Debate Time?
Just wanting to throw this out there, mainly because I haven't reached an opinion yet... so let us see if we can get fired up on this one...HIV detainee image 'must be released'
DOCTORS say the image of HIV detainee Stuart McDonald should be released in the interests of the public.
The Australian Medical Association's call comes as the South Australian Opposition calls for the wives, girlfriends and partners involved in the HIV scandal to be financially compensated if they have contracted the virus.
The Government has opposed lifting a suppression order on McDonald's image, arguing it would hinder police investigations after authorities linked him to 11 different men with the virus.
AMA president Dr Chris Cain said yesterday McDonald could have used an alias and potential victims might not be aware they were infected.
"In terms of safety and having blood tests then you can make a good case for it being known," he said. "In public interest, I would say yes his image should be made public."
Independent MP Nick Xenophon has foreshadowed an anti-suppression Bill.
"It seems absurd and inconsistent that you'll suppress the image but not the name, particularly given the public health considerations," he said.
Complaints were made to health authorities in early and mid-2005 that McDonald was recklessly spreading the virus and had raped a man.
Opposition health spokeswoman Vickie Chapman said the Government would have to deal with compensation.
Let's ignore the compensation thing for a bit, unless of course you don't want to, but the image being released is an interesting conundrum for me...
Do we respect the right to privacy for those suffering from Infectious Disease? I think we should...
Do we continue to respect that right if they intentionally spread the Infectious Disease? I'm not sure, I am leaning towards an emphatic no, but am yet to be convinced...
In my research lately, which has been somewhat neglected for reasons beyond my control, I have been tinkering with an Idea first bought to my attention by Carla, the concept is a Bill of Rights for Infected Persons.
If H5N1 starts taking over the planet, what rights do we guarantee the infected? Surely if they get the flu we can't discriminate, but doesn't that violate the rights of the un-infected?
The image of a person who has intentionally infected others being released to the public... Is it a public service?
If he is guilty, does it matter? We see images of murderers all the time... Does his guilt remove that right of privacy?
Let me know what the feeling is out there! Please!!!
posted by Mark @ 3:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home