First, an interesting story to provide a little context for this discussion.
LINK
Quote:
NYC Health Officials Find New, Virulent HIV Strain (Update7)
Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- New York City doctors have discovered a man with a previously unseen strain of HIV that is resistant to three of the four types of anti-viral drugs that combat the disease, and progresses from infection to full-blown AIDS in two or three months, the health department said.
``We've identified this strain of HIV that is difficult or impossible to treat and which appears to progress rapidly to AIDS,'' said New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden. ``We have not seen a case like this before. It holds the potential for a very serious public health problem.''
The case was diagnosed in a New Yorker in his mid-40s who reported multiple male sex partners and unprotected anal sex -- often while using the drug crystal methamphetamine.
``It is likely there are others infected with this strain and this individual has infected others,'' Frieden said. The case is ``extremely concerning and a wake-up call,'' he said.
Antonio Urbina, medical director of HIV education and training at St. Vincent's Catholic Medical Center, site of one of Manhattan's largest AIDS clinics, said the patient's use of crystal methamphetamine shows that the drug ``continues to play a significant role in facilitating the transmission of HIV.'' The drug reduces peoples' inhibitions and their likelihood of using condoms or other forms of safe sex, he said.
|
So, this new strain of HIV progresses to AIDS faster and is resistant to current treatments. Considering how difficult it is to contract HIV in the first place, do we really have much of a social responsibility to work towards helping irresponsible drug-users that routinely have unprotected sex with multiple partners? At what point do we sit back and let nature take its course with the refuse of the species, rather than forcing the hand of nature to use sharper swords sotospeak? Where do we draw the line, if at all?
Personally, I am interested in protecting the general populace, not those who intentionally and repeatedly put themselves and others in harms way. This applies to more than disease -- if someone gets drunk and hops into their car and drives into a tree, that's a shame, but they are not worth saving over the child that he didn't even notice hitting on the way to the tree. Now, the obvious question is "Who decides who to help?" but ideally this would be decided by anyone and everyone -- the innocent bystander, the judge, and the surgeon. Ultimately any blame would rest on the shoulders of fate and natural selection.