Streams

Ethical Implications of HIV/AIDS

Monday, June 21, 2010

We continue our five part series AIDS: Then & Now with a look at how ethical issues around the virus have and have not changed over the decades. We’ll talk with  Dr. Robert Klitzman, Director of the Ethics and Policy Core of the HIV Center at Columbia University, about why a number of states have statutes criminalizing HIV transmission and the recent court ruling which upholds the ban on gay men donating blood.

We continue our five part series on HIV/AIDS with a look at how ethical issues around the virus have and have not changed over the decades. We’ll examine why a number of states that have statutes criminalizing HIV transmission and the recent court ruling which upholds the ban on gay men donating blood. Plus, the ethics of disclosure for HIV+ individuals and enduring questions about just who should pay for treatment. We’ll talk with Dr. Robert Klitzman, Director of the Ethics and Policy Core of the HIV Center at Columbia University

Plus, the ethics of disclosure for HIV+ individuals, and enduring questions about who should pay for treatment.

 

Listen to Leonard's 1987 interview on the ethical and political implications of the AIDS crisis with Tom Stoddard of Lambda Legal, Carol Levine of the Hastings Center and AIDS activist Larry Kramer here:

Guests:

Dr. Robert Klitzman

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [13]

L Braun from Philadelphia, PA

I just found another article, similar in scope, at Infectious Disease News: <a href="http://www.infectiousdiseasenews.com/article/65791.aspx">http://www.infectiousdiseasenews.com/article/65791.aspx</a>

Jul. 07 2010 05:18 PM
amy stone from NYC

Leonard - your guest is too polite to tell you --- Cambodia does NOT border on Burma.

Jun. 28 2010 12:38 PM
AnthonyL from nyc

This parade of subtle extrapolation of the basic premise that HIV cause HIV/AIDS and that HIV/AIDS is infectious by an expert on bioethics from Columbia continues the irresponsible journalism on a national level by the agreeable, smart but far too trusting Leonard, whose research staff if any should at least look into how many very good scientists say that the 1987 article in Cancer Research rejecting HIV as the cause of HIV/AIDS, and that HIV/AIDS is AIDS misnamed, was peer reviewed, correct and has only been refuted politically, not scientifically in the 23 years since. At the very least Leonard should consider just how much of the ruling wisdom makes sense, and sharpen his questions to demand an explanation of all the oddities and inconsistencies in HIV/AIDS theory. If he hasn't seen the film House of Numbers, he should view it at least once. The meek acquiescence of Leonard to the statements retailed by such spokesmen who assume that HIV is the cause of AIDS is a little reprehensible given how much this assumption is disrupting people's lives and costing the nation uncounted billions - by some calculations over $300 billion so far. Come on Leonard, please accept the basic principle that human nature can distort science and medicine as readily as any other field. Have a look at Peter Duesberg's site and try not to assume that the mainstream is guiding you with 100% reliability - you and your Columbia commentator on the ethics of HIV/AIDS. The misleading of the world by these scientists who have been promoting HIV after it was thoroughly rejected in their own literature is the big ethical problem in HV/AIDS, since it has so many disruptive consequences for people such as those now being thrown into jail for infecting partners, which the science has shown is impossible (see Nancy Padian's study of the supposed infectiousness of HIV, which she found to be zero). How long must journalists of goodwill be fellow travelers of this nonsense?

Jun. 21 2010 07:30 PM
Catherine Hanssens from New York, NY

Dr. Kliltzman's assertion that indefinite civil commitment is appropriate for Nushawn Williams, who pled guilty at the advice of his attorney to one count of reckless endangerment and two counts of statutory rape, and already has served 12 years for those charges, is sad and troubling. Klitzman's assertion was based on his disturbing assumption that Williams has "mental health problems" and even more shocking, that Williams was "homeless." It is hard to know what is more depressing -- that Klitzman would add to the thoughtless slander of a young man who faces effective life imprisonment for sex while HIV positive, or that Williams' homelessness can be counted as a factor supporting his dangerousness. There never was evidence that Williams intended to harm anyone. What was clear is that a number of young people were having unprotected sex, and that about a dozen of them in Chattaqua County became infected with HIV. It is a story being repeated every day across the country. Except that one young black man who actually got tested is facing life imprisonment as a consequence.

Jun. 21 2010 01:37 PM
Catherine Hanssens from New York, NY

Dr. Kliltzman's assertion that indefinite civil commitment is appropriate for Nushawn Williams, who pled guilty at the advice of his attorney to one count of reckless endangerment and two counts of statutory rape, and already has served 12 years for those charges, is sad and troubling. Klitzman's assertion was based on his disturbing assumption that Williams has "mental health problems" and even more shocking, that Williams was "homeless." It is hard to know what is more depressing -- that Klitzman would add to the thoughtless slander of a young man who faces effective life imprisonment for sex while HIV positive, or that Williams' homelessness can be counted as a factor supporting his dangerousness. There never was evidence that Williams intended to harm anyone. What was clear is that a number of young people were having unprotected sex, and that about a dozen of them in Chattaqua County became infected with HIV. It is a story being repeated every day across the country. Except that one young black man who actually got tested is facing life imprisonment as a consequence.

Jun. 21 2010 12:52 PM
Jennifer

The Williams case had nothing to do w/names reporting in NYS. Names reporting is a surveillance method (using the epidemiological definition of surveillance, not the law enforcement definition).

Jun. 21 2010 12:39 PM
tom from qns

will HIV show up in normal battery of blood test?

Jun. 21 2010 12:37 PM
Jennifer from Harlem, NYC

The Williams case had nothing to do with names reporting!!! Please fact check this. Names reporting is a surveillance measure for epidemiological purposes.

Jun. 21 2010 12:36 PM
B from Brooklyn

Can the guest speak about the public health implications of the recent closure / transitions at St. Vincent's hospital? St. Vincent's is/was a major treater of the HIV population, and a lot of those people fell through the cracks. If they are not/less getting treated, isn't there an increased public exposure risk from untreated HIV patients?

Jun. 21 2010 12:35 PM
hannah

I get tested every year as part of my women's doctor appointment. I by no means engage in risky behavior, but I like to be sure. Recently, I got out of a relationship and started a new one, and wanted to get tested between the two relationships to ensure I was being safe. I was told that my insurance only covers one HIV test per year! I couldn't afford the $200 or so to get another test, but I hate being put in that position where I have to risk the health of my partner because of my stupid insurance. What an irresponsible policy!!!

Jun. 21 2010 12:23 PM
Rolando from Upper West Side

In my previous comment, I neglected to clarify the fundamental issue. Isn't ALL donated blood required to be screened for HIV? If that is the case, what is the rationale for discriminating against ANY potential donor, much less any GROUP of potential donors? If a particular blood donation is found to be infected, then presumably it's not used. Doesn't that eliminate any need for discrimination?

Jun. 21 2010 12:19 PM
a g from n j

if you don't have dissident voices ie kerry mullis, gary null, peter deusberg, you are not giving us a narrative other than the accepted drug driven paradighm. shame on you!

Jun. 21 2010 12:07 PM
Rolando from Upper West Side

Within the last two weeks I've read two articles in the NYTimes that astonished me: 1) The Red Cross still refuses to accept blood donations from openly gay men, regardless of their sexual history; 2) the Red Cross has recently been criticized for laxity in screening donated blood for HIV. Is Red Cross policy guided by science (obviously not) or anti-gay bigotry?

Jun. 21 2010 11:48 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.