

We fight wars. These violate basic human rights, but we do it. We have a right to live, but when we fire weapons into cities and kill militants as well as civilians-US, UK, Australia, France-we’re violating that basic human rights. Yet, we do it! We do it because it’s necessary to protect our people!

HIV is the fastest growing health concern in the UK. Now it’s being given an opportunity to eleminate a threat to its citizens and it’s refusing to do it…because it’s concerned about the rights of one selfish man? What about the rights of those victims? They didn’t choose to contract HIV. Many people inherit it through their mother. Condemned to death before birth, harsh.

I’m not saying pull a Hitler, but force the man to give blood samples? Yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I agree with Hokie.


RaikuRoak wrote:

Negotiate-Detain-Research.

The thoughts of a single selfish man, does not overweight the suffering, and possible death of millions of others. I understand that he doesn't want to do it as he is alive, but for him to go as far as to cremate himself after he dies and reject the thoughts of millions of people whom suffer everyday from this disease is just horrible.
Just as you said that Hitler did inhumane actions that led to new discoveries and methods of medical practices, this is one of those things that should be justifiable to help the suffering of many that have limits to how they live their lives. Compare the Holocaust to HIV if you will as an example since you brought the thought of Hitler into this.
Think about it like this. Would you give your life to save the millions of men, women and children that were being imprisoned in those death camps having their lives limited when you know you can help? Or would you be selfish and say "screw them" and ignore the whole matter itself. It's the almost the same thing here. Would you rather save the millions of people whom are suffering from this disease by giving your life to research if you knew that you could be a possible cure to mend the suffering of those men and women affected by it. Or would you tell them, "screw off" like this man did.
Though I do agree that he does have his personal rights and choice, there is also a line where that must be drawn to how much of one's rights can be kept for the greater good (since I cannot find a better phrase to put this as). Since instead of Hitler where he only had a specific group of people he wanted to exterminate, this can spread and eliminate everyone, without mercy and or second thought.

/rant


I can understand both your points, the importance of getting that cure, but it is prone to abuse should we allow government or people in authority to decide to forgo basic rights so as to achieve its objective.

You know what I would say to such a person who refuse to help, "Don't overestimate/flatter yourself, don't think you are our only last best hope to find a cure. Don't underestimate our Science, the indomitable spirit and charity of humankind, and the grace of god to lead us closer to finding this cure that will save millions. We will prevail!"
1809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34
Offline
Posted 1/14/09
its his body and if he dosent want to let them study him then its his right to tell em to go fnk off.

Personally i would do the same thing. Unless of course i was offered an insane ammount of money.
4344 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / auckland
Offline
Posted 1/14/09
man. back again with another morally hard to judge topic arent you : D

Hmm. Can't say that the government have the right to force Andrew to do so by law. But just kidnap the son-of-a-bitch and do a media cover-up. Even if the public find out, the government will have a justification to such a course of action. (very small chance of this happening btw)

Andrew himself will probably have a reason why he didn't want to participate in the research. Maybe he believe that AIDS is good in a way that it helps the world's problem of over-population. Maybe something else.

If i was him though i'd let them do so. No matter what my personal belief is. Coz if you say yes, they'll pay you heaps, and get positive recognition to the world as the guy who cured AIDS.

But if you say no, they'll take your body away from you by force anyway. Even if they don't. And you want to launch a campaign to raise people's awareness in this issue.. you will never get the popular vote because people will see you as a selfish person.

So in conclusion if I was Andrew. I won't make any futile course of action and jus
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.