ateasd5941 at aol.com (ATeasd5941) wrote:
>In article <6trbbf$gja at sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M.
>Carter) writes:
>>>>>>>>> Long-term survivors have usually tried many different treatments,
>>> and found combinations which work for them.
>> The reality is, most infected people WILL progress to AIDS.
> Not treating at a certain point in the
>>progression is a fatally stupid mistake.<<<<<<<<<
>If an effective treatment is developed for HIV that would prevent
>AID's from developing, wouldn't we have given birth to a new
>chronic disease?
Your question is unclear. The disease exists. Indeed, results often
in a chronic period of more or less symptom-free infection. Thus, it
can be passed on to subsequent generations. And indeed, sex continues
to happen.
>If so, how would it be prevented from being
>passed on to the next generations?
Excellent question. There are many options that can help prevent a
mother with HIV from passing the virus to her kid. First, about 75%
of kids will be born negative to begin with. Second, some treatments
may help to reduce that risk further (e.g., AZT -- although I hope we
can find better.)
>I am assuming that the
>people who had it would want the same rights as anyone
>with any other chronic disease.
>Is anything other than a complete cure ethically right?
Ethically right? A cure is the optimal solution!! No question! But
if by this you're suggesting that we *wait* til a cure is achieved
before people can obtain treatment, I disagree.
George M. Carter
