Reader comments · Comment: Maintaining ignorance will not maintain innocence · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: Maintaining ignorance will not maintain innocence

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. A criticism I have of the HIV/AIDS prevention/support industry is how immutable it is, and how enormous and unwieldy it is.

    HIV is a medical condition that is treatable with medication.

    Why is a specific jewish or muslim or christian, or hindu charity needed for dealing with HIV, among those communities? What support do they offer that other charities are not capable of giving? And is state funding really necessary unless JAT focuses specifically on infection prevention. Infection prevention is an area where I would support state funding. However support services not so much. There is a recession on and many, many charities do not receive government funding.

    There was a 5000 increase in HIV infections last year.

    I have no problem whatsoever with redirecting funding from JAT to a prevention campaign.

    It is not 1990 any longer, but the HIV/AIDS prevention/support industry seemingly has not woken up to that fact.

    1. “Why is a specific jewish or muslim or christian, or hindu charity needed for dealing with HIV, among those communities? What support do they offer that other charities are not capable of giving?”
      Because generally sexually taboo-ridden subcultures are suspicious of outsiders whom they perceive as bearing ‘immoral’ or ‘corrupting’ messages. They are much more receptive to advice from people whom they see as like them or belonging to their communities. Identification is a powerful tool.

      1. And who is monitoring these cult-run charities to ensure that they are not using state funding to preach their superstitions.

        I am all in favour of religious charities so long as they are 100% self funding.

        How can anyone disagree with that?

    2. @dAVID

      Simply put because in dealing with humans and human conditions there is rarely one size that fits all …

      This approach will work for some people, and not for others …

      1. And what guarantees do we have that these religious charities are not feeding their clients some nonsensical superstitions about their conditon? These are RELIGIOUS charities which raises an immediate red flag.

        HIV is a medical condition.

        I am profoundly uncomfortable with the state financing religious charities. It is completely unnecessary.

        If the jewish or muslim or christian or hindu religions/cults wish to offer these services then they need to be self financed.

        1. One of the NHS organisations I worked with had a contract with a religious organisation for the provision of some services. They acted with appropriacy and professionalism and from my experience and that of the patients I was aware of who were referred to the service, the only reason religion was ever even in the mind of the patients was either if the patient mentioned it themselves as a discussion they wished to have or from details of the management board in their corporate magazine. No complaints (that I am aware of) ever came from clients who were referred there.
          I am not saying there is not a risk with some religious groups, but presuming that there will be is speculative, at best.
          In the case that I am aware of, two of the guarantees were contractual obligations to the PCT and at least two CQC inspections – supported by the availability of PALS and other resources

          1. The author says in the article that the charity has been in receipt of state funding.

            Why? It’s a religious charity. It should not be in receipt of state funding.

            Why has the state funded a religious charity, when the services offered by the said charity could be provided for in just as effective a manner by a secular charity?

          2. @dAVID

            The organisation I was thinking about was also a religious charity and in receipt of funding via a PCT contract.

            It seems to be the approach that is being endorsed by both “The Big Society” and the Health and Social Care Bill.

            Whilst I think care needs to be taken both on the appropriacy of organisations engaging in such services and the integrity of the organisations and their staff should they be utilised … I do not think that purely because an organisation is relgiious necessarily prevents them from engaging in caring services. Each case should be decided on isolation. For example, I would not see it as realistic to expect a Catholic organisation to give unbiased advice in pregnancy counselling to young women. Other cases may be appropriate, but need monitoring to ensure they behave appropriately and with integrity.

        2. Whether we care to admit it or not many ‘religious’ charities do just as good a job of providing HIV advice and services than state institutions. I see you have lumped all religous charities together as extremist and moralistic. Of all the religious charities that I have come across this has never been the case and I say that as an atheist. Your alarmism is born of the conviction that atheism is always correct (excuse me? Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot?). Instead of spreading alarmist paranoia about religious groups you should look at the facts of the matter. Prejudice is a poor substitutue for knowledge.

    3. Jock S. Trap 8 Dec 2011, 2:46pm

      Treatable but not curable. Also a lot of people have sertious side effects from the ‘treatable’ side of medication. You make it sounds like living with HIV is purely an easy affair.
      For some maybe but not for many!

      1. Ask your friend W6_bloke, Jock. According to him HIV is a picnic in the park of which no one needs to be educated about the potentially serious consequences.

    4. Jock S. Trap 18 Dec 2011, 8:24am

      “HIV is a medical condition that is treatable with medication.”

      I’m guessing you don’t have HIV dAVID?

  2. The lack of mandatory sex education in schools and the effects of unprotected sex is key to lowering infection rates. Until government, conservative or labour get their collective heads out of the sand, we’ll continue to see more infections. Rates of infection are lower in the more progressive western EU where sex education is compulsory.

    1. Jock S. Trap 18 Dec 2011, 8:25am

      Totally agree, Robert.

  3. “Jewish schools… do not feel there is a need”

    They shouldn’t have a choice sex education should not be optional. Faith schools and private schools should not be exempt.

    1. Amen to that!

    2. Jock S. Trap 18 Dec 2011, 8:25am

      Here Here Joss!!

    3. Sex education should come from the parents who know best when their child is ready.

    1. Didn’t you post this paranoid nonsense under the name John last time?

      What’s wrong, no one believe you? Funny that.

    2. Jock S. Trap 18 Dec 2011, 8:26am


  4. Christians seem to believe ignorance will maintain innocence.

    1. Jock S. Trap 8 Dec 2011, 2:47pm

      Thats because it suits them.

  5. Jock S. Trap 18 Dec 2011, 8:23am

    A good and worthy article that makes some good and interesting points.

    Thank you.

  6. AIDS is completely preventable. Wanna know how? Don’t have sex until you are in a faithful, loving marriage.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.