The spread of AIDS and shared hypodemic needles

[mark_a]

The “Abortion and condoms” thread morphed into an “aids and condoms” thread, with some good debate about the Church’s stand on the subject.

So the thread made me wonder:

Should the Chuch or does the Church teach intravenous drug users to wash out their needles with a 10% bleach solution to help stem the spread of AIDS?

 

[quasimodo]

The “Abortion and condoms” thread morphed into an “aids and condoms” thread, with some good debate about the Church’s stand on the subject.

So the thread made me wonder:

Should the Chuch or does the Church teach intravenous drug users to wash out their needles with a 10% bleach solution to help stem the spread of AIDS?

Should the church teach a safer way to engage in immoral activity?

UH?

Sin carries the seeds of its own punishment. The Church teaches us not to sin - it does not teach the “best” way to sin.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Should the church teach a safer way to engage in immoral activity?

UH?

Sin carries the seeds of its own punishment. The Church teaches us not to sin - it does not teach the “best” way to sin.

I think the OP was being sarcastic…

“People are always going to do X so why not make it safe”

 

[Dale_M]

Should the Chuch or does the Church teach intravenous drug users to wash out their needles with a 10% bleach solution to help stem the spread of AIDS?

I think from a stand point of public health, it is good to have programs which promote this harm-reduction strategy.

But I don’t see why the Church needs to take a position on the matter.

 

[mark_a]

I think the OP was being sarcastic…

What? Me? Sarcastic?

Most people just call me obvious.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

This is actually a pretty good point. I’ll have to bring it up next time someone uses the whole “the Church spreads AIDS by not allowing condoms” argument.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Dale_M]

I’ll have to bring it up next time someone uses the whole “the Church spreads AIDS by not allowing condoms” argument.

I think that is comparing apples to oranges. Sure they are both kind of round, and are fruits, but important differences exist between them.

The Church has no reason to make a pronouncement on cleaning needles relative to HIV, since it currently has no official policy relating to the matter.

In contrast, the Church does have a policy against birth control, and this is why there has been pressure in some quarters for the Church to make a statement regarding condoms and HIV.

I’m not sure of the magnitude of the problem, though. How many Catholics are in a marriage where one spouse is HIV-positive and the other one is HIV-negative?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I think that is comparing apples to oranges. Sure they are both kind of round, and are fruits, but important differences exist between them.

The Church has no reason to make a pronouncement on cleaning needles relative to HIV, since it currently has no official policy relating to the matter.

In contrast, the Church does have a policy against birth control, and this is why there has been pressure in some quarters for the Church to make a statement regarding condoms and HIV.

I’m not sure of the magnitude of the problem, though. How many Catholics are in a marriage where one spouse is HIV-positive and the other one is HIV-negative?

The Church considers drug use of this kind to be sinful in the first place, therefore that’s probably why we have no statement.

Part of the problem is that HIV is a completely controlable and perhaps solveable problem, given that one lives a “moral” lifestyle.

 

[Dale_M]

Part of the problem is that HIV is a completely controlable and perhaps solveable problem, given that one lives a “moral” lifestyle.

Oh, so not true. Many spouses get infected because their partner has been sleeping around. And while it is not a problem in First World countries, globally mother to infant transmission remains a threat. And then there is the problem of contaminated medical equipment or contaminated blood supply - it isn’t supposed to happen, but in third world countries, in former republics of the ex-Soviet Union and even in China, it does result in transmission of HIV.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Oh, so not true. Many spouses get infected because their partner has been sleeping around.

Then we start down a slippery slope here.

Like I said, the cheater shouldn’t be cheating in the first place. It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt. If people were careful who they slept with in the first place… Not that I’m advocating fornication or adultery.

As for someone who gets cheated on, this is where things get interesting. “I’m going to use artifical birth control since my significant other may be cheating on me” sounds like grounds for an invalid marriage (IANACL).

Lastly, at least in the First World (and this country specifically), the chances of contracting HIV from a single, random sexual encounter are slim.

And while it is not a problem in First World countries, globally mother to infant transmission remains a threat. And then there is the problem of contaminated medical equipment or contaminated blood supply - it isn’t supposed to happen, but in third world countries, in former republics of the ex-Soviet Union and even in China, it does result in transmission of HIV.

Didn’t preface my last statements with this. While there are a number of innocent by-standers, if people managed their behviours better, the amount of HIV “out there” could be reduced.

 

[mark_a]

While there are a number of innocent by-standers, if people managed their behviours better, the amount of HIV “out there” could be reduced.

And also the number of affected innocent bystanders would be reduced.

This seems to me to fit the Church’s teachings about the communion of saints and how the behavior or misbehavior of each of us affects others within the communion of saints.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

And also the number of affected innocent bystanders would be reduced.

This seems to me to fit the Church’s teachings about the communion of saints and how the behavior or misbehavior of each of us affects others within the communion of saints.

Correct.

 

[Dale_M]

Then we start down a slippery slope here.

Like I said, the cheater shouldn’t be cheating in the first place. It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt. If people were careful who they slept with in the first place… Not that I’m advocating fornication or adultery.

Okay. When I read your comment, it sounded to me that you were blaming people for being infected with HIV. I am glad that wasn’t the case.

 

[monorail]

This seems to me to fit the Church’s teachings about the communion of saints and how the behavior or misbehavior of each of us affects others within the communion of saints.

Wow… I had to de-lurk for a second to thank you for that observation. The “Communion of Saints” is one of those subjects that has been unclear to me, but your example gave me some insight.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I think that is comparing apples to oranges. Sure they are both kind of round, and are fruits, but important differences exist between them.

The Church has no reason to make a pronouncement on cleaning needles relative to HIV, since it currently has no official policy relating to the matter.

In contrast, the Church does have a policy against birth control, and this is why there has been pressure in some quarters for the Church to make a statement regarding condoms and HIV.

I’m not sure of the magnitude of the problem, though. How many Catholics are in a marriage where one spouse is HIV-positive and the other one is HIV-negative?

The point wasn’t completely serious. It was saying that as long as the Church is being attacked for not allowing sinful behavior they might as well allow for other sinful behavior as long as people are “safe” with that, too. It’s just sarcasm.

In Christ,
Rand