Drug addicts, smokers and alcoholics can kick their habits, and in any case often live a full measure of years without dying of their afflictions.
While all take part in risky behavior, it’s a stretch to say that in general they want to die or court death. They don’t require continual administration of potentially toxic drug cocktails. They don’t deliberately ensure that their body fluids pose a risk of death to innocent bystanders. To varying degrees, they often heedlessly place others at risk. But these behaviors seem far less egregious than deliberately infecting yourself with a deadly agent.
The “bug chasers”, however significant a phenomenon they may be, need prompt and rigorous counseling. Some may benefit from mental health commitments so that they don’t harm themselves or others.
Smokers, alcoholics, etc. are probably more analogous to barebackers – they do what they do for enjoyment (or some facsimile thereof). I’m not thrilled that this behavior results in deadly illness, but then, neither are they.
OTOH, if smokers smoked for the purpose of developing emphysema and lung cancer, I would be considerably less sympathetic and more inclined to suggest that they were not exhibiting rational behavior. In fact, I’ll go one step further: if we can force people who are suicidal (the old fashioned way) into treatment “for their own good”, don’t we have a responsibility to do the same for these people?
Oh, I’m sorry,…I had no idea that having homosexual intercourse for the sole purpose of contracting a horrible incurable disease was as addictive as nicotine, alchohol or heroine.
mister_me - the issue was one of personally inflicted suffering and the responsibility of society v the individual to fund the care/cure for that, not a comparison of addictiveness to risky homosexual behaviour.
Thank you every one else for the really interesting and insightful responses to my point. I wasn’t really arguing it one way or the other, I was more curious to what you all thought. I suppose if I have to pin myself down, I am rationally of the “no sympathy” crowd (ie you inflicted it, you deal with it) but in the actual physical case of meeting some disturbed, self-sickened and tragically suffering person, I would probably feel differently.
I don’t think this is an issue it is easy to be dispassionate about.
Well, Texican, how do you propose to administer this stern moral imperative of yours? Shall we hire special persons to discern the relative state of deserving amongst various potential patients, a kind of moral triage? And how would you go about proving it? If we are to pass what amounts to a sentence of death, and an exceptionally grim death it is, aren’t we obligated to have a crime, and irrefutable proof of that crime?
There are many amongst us who can look upon suffering and pain and the first questions to arise are “Do they deserve it? And how much will this cost me?” I have it on Good Authority that those are the wrong questions.
Prove it? Debate it? No way. You feel it or you don’t. I do. You don’t.
Imagine how the HIV+ person feels. Who wants to hear from a potential mate, “I want to catch your disease?” That would creep me out. I mean, love me for me, not because I have a virus I’m trying to fight.
elucidator, somebody beat you to the punch. Truthfully the numbers might be inflated, but I’ve seen these people online - they do exist, even if only in small numbers.
capacitor, read the article - they’re not interested in relationships, just sex.
(apologies if the link doesn’t work for you, it is a subscriber site but some content is free. I’m not sure of the status of this article.)
From Andrew Sullivan
"How widespread is this phenomenon today? According to the Rolling Stone story, a jaw-dropping 25 percent of new gay male HIV infections are due to bug chasing. That’s an astonishing statistic, and it’s what made this sub-subcultural practice suddenly an actual news story, worth four pages of Rolling Stone and a headline on Drudge. It’s the hinge on which the merit of this story hangs. If true, we should indeed be alarmed.
But now for the obvious follow-up: Which study found this alarming result? The answer is: none. The entire premise for the story, as published, is based on one doctor’s “estimate.” And the more you read the story, the thinner it gets. How many actual bug chasers are interviewed? A grand total of two, one of whom – the one who provides all the most lurid quotes – is clearly disturbed and is given a pseudonym. How many HIV-positive “gift givers” are interviewed? None. So there you have it. One anonymous source; one named source; one doctor’s completely unsubstantiated estimate; and lurid details from some Web sites. None of the major AIDS and gay specialists interviewed by Freeman agreed that this was a major phenomenon, let alone responsible for 25 percent of all new HIV infections."
I’m no fan of Andrew Sullivan (I think Salon keeps him around for the occassional opposing viewpoint) but he does raise some compelling issues with the assertations our Greg has made in his article.
Oh, sure, Duke, you timidly sidle up to posting the rebuttal and then, just as soon as I’m willing to take the heat for a forthright stance, you scurry in and try to glom the credit! Don’t think you’re fooling anybody here, pal. We’re on to you!
Greg, I have to admit, despite how great the article was, the 25% figure shocked me as well. Does this, perhaps, possibly include barebackers who may or may not be bug chasers? Either way, it doesn’t state specifically in the article as such. I understand you got the figure from at least one source (which now, according to MSNBC, is saying he didn’t say that), and that it was a guesstimate, and that this kind of statistic would be near impossible to figure out (based on the newness of the phenomenon and the lack of accurate data-finding in this case), but what kind of fact checking did go into this?
You’ve probably got your hands full right now sorting all this out, but if you can post a link to a reply, or give one of your own, we Dopers would be honored.
Well, I’m sure Bush’s new addition to the AIDS panel will get right on this “gay plauge” problem: “Be compassionate to those caught up in this sinful deathstyle (get it: like a lifestyle, only… death!),” the Bob Jones summary said. “Only when homosexuals know it is a sin can they repent.”
Truthfully the numbers might be inflated, but I’ve seen these people online - they do exist, even if only in small numbers.
