Was this man cured of AIDS?

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

A British man was diagnosed with AIDS in 2002- the tests have been re-checked, and found to be accurate- but all trace of the HIV virus had vanished from his system when he was re-tested a year later!!

Doctors wonder whether examining Andrew Stimpson might provide the key to defeating the virus. But thus far, he has declined to come forward for that purpose.

Question, constant readers: Should he be forced to? Remember, this is England; the Bill of Rights doesn't apply.

HT: Drudge

Comments

Anonymous said…
If he is forced to, then there is no incentive for people to apply their creativity to fixing problems. It's a theft of intellectual property and research effort. Instead of finding a cure for AIDS, those smart people will find more reward in other activities.
Anonymous said…
And now I realize that I have answered another question instead of yours. :)

It's still about incentive. He's going to be one heck of a guinea pig if he submits to testing. Any good that comes out of this is hypothetical at best. Is the certain drag on his life worth the possible betterment of others?
Anonymous said…
Sort of a medical conscription?

I don't think it will be necessary to force him. I think he will figure out pretty quickly that the only safe place for him now, is in custody. Folks are gonna be gunnin' for his genes, that's for sure. Reminds me of the J.D.Shapely backstory in the William Gibson novels (e.g., Virtual Light).
Anonymous said…
Which last post, I think, puts it all in perspective.

My own view is that on the same theory- even under the U.S. Constitution- that individuals are obligated to take reasonable actions to avoid impending harm to others, this dude is obligated to come forward for testing- and if necessary to be compelled to do so.

Davey's post brings home the point that it doesn't matter what the odds are that his cooperation would yield helpful results. If there is any chance at all, he has no moral right to refuse- nor do I think he should have a legal right.

If we prosecute a person for murder who fails to act to assist another out of "depraved indifference," I think the logic of that principle extends to this situation.
Anonymous said…
He makes his own choices. The fact that millions of people have HIV and AIDS is not his problem. It is unfortunate for the general public, but he has his reasons for not volunteering for further tests and his decision needs to be respected.

At least in America and the UK, people are blessed with the ability to not feel as if they are living in a Communist government. An extreme example is Hitler. His scientists did a lot of research during his regime that actually benefitted society, but at the expense of millions of lives who naturally did not volunteer for the experiments. Were the results worth forcing people into testing?
Comparing a man who selfishly refuses non-intrusive tests which could save the lives of millions with the victims of Hitler is as obscene as it is absurd. The man himself is closer to being Hitler than to being his victims- and I am appalled that anyone would defend his heartless and immoral choice.

This is not a choice the man ought to have a right to make, in a morally sane society.