If you get STDs, it is your own fault Watch

This discussion is closed.
numb3rb0y
Badges: 3
#41
Report 10 years ago
#41
(Original post by serrellen)
Because getting an STD isn't an active choice. You make it sound like STD = sleeping around. But it doesn't - at least, not in the same way as emphysema = smoking and eating too much = obesity.
It could very easily be argued that obesity is caused by not exercising enough. If you're going to restrict access to socialised medicine (that, I might add, has already actually been paid for in part by the person in question through taxes, so there isn't a possible fiction about it not being thievery) on that basis then you ought to restrict it for any injuries sustained because a people don't lock themselves in padded rooms for their entire lives.
serrellen
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#42
Report 10 years ago
#42
(Original post by numb3rb0y)
It could very easily be argued that obesity is caused by not exercising enough. If you're going to restrict access to socialised medicine (that, I might add, has already actually been paid for in part by the person in question through taxes, so there isn't a possible fiction about it not being thievery) on that basis then you ought to restrict it for any injuries sustained because a people don't lock themselves in padded rooms for their entire lives.
I agree, I'm just being controversial. Also I think there is a case for restricted medicine for smokers/obese people, whereas the case for restricted medicine for those with STDs is rather more tenous.
0
Eragon452
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 10 years ago
#43
(Original post by serrellen)
I agree, I'm just being controversial. Also I think there is a case for restricted medicine for smokers/obese people, whereas the case for restricted medicine for those with STDs is rather more tenous.
No way. Smokers pay their way through taxes (far more than their way, in fact) and as for "obese people", some put on weight more easily than others and it seems unfair that thin people could be eating the same amount of unhealthy food but not have to pay.
0
kultist
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#44
Report 10 years ago
#44
(Original post by poossum)
Once... never doing that again though.
Lol, bitter.


Anyway, this whole idea is retarded. This train of thought leads to saying heart disease patients shouldn't be treated because it's their own damn fault for leading high stress lives or that people who injure themselves with powertools in the home should have to pay for their own treatment because they should have hired professionals.
Taxes that I pay go towards the NHS, so if I see it fit to use their services I want to be able to get them as I damn well please without the whiny cockholsters in the Junior Morality Squad reviewing my lifestyle to see if I'm 'worthy'.
0
poossum
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#45
(Original post by serrellen)
I agree, I'm just being controversial. Also I think there is a case for restricted medicine for smokers/obese people, whereas the case for restricted medicine for those with STDs is rather more tenous.
You still haven't explained WHY restricted medicine for STDs in more tenuous, just to state that it is. It is an action which is mostly avoidable, that could result in disease, therefore they are the same.
0
serrellen
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#46
Report 10 years ago
#46
(Original post by poossum)
You still haven't explained WHY restricted medicine for STDs in more tenuous, just to state that it is. It is an action which is mostly avoidable, that could result in disease, therefore they are the same.
"mostly" avoidable, I think, answers your question, Matt.
0
poossum
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#47
(Original post by serrellen)
"mostly" avoidable, I think, answers your question, Matt.
Well Hannah, by mostly I meant rape and procreation, and presumably before procreation one should be checked at a clinic.
0
numb3rb0y
Badges: 3
#48
Report 10 years ago
#48
(Original post by poossum)
Well Hannah, by mostly I meant rape and procreation, and presumably before procreation one should be checked at a clinic.
So you deny that it's possible for condoms to tear or for long-term partners to be unfaithful?
serrellen
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#49
Report 10 years ago
#49
(Original post by poossum)
Well Hannah, by mostly I meant rape and procreation, and presumably before procreation one should be checked at a clinic.
I love the ostentatious name usage. Yes, I know I started it.
0
*Star*Guitar*
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#50
Report 10 years ago
#50
(Original post by poossum)
Well Hannah, by mostly I meant rape and procreation, and presumably before procreation one should be checked at a clinic.
You can tell you've not had much sexual experience. You can catch STI's even whilst wearing a condom. The condom may rip. Are they exempt from fault still? How will you know if they're not lying when they say they used protection?

You can't corner off STI's from all the other causes of illness and say they're exempt from NHS treatment, it doesn't work like that.

Besides, if everyone had to pay for their own treatment:
a) (as has already been said) people will be more likely to avoid treatment (or tests after having possible symptoms) and may end up just spreading the disease.
b) Medical developments will struggle because funding wouldn't be the same.
0
Joanna May
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#51
Report 10 years ago
#51
(Original post by poossum)
Well Hannah, by mostly I meant rape and procreation, and presumably before procreation one should be checked at a clinic.
So if I'm on the Pill and me and my boyfriend both get checked for STIs, come back clean and stop using condoms, then he cheats on me and gives me an STI, that's my fault?

Logic failure there, I think...
0
kultist
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#52
Report 10 years ago
#52
(Original post by Joanna May)
So if I'm on the Pill and me and my boyfriend both get checked for STIs, come back clean and stop using condoms, then he cheats on me and gives me an STI, that's my fault?

Logic failure there, I think...
He's not interested in saving money, he's interested in punishing poor people for having sex.
0
poossum
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#53
[QUOTE=*Star*Guitar*]
a) (as has already been said) people will be more likely to avoid treatment (or tests after having possible symptoms) and may end up just spreading the disease.

I do concede this point, but no system will be perfect and i think my solution is still stronger despite this.
0
poossum
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#54
(Original post by Joanna May)
So if I'm on the Pill and me and my boyfriend both get checked for STIs, come back clean and stop using condoms, then he cheats on me and gives me an STI, that's my fault?

Logic failure there, I think...
Well why would you stop?
0
*Star*Guitar*
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#55
Report 10 years ago
#55
(Original post by poossum)

I do concede this point, but no system will be perfect and i think my solution is still stronger despite this.
Despite this rather important point, that would lead to rather dire consequences?

So, you decide that if you catch an STI, its your fault, get your own treatment > therefore > people do not go for checks, nor treatment > therefore > STIs increase BUT its still the couple's fault if they catch one?
0
numb3rb0y
Badges: 3
#56
Report 10 years ago
#56
(Original post by poossum)
Well why would you stop?
Because she's gone to reasonable lengths to ensure protection from STIs (only sleeping with a single partner who's been tested) and pregnancy (the pill).
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#57
Report 10 years ago
#57
Well no. Only as much as it's your fault if you sit next to someone with meningitis.
0
kultist
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#58
Report 10 years ago
#58
Unless people coming in to get treatment for STDs is a massive strain on the health service why would anyone give two sugars in any case? It's a solution to a problem that only exists in some bitter retard's head.
0
Joanna May
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#59
Report 10 years ago
#59
(Original post by poossum)
Well why would you stop?
Why would you keep using them? It's a hassle going all the way to family planning on a certain date at a certain time to get them, they're expensive in shops and if you're on the pill in a trusting relationship you don't need them. Also, some people find sex without a condom better. And it kills the mood to have the stop and put one on when it isn't necessary.
0
poossum
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#60
(Original post by kultist)
Unless people coming in to get treatment for STDs is a massive strain on the health service why would anyone give two sugars in any case? It's a solution to a problem that only exists in some bitter retard's head.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...es-465337.html

The NHS is strained all right. The Govt spent £315m on ADVERTISING, nothing else, just advertising. It is ridiculous. That money could be far better spent.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (280)
27.56%
No (736)
72.44%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise