If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Ethical philosophy of mandatory HIV vaccination. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Ethical philosophy of mandatory HIV vaccination paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Ethical philosophy of mandatory HIV vaccination, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Ethical philosophy of mandatory HIV vaccination paper at affordable prices!
Mandatory HIV test/vaccination
In the United States all medical information is generally considered confidential
and protected under law. Because of the sensitivity of HIV-related information, many
states have adopted laws that provide additional protection to HIV-related medical
Help with essay on Ethical philosophy of mandatory HIV vaccination
records. In the wake of the HIV epidemic many research and prevention methods are
considered. What are the ethical and legal obligations to involved with mandatory HIV
screening and/or vaccination ? First I will present some facts about what measures have
been taken to research the best methods for prevention of spreading the disease further.
Then, I will offer some views on mandatory HIV tests and/or vaccinations. Last, I will
present my opinion on the subject.
In the 160's the United States began collecting tissue samples at birth to test for
various medical conditions. The tissue and blood samples from these tests are taken and
stored without informed consent. These samples are then accessible to multiple
organizations to provide demographic research information (1). The allowance for these
tissue samples set the groundwork for anonymous HIV seroprevalence studies which
began in 187. The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) performs these tests on
uninformed patients at 40 hospitals, 10 state prisons, 15 colleges, and many clinics. The
tissue samples taken at birth from about 4.1 million infants a year are also subjected to
HIV seroprevalence tests ().
1. Loretta M. Kopelman, "Informed Consent and anonymous tissue samples The case of HIV Seroprevalence Studies" The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Vol. 1 No. 6 December 14, p 55.
. Kopelman, p 50
The claim by the researcher is that anonymous testing provides valuable
demographic information without causing harm to the subject. Only basic information
such as gender, age, race, sexual practices, drug use, and place and date of screening may
be attached to the sample (). The protection of people's rights and welfare comes by
means of confidentiality and universal education, such as counseling about safe practices
and about who should be tested (4).
But, how anonymous are these tests? With the scientific advances in DNA
research a person is easily identified by the DNA strands found in their tissue sample.
This DNA fingerprint along with the accompanying geographic information allows any
sample in the tissue bank to be matched 100% to the donor. Whether this DNA match
will be pursued is not the case. The researcher guaranteed the privacy of the subject as
leeway for uninformed consent. The fact that the samples can be identified creates an
ethical dilemma.
What is privacy? One of the most accepted definitions of privacy is that of Louis
Brandeis and Samuel Warren. They conclude that privacy is "the right to be let alone."
To be let alone is to be anonymous and to have solitude, perhaps from others or just
protection from unwanted intrusions (5). Privacy is a core human value that goes to the
very heart of preserving human dignity and autonomy. We are persuaded that privacy is
fundamental to a free society. But, most people assume that they have greater rights to
. Kopelman, p 5
4. Kopelman, p 58
5. Mark Tunick, "Does Privacy Undermine Community," The Journal of Value Inquiry Vol. 5 No. 4, December 001, p 51
privacy than the law actually provides. States have the authority to impose mandatory
health measures under what is called their "police power." This power is reserved to
states in the Tenth Amendment. This allows states to take any steps necessary to ensure
the public health and welfare, to foster prosperity, and to maintain public order (6).
While many states actions seek to promote the public health by creating a safer
environment, states have also relied on their power to intervene directly in the private
lives of their citizens.
In Connecticut, a law was passed in October of 1 requiring prenatal testing of
mothers, or post delivery testing of newborns. This has led to almost universal testing for
a pregnant woman's HIV status. A study at Yale found that before the law went into
effect only 40 percent of women underwent testing and now more than 5 percent of
women allowed themselves to be tested. A religious conflict is grounds to refuse the test.
In one study of more than ,00 children born between October 1 and July 000,
mandatory testing found seven HIV positive pregnant women. These women were
previously unaware of their status and were started on antiretroviral therapy. All seven of
the babies are HIV negative today. Many others have been discovered and placed on
therapy (7).
There is a legal argument related to the mandatory prenatal HIV testing. The
United States Supreme Court has recognized a "zone of privacy," encompassed in the
Constitution, protects an individual against unwarranted governmental intrusions.
6. American University Law Review Vol. 45, Book 4
7. "Mandatory AIDS Test Law Does Work," May , 001, Newsmax.com
4
This "zone" includes the disclosure of personal information. Screening newborns for HIV
compromises the privacy of both the mother and the child because it reveals the HIV
status of the mother. Privacy protection for HIV-related information is particularly
necessary. But, the right to privacy is always in question. There must be a legitimate
states interest to infringe on an individuals right to privacy. The states interest in
mandatory testing of newborns is the protection of public health and the protection of the
health of the newborn. Because prenatal testing only reveals the presence of HIV
antibodies in the newborn and not the virus, only the status of the mother is confirmed.
Therefore, a mandatory screening policy would not adequately address these interests.
The government's interest in testing newborns for HIV must be weighed against the
privacy interests and consequences of testing on the newborn and the mother. It is also an
infringement on our Fourth Amendment right. This amendment is meant to protect
people from unreasonable governmental searches and seizures (8).
Do the benefits of this infringement outweigh the right of privacy? Some dismiss
the erosion of their rights to privacy with the dangerously false pretense that only people
with something to hide should be concerned with the loss of privacy. H.W. Arndt views
privacy as a recourse of the guilty rather than a safe haven for potential victims. He
argues that a tax evader or person with venereal disease wants privacy. And, this shows
how "the cult of privacy seems specifically designed as a defense mechanism for the
protection of anti-social behavior "(). For someone with this view the infringement on
8. American University Law Journal Vol. 45 Book 4
. Tunick, p 55
5
the right to privacy is not an infringement at all because only those with something to
hide value their privacy. Privacy can be seen in this way by those with nothing to hide. A
person who is socially responsible would not object to an infringement of their right to
privacy. Because a concern for privacy undercuts the goal of having people work together
toward common goals (10).
Why might a socially responsible person truly have a need for privacy? Mark
Tunick states, "When people respect my privacy they are respecting and recognizing me
as a person, a bearer of rights, as someone entitled to some degree of self- determination.
In leaving me alone, they are putting their trust in me that I can act responsibly (11)".
Charles Fried agrees by saying, "A man cannot know he is trusted until he has a right to
act without constant surveillance so that he knows he can betray the trust. Privacy confers
that essential right (1)". An invasion of privacy can undercut autonomy and affront our
dignity (1).
A communitarian would view mandatory HIV screening as beneficial.
Communitarians evaluate acts based on their consequences for the community. The
communitarian is in favor of many types of screening (14). The community benefits in
several ways from mandatory screening. The mother is placed on antiretroviral therapy
and the baby's probability of infection is decreased
10. Tunick, p 55
11. Tunick, p 57
1. Tunick, p 57
1. Tunick, p 57
14. Tunick, p 5
6
One-fifth of all perinatally infected infants die by eighteen months of age (15). An HIV
positive pregnant woman given zidovudine(ZDV) during pregnancy reduces mother to
child transmission by 67.5 percent (16). Also, knowing that they are infected with HIV,
those individuals could abstain from activities which could lead to further transmission of
the disease. Therefore, the health and welfare of the community is improved. But, the
communitarian also recognizes the need for privacy. There must be a compelling need for
the intrusion, the intrusion should be minimized, there should be no less intrusive
alternatives, and side affects of the intrusion should be minimized (17).
What negative side affects with mandatory prenatal HIV screening become
involved?HIV testing as a routine part of prenatal care raises several concerns. First, it
is unknown whether such testing would be acceptable to pregnant women. Second, there
is danger that, if HIV testing becomes routine, it will become so habitual or mechanical
that pregnant women may not realize that they have the option to decline testing.
Pregnant women are among those recognized by United States federal regulations as a
vulnerable population (18) and therefore more susceptible to this affect. Third, caregivers
and patients may forget that HIV testing entails much greater psychosocial risks than
other blood tests. Fourth, by foregoing opportunities for education and counseling,
routine testing may undermine prevention efforts. Finally, routine HIV testing in the
prenatal context may affect adherence to the norms of pretest counseling and informed
15. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Screening. Pediatrics July 1 No.104 p 18
16. Kopelman, p 51
17. Tunick, p 5
18. American Law Journal
7
consent for HIV testing in other contexts.
There is a proposal of a mandatory AIDS vaccination. The vaccine is to be
administered to 11 to 1 year olds and military. Massive resistance has been received
(1). How should our government officials make such a controversial decision? How
would most people make this decision? One way to approach this would be to weigh the
options on the basis of the expected effect. We would favor options that we expect to
produce the most favorable results. Because the results will surely produce some negative
results there are alternate ways of approaching the decision. Instead, various moral
intuitions are involved. We often consider the harm caused by our actions to be more
serious and more to be avoided than harm caused by our omissions. As a result of this
intuition some people avoid taking protective measures that might cause harm, even
though the same measures are more likely to prevent harm. When a vaccine, such as the
AIDS vaccine, can cause side effects or death people want to avoid these effects, even
though the vaccine can prevent a disease that is more likely and equally serious and
deadly. Therefore, government officials might resist requiring the vaccine. It is not
because the government officials are wise but capitulate to public demands. They have
the same moral intuition that influences their judgment. This intuition is, "do no harm." It
is a widely advocated. In a case like a vaccination this rule is potentially harmful. It leads
us to neglect things we could easily prevent, like disease and death. After the AIDS
vaccine has been properly tested there will still be a risk of becoming infected with HIV
at the time of vaccination. But, this is the risk with any vaccine. Some parents will resist
1. Wes Vernon, "Reports indicate Massive resistance to Mandatory AIDS Vaccine" June 1, 001 Gannett News Service, Newsmax .com
8
the vaccine for their children even though they know the total risk is lower with the
vaccine than without it. Even though the risk may not be to that detrimental point today
without a cure the risk continues to increase. Most people do not want to see themselves
as the cause of harm to their children. It is better that the harm come from some force out
of their control. Then it is easier to shun a guilty conscience, even though they could have
prevented it. This do no harm view also affects the decisions of judges and juries, when
people sue the makers of the vaccines for its side effects. These side effects are awful, but
so are the consequences of not making the vaccine at all. Even though drug companies do
not get sued for the injuries caused by their failure to make a product, they take these law
suits into consideration when deciding to invest research and development resources into
more possibly risky vaccines versus another drug that lowers cholesterol. In a utilitarian
society people would favor a government policy for a mandatory AIDS vaccination that
will help many while hurting a few.
In some states we allow the testing of infants for HIV pre-birth. Why can we not
implement mandatory HIV test for all people? This would improve the welfare of the
community. Like screening newborns the privacy of the individual will be compromised.
The harm caused by the compromise may inflict mental and/or physical harm on the
person who is found to have the disease. This will in fact hurt the person involved. If in
the U.S., they will be placed on antiretroviral therapy. The lifestyle of that person will
change. But, this is for the good of the whole. If those with the disease are made aware of
their infection they are less likely to continue spreading the disease to others. The privacy
issues explored in relation to mandatory testing of infants apply here as well. But, they do
not outweigh the benefits that would be achieved from mandatory testing. How is it that
we have come so far as a society and mandatory testing is not enforced? The people who
are found to be HIV positive are the people who benefit the most. Even though they will
be subjected to a dramatic lifestyle change, they had the disease anyway. The fact that the
disease is in their system does not change whether or not they are tested. The benefit they
receive is earlier treatment of the disease. It is common knowledge that the earlier this
disease is treated a better quality of life is received.
So, why is mandatory testing not enforced? Why do people claim infringement of
privacy? People are afraid. People are afraid that they will have the disease. Because if
they have the disease they know that their mate probably has the disease. They know that
they have a long road ahead of them with treatment and sickness. They know that it is a
death sentence. They know they will feel shameful and dirty. They know they will
experience rejection. So, is it ethically wrong to mandate HIV testing? Why would it be
wrong, because someone will be upset if they are positive? No that is ridiculous. What is
unethical is for people to reject the test. It is socially irresponsible for people to have sex
with multiple people and not get tested. But, people are selfish and become more and
more selfish as they evolve.
Even though mandatory testing will not become a reality in my generation, I
believe it is the best method of prevention. People with HIV and AIDS need to be kept
isolated form the population that is not infected. There needs to be a system that will
allow people to know who is infected. Or more so, people need to know if they are
10
infected so that they can make the necessary changes in their own lives to keep others
safe. This may be a callous approach. But, the spread of HIV has gotten out of hand. And,
I am afraid. I take the precautions that I need to take to protect myself, but I have friends
and family that may not take the same precautions. I understand that a lot of people who
are infected are good people who want to lead normal lives. And, I believe that most
people who know they have the disease are cautious with their lifestyle activities. The
problem is the people who do not know they are infected. Those people who are not
taking the necessary precautions. The methods of controlling this epidemic that have
been in use in our society so far are education and voluntary testing. These methods are
not enough. Not enough people are getting tested or practicing safe sex. The disease is
still spreading.
Vaccination will probably be the next step in this battle against HIV. Even though
there is presently much resistance to the idea, it is a practice already seen in our culture.
Therefore, people will accept vaccination before they will accept mandatory testing. But,
I assume it could go either way. Everyone in the U.S. who attends school is required to
prove vaccination with records. But, a TB test record is also required. Which ever is the
preferred method of control, hopefully, it is sooner than later.
Mandatory HIV test/vaccination
In the United States all medical information is generally considered confidential
and protected under law. Because of the sensitivity of HIV-related information, many
states have adopted laws that provide additional protection to HIV-related medical
records. In the wake of the HIV epidemic many research and prevention methods are
considered. What are the ethical and legal obligations to involved with mandatory HIV
screening and/or vaccination ? First I will present some facts about what measures have
been taken to research the best methods for prevention of spreading the disease further.
Then, I will offer some views on mandatory HIV tests and/or vaccinations. Last, I will
present my opinion on the subject.
In the 160's the United States began collecting tissue samples at birth to test for
various medical conditions. The tissue and blood samples from these tests are taken and
stored without informed consent. These samples are then accessible to multiple
organizations to provide demographic research information (1). The allowance for these
tissue samples set the groundwork for anonymous HIV seroprevalence studies which
began in 187. The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) performs these tests on
uninformed patients at 40 hospitals, 10 state prisons, 15 colleges, and many clinics. The
tissue samples taken at birth from about 4.1 million infants a year are also subjected to
HIV seroprevalence tests ().
1. Loretta M. Kopelman, "Informed Consent and anonymous tissue samples The case of HIV Seroprevalence Studies" The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Vol. 1 No. 6 December 14, p 55.
. Kopelman, p 50
The claim by the researcher is that anonymous testing provides valuable
demographic information without causing harm to the subject. Only basic information
such as gender, age, race, sexual practices, drug use, and place and date of screening may
be attached to the sample (). The protection of people's rights and welfare comes by
means of confidentiality and universal education, such as counseling about safe practices
and about who should be tested (4).
But, how anonymous are these tests? With the scientific advances in DNA
research a person is easily identified by the DNA strands found in their tissue sample.
This DNA fingerprint along with the accompanying geographic information allows any
sample in the tissue bank to be matched 100% to the donor. Whether this DNA match
will be pursued is not the case. The researcher guaranteed the privacy of the subject as
leeway for uninformed consent. The fact that the samples can be identified creates an
ethical dilemma.
What is privacy? One of the most accepted definitions of privacy is that of Louis
Brandeis and Samuel Warren. They conclude that privacy is "the right to be let alone."
To be let alone is to be anonymous and to have solitude, perhaps from others or just
protection from unwanted intrusions (5). Privacy is a core human value that goes to the
very heart of preserving human dignity and autonomy. We are persuaded that privacy is
fundamental to a free society. But, most people assume that they have greater rights to
. Kopelman, p 5
4. Kopelman, p 58
5. Mark Tunick, "Does Privacy Undermine Community," The Journal of Value Inquiry Vol. 5 No. 4, December 001, p 51
privacy than the law actually provides. States have the authority to impose mandatory
health measures under what is called their "police power." This power is reserved to
states in the Tenth Amendment. This allows states to take any steps necessary to ensure
the public health and welfare, to foster prosperity, and to maintain public order (6).
While many states actions seek to promote the public health by creating a safer
environment, states have also relied on their power to intervene directly in the private
lives of their citizens.
In Connecticut, a law was passed in October of 1 requiring prenatal testing of
mothers, or post delivery testing of newborns. This has led to almost universal testing for
a pregnant woman's HIV status. A study at Yale found that before the law went into
effect only 40 percent of women underwent testing and now more than 5 percent of
women allowed themselves to be tested. A religious conflict is grounds to refuse the test.
In one study of more than ,00 children born between October 1 and July 000,
mandatory testing found seven HIV positive pregnant women. These women were
previously unaware of their status and were started on antiretroviral therapy. All seven of
the babies are HIV negative today. Many others have been discovered and placed on
therapy (7).
There is a legal argument related to the mandatory prenatal HIV testing. The
United States Supreme Court has recognized a "zone of privacy," encompassed in the
Constitution, protects an individual against unwarranted governmental intrusions.
6. American University Law Review Vol. 45, Book 4
7. "Mandatory AIDS Test Law Does Work," May , 001, Newsmax.com
4
This "zone" includes the disclosure of personal information. Screening newborns for HIV
compromises the privacy of both the mother and the child because it reveals the HIV
status of the mother. Privacy protection for HIV-related information is particularly
necessary. But, the right to privacy is always in question. There must be a legitimate
states interest to infringe on an individuals right to privacy. The states interest in
mandatory testing of newborns is the protection of public health and the protection of the
health of the newborn. Because prenatal testing only reveals the presence of HIV
antibodies in the newborn and not the virus, only the status of the mother is confirmed.
Therefore, a mandatory screening policy would not adequately address these interests.
The government's interest in testing newborns for HIV must be weighed against the
privacy interests and consequences of testing on the newborn and the mother. It is also an
infringement on our Fourth Amendment right. This amendment is meant to protect
people from unreasonable governmental searches and seizures (8).
Do the benefits of this infringement outweigh the right of privacy? Some dismiss
the erosion of their rights to privacy with the dangerously false pretense that only people
with something to hide should be concerned with the loss of privacy. H.W. Arndt views
privacy as a recourse of the guilty rather than a safe haven for potential victims. He
argues that a tax evader or person with venereal disease wants privacy. And, this shows
how "the cult of privacy seems specifically designed as a defense mechanism for the
protection of anti-social behavior "(). For someone with this view the infringement on
8. American University Law Journal Vol. 45 Book 4
. Tunick, p 55
5
the right to privacy is not an infringement at all because only those with something to
hide value their privacy. Privacy can be seen in this way by those with nothing to hide. A
person who is socially responsible would not object to an infringement of their right to
privacy. Because a concern for privacy undercuts the goal of having people work together
toward common goals (10).
Why might a socially responsible person truly have a need for privacy? Mark
Tunick states, "When people respect my privacy they are respecting and recognizing me
as a person, a bearer of rights, as someone entitled to some degree of self- determination.
In leaving me alone, they are putting their trust in me that I can act responsibly (11)".
Charles Fried agrees by saying, "A man cannot know he is trusted until he has a right to
act without constant surveillance so that he knows he can betray the trust. Privacy confers
that essential right (1)". An invasion of privacy can undercut autonomy and affront our
dignity (1).
A communitarian would view mandatory HIV screening as beneficial.
Communitarians evaluate acts based on their consequences for the community. The
communitarian is in favor of many types of screening (14). The community benefits in
several ways from mandatory screening. The mother is placed on antiretroviral therapy
and the baby's probability of infection is decreased
10. Tunick, p 55
11. Tunick, p 57
1. Tunick, p 57
1. Tunick, p 57
14. Tunick, p 5
6
One-fifth of all perinatally infected infants die by eighteen months of age (15). An HIV
positive pregnant woman given zidovudine(ZDV) during pregnancy reduces mother to
child transmission by 67.5 percent (16). Also, knowing that they are infected with HIV,
those individuals could abstain from activities which could lead to further transmission of
the disease. Therefore, the health and welfare of the community is improved. But, the
communitarian also recognizes the need for privacy. There must be a compelling need for
the intrusion, the intrusion should be minimized, there should be no less intrusive
alternatives, and side affects of the intrusion should be minimized (17).
What negative side affects with mandatory prenatal HIV screening become
involved?HIV testing as a routine part of prenatal care raises several concerns. First, it
is unknown whether such testing would be acceptable to pregnant women. Second, there
is danger that, if HIV testing becomes routine, it will become so habitual or mechanical
that pregnant women may not realize that they have the option to decline testing.
Pregnant women are among those recognized by United States federal regulations as a
vulnerable population (18) and therefore more susceptible to this affect. Third, caregivers
and patients may forget that HIV testing entails much greater psychosocial risks than
other blood tests. Fourth, by foregoing opportunities for education and counseling,
routine testing may undermine prevention efforts. Finally, routine HIV testing in the
prenatal context may affect adherence to the norms of pretest counseling and informed
15. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Screening. Pediatrics July 1 No.104 p 18
16. Kopelman, p 51
17. Tunick, p 5
18. American Law Journal
7
consent for HIV testing in other contexts.
There is a proposal of a mandatory AIDS vaccination. The vaccine is to be
administered to 11 to 1 year olds and military. Massive resistance has been received
(1). How should our government officials make such a controversial decision? How
would most people make this decision? One way to approach this would be to weigh the
options on the basis of the expected effect. We would favor options that we expect to
produce the most favorable results. Because the results will surely produce some negative
results there are alternate ways of approaching the decision. Instead, various moral
intuitions are involved. We often consider the harm caused by our actions to be more
serious and more to be avoided than harm caused by our omissions. As a result of this
intuition some people avoid taking protective measures that might cause harm, even
though the same measures are more likely to prevent harm. When a vaccine, such as the
AIDS vaccine, can cause side effects or death people want to avoid these effects, even
though the vaccine can prevent a disease that is more likely and equally serious and
deadly. Therefore, government officials might resist requiring the vaccine. It is not
because the government officials are wise but capitulate to public demands. They have
the same moral intuition that influences their judgment. This intuition is, "do no harm." It
is a widely advocated. In a case like a vaccination this rule is potentially harmful. It leads
us to neglect things we could easily prevent, like disease and death. After the AIDS
vaccine has been properly tested there will still be a risk of becoming infected with HIV
at the time of vaccination. But, this is the risk with any vaccine. Some parents will resist
1. Wes Vernon, "Reports indicate Massive resistance to Mandatory AIDS Vaccine" June 1, 001 Gannett News Service, Newsmax .com
8
the vaccine for their children even though they know the total risk is lower with the
vaccine than without it. Even though the risk may not be to that detrimental point today
without a cure the risk continues to increase. Most people do not want to see themselves
as the cause of harm to their children. It is better that the harm come from some force out
of their control. Then it is easier to shun a guilty conscience, even though they could have
prevented it. This do no harm view also affects the decisions of judges and juries, when
people sue the makers of the vaccines for its side effects. These side effects are awful, but
so are the consequences of not making the vaccine at all. Even though drug companies do
not get sued for the injuries caused by their failure to make a product, they take these law
suits into consideration when deciding to invest research and development resources into
more possibly risky vaccines versus another drug that lowers cholesterol. In a utilitarian
society people would favor a government policy for a mandatory AIDS vaccination that
will help many while hurting a few.
In some states we allow the testing of infants for HIV pre-birth. Why can we not
implement mandatory HIV test for all people? This would improve the welfare of the
community. Like screening newborns the privacy of the individual will be compromised.
The harm caused by the compromise may inflict mental and/or physical harm on the
person who is found to have the disease. This will in fact hurt the person involved. If in
the U.S., they will be placed on antiretroviral therapy. The lifestyle of that person will
change. But, this is for the good of the whole. If those with the disease are made aware of
their infection they are less likely to continue spreading the disease to others. The privacy
issues explored in relation to mandatory testing of infants apply here as well. But, they do
not outweigh the benefits that would be achieved from mandatory testing. How is it that
we have come so far as a society and mandatory testing is not enforced? The people who
are found to be HIV positive are the people who benefit the most. Even though they will
be subjected to a dramatic lifestyle change, they had the disease anyway. The fact that the
disease is in their system does not change whether or not they are tested. The benefit they
receive is earlier treatment of the disease. It is common knowledge that the earlier this
disease is treated a better quality of life is received.
So, why is mandatory testing not enforced? Why do people claim infringement of
privacy? People are afraid. People are afraid that they will have the disease. Because if
they have the disease they know that their mate probably has the disease. They know that
they have a long road ahead of them with treatment and sickness. They know that it is a
death sentence. They know they will feel shameful and dirty. They know they will
experience rejection. So, is it ethically wrong to mandate HIV testing? Why would it be
wrong, because someone will be upset if they are positive? No that is ridiculous. What is
unethical is for people to reject the test. It is socially irresponsible for people to have sex
with multiple people and not get tested. But, people are selfish and become more and
more selfish as they evolve.
Even though mandatory testing will not become a reality in my generation, I
believe it is the best method of prevention. People with HIV and AIDS need to be kept
isolated form the population that is not infected. There needs to be a system that will
allow people to know who is infected. Or more so, people need to know if they are
10
infected so that they can make the necessary changes in their own lives to keep others
safe. This may be a callous approach. But, the spread of HIV has gotten out of hand. And,
I am afraid. I take the precautions that I need to take to protect myself, but I have friends
and family that may not take the same precautions. I understand that a lot of people who
are infected are good people who want to lead normal lives. And, I believe that most
people who know they have the disease are cautious with their lifestyle activities. The
problem is the people who do not know they are infected. Those people who are not
taking the necessary precautions. The methods of controlling this epidemic that have
been in use in our society so far are education and voluntary testing. These methods are
not enough. Not enough people are getting tested or practicing safe sex. The disease is
still spreading.
Vaccination will probably be the next step in this battle against HIV. Even though
there is presently much resistance to the idea, it is a practice already seen in our culture.
Therefore, people will accept vaccination before they will accept mandatory testing. But,
I assume it could go either way. Everyone in the U.S. who attends school is required to
prove vaccination with records. But, a TB test record is also required. Which ever is the
preferred method of control, hopefully, it is sooner than later.
Please note that this sample paper on Ethical philosophy of mandatory HIV vaccination is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Ethical philosophy of mandatory HIV vaccination, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on Ethical philosophy of mandatory HIV vaccination will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!