Today’s New York Times has a front page article on steps being considered to try to limit the spread of HIV, particularly in light of the new, more virulent strain that has emerged.
As with the original efforts to fight the spread, steps are being discussed that some may find intrusive. While no one is discussing mass segregation of HIV-positive men, as some feared in the hysteria of the early days of the AIDS epidemic, 20+ years ago, other steps are being discussed that some will, no doubt, find offensive.
These ideas include deliberately interfering with parties that are advertised online as offering crystal methamphetamine and sex, notifying sex partners of men recently infected with HIV, etc. While some will cite personal freedoms, others will point to the right of others to be protected from people engaging in unsafe behavior.
When I was dating, I made sure to take measures to protect my health (and the health of whoever I was dating, of course). I grew up when HIV was just coming on the scene, and I was either too sensible or just too scared to not be safe. I know very well the pleasures of not being safe (one of the joys of being “married”), but that cannot be an indulgence of someone on the dating scene. I’ve had some amazing sex through the years (and continue to, thanks to you-know-who), but the best sex ever isn’t worth a slow, horrible death.
So I don’t really have the answers to the whole problem. I wish I did. All I can say is that we need to examine our approach to HIV, because the steps we’ve taken so far aren’t working. The rate of infection hasn’t dropped. All that has changed are the treatments available. So if a new, drug-resistant strain starts spreading, we’re going to be burying more of our friends and loved ones again. Nothing is worth that!
No comments:
Post a Comment