Today there was a news report about a doctor who was facing disciplinary
action from a medical body for listing Aids as a cause of death on a death
certificate, on the grounds that this was an invasion of the privacy of the
patients, and threatened the confidentiality of the doctor-patient
relationship.

That seems a strange kind of reasoning, as surely the same would apply to any
other cause of death. If it is such a threat to privacy and patient
confidentiality, then surely no causes of death should be recorded on any
death certificates at all.

There are several good reasons for recording the cause of death on death
certificates: to see if death was caused by foul play, to see what is
statistically responsible for most deaths, which can guide efforts aimed at
prevention or cure -- should we concentrate our efforts on reducing deaths
from road accidents, or snake bites, for example. Which kills more people --
shark bites or mosquito bites?

The other thing is that at an Aids seminar I went to yesterday, and in many
other similar seminars, people have urged that the stigma must be removed from
Aids. But surely keeping it off death certificates is one thing that
perpetuates the stigma. When medical people speak with two voices, one urging
the removal of the stigma, and the other urging its retention, to the extent
of prosecuting those who list it as a cause of death, there will never be
concerted action against this epidemic.

more at

http://methodius.blogspot.com/2006/11/hiv-aids-etc.html


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Hmmm... A tricky one. He maybe should have stated the final cause of death.
AIDS was what disabled the deceased's ability to fight off the illness (or
whatever) but it was the illness that killed him/her. But as you
suggested - it's a stigma thing.

"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sk1cm251q7da5tt84soabsketqc3gu58ok@4ax.com...

Steve Hayes wrote:

Technically speaking the doctor was wrong. AIDS didn't kill the
patient. Some opportunistic infection that AIDS prevented the patient's
body from fighting was the cause of death. Strictly speaking AIDS does
not kill.

But I doubt that's what this is about.
Which is a good reason for stating that it was AIDS.

Having written all of this, it does occur to me that perhaps there is
something else going on here. How did the doctor know that the patient
had AIDS? One can't properly make the diagnosis without the necessary
tests, and the tests can't be done without consent. This is speculation
on my part - but did the doctor take a blood sample and test for AIDS
without the patient's consent?

That WOULD be an invasion of privacy - not to mention illegal

Bob Dubery wrote:
final or ultimate causes or proximate ones. My aunt, on her death
certificate, had five different causes of death listed. From your
perspective, and that of proximate cause, it is indeed ridiculous - even
Rasputin had only one cause of death (his heart stopped), and my aunt
was no Rasputin.

Though my aunt's death certificate tried to be comprehensive (they'd
given her a post mortem autopsy, so they had a pretty good idea), it
failed because it didn't list old age and a liking for cream as ultimate
causes.

Of course, for all of us, there is only one ultimate cause of death -
birth. Though Sterne, who we discussed here a day or so ago, would
probably, and correctly, list the big bang, after some peregrinations
through grand-parents, pre-human hominids, bacteria and so forth.

Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:

certificate. That would be true for any death. Life has a 100%
mortality rate after all.

"Peter H.M.Brooks" <peter@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:ek5vtg$54v$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...

Rasputin was not your aunt ... but despite the fact that EVERYBODY'S
heart "stops" when they die, you overlook the most obvious fact
that his body was chopped into a thousand pieces to prevent his
re-animation!

"AIDS" is not much different - the notion that a virus causes such a
wide disparity of death causation should be a source of panic - but,
yet, there is none... gee, one wonders why...

"Bob Dubery" <megapode@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164349658.193541.153860@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
Does it?

Life wrote:

Absoloodely.

There is a 100% correlation. Everybody alive ends up dead.

"Life" <Life@life.com> wrote in message

Because most of the people dying of AIDS are black?

--
Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa
Remove the dot in my address to find me at home.

"Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:0pednWcerIDpM_fYnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@is.co.za...
You only ask that because you are, Moira... but one must
wonder how clever a virus must be to prefer dark meat (meat
is exactly what viruses seek out, after all).

But yet again you miss the point, so here it is: if a virus is the
cause of a fatal illness, there would be a narrow set of causes
of death - viruses don't respect political boundaries and don't
present themselves at the time of death with every possible
presentation of death - including, for some African countries,
"auto accidents".

"Life" <Life@life.com> wrote in message
You presume to read my mind?

HIV affects the immune system - as its name suggests. From there a
wide variety of opportunistic diseases cause death.

Which African countries list "auto accidents" as a cause of death
for AIDS or HIV?

Incidentally, the good news is that when people who are HIV positive
take ARVs correctly they are more likely to die of an auto accident
than an AIDS related disease.

--
Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa
Remove the dot in my address to find me at home.

"Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> wrote in message >

That's why I like GRID hyphen as it's name sug-gests.

"Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:C8ednQqS2MMcovbYRVnyug@is.co.za...
I presume nothing,Moira, including the ugly reality that you
have no mind of your own - you only believe the bullshit
you are paid to believe.

How "opportunistic" is that? Especially for a pharmaceutical "missionary"?

Anything sub-saharan. Anything dependent on pharma-greed.

Wow - you really ARE a drug company missionary!

AND you understand the political correctness that goes with what
you are and what you have done to your fellow human being.

Quizzling... a true drug company nigger in the finest sense of the word...

I LOVE IT!!!

"Life" <Life@life.com> wrote in message
You presume that I am black. You presume I'm employed in the field
of HIV and AIDS. Neither are true. The latter hasn't been true for
three years.


You spout rubbish.

No cite because what you say is more rubbish.

No. I just acknowledge that drugs are producing benefits.


Your bigotry is showing.

What do you love. Showing what an ignorant bigot you really are?

--
Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa
Remove the dot in my address to find me at home.

"Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:Jpidnc1pI6wJUvbYRVnyjQ@is.co.za...
I presume nothing, Moira. I never said you were black.

Fine ... so you are NO LONGER employed as
a pharmaceutical missionary.

Let's get real here, OK?

You HAVE to believe that, otherwise you wouldn't be
able to look at yourself in the mirror.

And you STILL remain the pharmaceutical missionary,
given some of your commentary below.

Oh, so there's no corruption in sub-saharan Africa where nobody
is bending the statistics about the body count and everybody
who dies of any cause is tested for HIV post-mortem ??

Let's get real here, OK?

Sure - for Pharmaceuticals and the slugs who do their bidding.

But your claim of "producing benefits" is nothing more than rhetoric.

Sure, you can label me a bigot - but in your case, that is your last
refuge from the painful truth.

"Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:Jpidnc1pI6wJUvbYRVnyjQ@is.co.za...

Why would you think him a bigot?

Please elaborate.
Ta.
Bodie.


--
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)

"Life" <Life@life.com> wrote in message
Read above.

I have never been a pharmaceutical missionary.

I am.

What? Because I believe that ARVs extend both the length and the
quality of life for the vast majority of HIV positive people who
take them?

Cite it.

I am real here.


You reckon? Why not read the testimonies of those on the drugs?

I thought you said you didn't indicate that I was black? You are a
liar and a bigot. Again.

What painful truth? Everything that you have said is demonstrably a
lie.

--
Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa
Remove the dot in my address to find me at home.

"Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> wrote in message
I think the killing of red and white blood cells is a good thing.

Moira de Swardt wrote:
And not that painful, really....


--
gilleebee

*go with the flow* ;-)

"Bodie" <bodie@home.net> wrote in message
I am bigoted. What is my crime you ask, I have an opinion.
Only a hypocrite calls someone else a bigot.