TATOO FOR HIV POSITIVE PEOPLE, HOW REASONABLE?

TATOO FOR HIV POSITIVE PEOPLE, HOW REASONABLE?

The South African President, who is also HIV positive, has created a lot of controversial responses from idealists, human rights activists and social analysts.

President Jacob Zuma was reported to have passed a bill which will allow the govt. to put a tattoo at the private parts of the tested HIV positive people in the country as a way of reducing the contacts of the disease which has infected an estimate of 6.3million people in the country with premature death records of over 300,000 people from those who could not control their sexual urge, in his words he said:

“The mark is to protect those who can’t say no to sex. I mean if you can’t read between the lines you should read between the legs because that’s where the status would be tatted”

However, this isn’t going without an enticement as the gvt will make available for the first 10million people that are tatted N840,000 (50,000 rands/ $3,507  ) in form of funeral expense voucher in addition to free counseling and medication.

Some people have commended this idea while some have condemned it. Here we want to look into the idea which came up from an HIV positive man himself, the President of south Africa, Jacob Zuma, how practicable? What are the possible fallouts and achievements?

 

Stigma:

This is the most criticized aspect of the bill. It becomes a stigma where your status becomes known by others prior to your confessing it personally, hence seen as an infringement of fundamental human right. But how does anyone stigmatize a patient whose status is only visible at the private part?

We only reveal our private part in ideal to our doctor, nurse or spouse. As regards the doctor and nurse, of course it’s mandatory to give a fore-hand information about your status to them so as to know precautions to take and medical attention deserved, so no stigma can be found here.

 But as per the spouse, (this is only applicable to a boyfriend or girlfriend as your husband or wife should have known your status), you only expose your private part when romance or sex is about to ensued, if you never revealed your status before exposing your private part to them its either you are wreckless, helpless, or wicked intention to luring them into unsafe sex and thereby infect and spread the virus which in my opinion is a criminal act against humanity. Even where the HIV positive person intend to insist on  the use of condom, he or she must have informed the intending partner of his/her status and it remains objective for the intending partner to take the risk of condom which we all know is not 100% safe.

The Incentive:

$3,507 is a lot of money considering the poverty level in Africa. In Nigeria for instance, it’s enough to start a small scale business, that is talking about N840, 000.00. What’s the implication of this? We may have people who will voluntarily get infected to secure the incentive with hope to start a living with the money and manage his/her health with gvt medication provision. We have people who are homeless and jobless who sleeps under the bridges and abandoned properties, people like this are already predisposed to health hazards and may also opt for living with HIV and having money to start a living.

Preferably, restricting the incentive to those already infected as at the date of passing the bill as the only benefactors of the money would not encourage the fear as discussed above. Whoever decides to voluntarily infect him/herself for financial gain will find it useless as the date of infection is pegged as at passing the bill and of course if those as at that date are not spreading the virus a lot will be achieved to curb the spread. We are talking about 10million HIV positive people been avoided to infect others.

Also, the fact that there may be others untatted HIV positive people out there who has not benefited from the bill will also put a check on the freedom to unsafe sex which may become the norms as partners without the tattoo may feel too safe to have unprotected sex thereby increasing STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

Mark of the Beast?

Some people have condemned this to be an act towards the end time sign, labeling it Mark of the Beast. I bet to differ on this. We overrate the prophecy or should I say we misplace it. This has nothing to do with the mark as prophesized in the Bible afteral we have not been given the graphics of the sign. The Bible mark of the beast is not for the sick, but for the agents of Satan. So I overrule this aspect of the people’s agitation.

The Unprecedented:

Suppose an HIV person who has been tatted becomes negative after series of treatment, what happens to the tattoo? This is the only aspect that worries me. Are they going to have another tattoo to counter the previous? This remains a question that should be open form debate and subsequent solution.

My submission:

Deliberate spreading the HIV virus is a crime against humanity and can only be checked by this odd infamous bill. Many are out there deliberately spreading the virus as act of revenge or criminal. Rapists will think twice once they notice the tatted sign on their victims, a rape victim would be energized to fight back and resist rape after seeing the tatted sign on his or her assailant.

People will have their destiny in their hands and their choice to go ahead with unsafe sex after seeing the tattoo remains their sole responsibility. Those who out of desperation or uncontrollable urge or under drug influence had sex with an HIV tatted person will know they have gotten infected without test, or better still will quickly go for test and got to know their status thereby saving the risk of AIDS.

More lives would be saved that will surpass the fear of ”stigma” that is been so debated.

Contributions are welcome; we are all open to learning.
However, please note that the South African govt is yet to confirm this  viral news but I choose to discuss par adventure it is true.

-enitanwhesu.blogspot.com