your compassion is directed towards the people who have chosen to engage in activities that carried a risk. mine is directed towards the uninfected and the innocent group that were given the death sentence (nurses, dentist, babies, trusting spouses,…)
If that is called judgemental then I a guilty. but you make judgements everyday. (do you give money to the homeless person for food or the soccer team trying to get to a out of town tournament?)
andygirl gets it right, justinh. There is a growing body of evidence that second-hand smoke contributes to the development of asthma, emphysema, and lung cancer. Granted, smokers suffer the most, as do homosexuals and iv drug users with HIV. But the general populace who do not engage in these behaviors also see their risk increase. The analogy holds up pretty well.
I don’t want to get into a debate on second-hand smoke. But I did train as a medical scientist at a respected university, I’ve reviewed the literature, I have no vested interest in demonstrating that second-hand smoke causes disease, and I have no ax to grind. The evidence I’ve seen convinces me that there is a strong causal link between second-hand smoke and lung disease.
BTW justinh, the best thing I’ve seen compassion do is help facilitate change. When some of my HIV patients have discovered not everyone treats them with fear and loathing, but as people who deserve to be treated as such, they are less likely to go out in anger and despair, hiding their pain with risky behavior like unsafe sex. When treated like responsible human beings, some of them will act that way. Oftentimes the end result is the same, as I alluded to earlier, but what remains of their lives is better, and they’re less likely to pass HIV on to others. So my pragmatic approach is to minimize harm.
This is different from my condoning their behavior. I clearly let them know what they have, how they got it, and how their actions contributed to it. I tell them that it is a crime morally, and in some cases legally not to take steps to protect others from their infection. I tell them the consequences of inappropriate behavior, whether it’s not taking their meds, or not practicing safe sex. And then I do my best to help them. That’s what I call compassion.
do you call compassion keeping the condition secret from the public? my wife is a teacher for disturbed children. she cannot legally know if one of her students is infected with this deadly disease. and these kids are biters, spitters, scratchers.
so we as a society are being compassionate and protecting these innocent children from harassment because of their disease. but that is putting the other students and teachers at risk. where does compassion end and common sense begin?
It doesnt matter how you get it, actively or passively, you are still a danger to everyone around you if you dont be careful and they dont be careful. Giving them drugs to keep them active and in society is a nice sweet loving approach. but doing anything that puts the innocent population at risk is wrong.
Those are whole separate issues, and more fitted to GD than GQ. And you talk like compassion and common sense are mutually exclusive, also a GD issue. Why not raise these issues there?
Its not worth the effort. Seems to me that as long as you let people do what they want, without regards to consequences, and feel compassion when they reap the benefits of their actions , everybody is happy.
Me let people do what they want? How the Hell am I supposed to stop them? You want me to euthanize them for you? Refuse to care for them because they don’t meet your standards? Go do your own dirty work. I’m sticking with my oath.
Biters, spitters, and scratchers have no chance of passing on HIV. Your wife would have to gargle their bloody spit with open sores in her mouth before she caught HIV.