The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I recently had a sexual health seminar at my school. After being split up into loads of little groups we got whisked away to different class rooms where we talked about a variety of issues varrying from sexuality, contraception to STI's. What I didn't understand though was why people who had the terminal illness of HIV decided to go on drug cocktails and so on? Some people who had HIV there took up to 50 tablets a day and extra tablets for all the side effects. I was completely stunned by this. Why prolong the inevitable if you will be too sick to experience anything within this extra time. This is one of the occassions in which I feel voluntary euthanasia should be allowed. However I don't even think they should resort to that. If I contracted a disease such as Cancer or HIV I would obviously try and variety of treatments to begin with in desperation to live but as the end grows nearer and nearer and you feel sicker and sicker. It's no surprise that people with these terminal illnesses spend months in hospitals feeling like death until he comes to take them away. So I see no point in going on drugs that prevent you from doing everything you want to do in your final few days just to live in pain for longer. We were actually told that people with HIV lived for on average 10 years before it turned to AIDs and the flu or whatever killed them. However normally in those first 10 years they go on a variety of pills to prolong their life when really they are just feeling like hell the entire time.
I've heard lots of people refuse to go on the drugs and live out their lives feeling better and doing more things. Although they may not live as long their quality of life is much higher than that of those on the pills and in the end the result is the same, death.
I don't quite know why I started this topic and I don't quite know why I forgot how to use proper English grammar, spelling and so on but in the end the question is -
*If you were diagnosed with a terminal illness would you chose quality of life over length of life?
N.b. This is in no way meant to be offensive and I hope I have not caused any.
I've heard lots of people refuse to go on the drugs and live out their lives feeling better and doing more things. Although they may not live as long their quality of life is much higher than that of those on the pills and in the end the result is the same, death.
I don't quite know why I started this topic and I don't quite know why I forgot how to use proper English grammar, spelling and so on but in the end the question is -
*If you were diagnosed with a terminal illness would you chose quality of life over length of life?
N.b. This is in no way meant to be offensive and I hope I have not caused any.
Page:
Hmm I guess sceptical wasn't the right word to use. I guess I was just trying to say I'm accepting very little at face value, questioning it and trying to find an answer. As you say though a lot of it is to do with individual circumstances and I've been talking it terms of the majority making it hard to answer some questions.
Cubist wrote:
>I've said what I have wanted to say with all the knowledge I have that is
> relevant. I may not have the big picture but that's why I'm asking
> questions and like any scientist looking for an answer, I am being
> sceptical.
This isn't really about scepticism though, its about each individual person and their circumstance, choice and strength. There is not much to be sceptical about. The taking of pills, though there are many, will mean little to an emotionally strong person with a good support network and who feels they have every reason to live. Someone else may decide they want to feel free and will decide not to take medication and will allow themselves to succumb to the illness faster. Either way I am sure it is a tough choice to make, the lesser of two evils may be hard to choose for some people.
>I've said what I have wanted to say with all the knowledge I have that is
> relevant. I may not have the big picture but that's why I'm asking
> questions and like any scientist looking for an answer, I am being
> sceptical.
This isn't really about scepticism though, its about each individual person and their circumstance, choice and strength. There is not much to be sceptical about. The taking of pills, though there are many, will mean little to an emotionally strong person with a good support network and who feels they have every reason to live. Someone else may decide they want to feel free and will decide not to take medication and will allow themselves to succumb to the illness faster. Either way I am sure it is a tough choice to make, the lesser of two evils may be hard to choose for some people.
Cubist wrote:
> If you were diagnosed with a terminal illness would you chose
> quality of life over length of life?
Definitely quality.
Longer answer when I have more time ...
> If you were diagnosed with a terminal illness would you chose
> quality of life over length of life?
Definitely quality.
Longer answer when I have more time ...
Well the first thing that came up was a big banner saying "We have programs to keep patients on the pills!" or something like that which is only to be expected. Apart from the fact many people simply fear death and will go on the pills anyway, they aren't exactly going to say "Take the pills, don't take the pills. Doesn't really bother us" They are obviously going to choose to promote life. Funny the banner doesn't say "We have programs to give patients up to 50 pills a day that will most likely give them horrible side effects that'll leave them on the toilet all day but don't worry we can treat that with more pills!"
Anyway I am going to stop now before I say something stupid. I've said what I have wanted to say with all the knowledge I have that is relevant. I may not have the big picture but that's why I'm asking questions and like any scientist looking for an answer, I am being sceptical.
Anyway I am going to stop now before I say something stupid. I've said what I have wanted to say with all the knowledge I have that is relevant. I may not have the big picture but that's why I'm asking questions and like any scientist looking for an answer, I am being sceptical.
Maybe you should take a look at http://www.hivpositive.com
I get the feeling you werent really given the full picture at this seminar.
I get the feeling you werent really given the full picture at this seminar.
Lindgren wrote:
> I can tell you from seeing it first-hand that you dont know all the
> facts Cubist. HIV makes sufferers susceptible to illnesses such as
> bacterial infections, TB, MAC infections, and Salmonellosis among
> other things, and this is long before the patient develops AIDS. I'm
> sure you have probably never even heard of some of these illnesses,
> and i don't expect you to as I assume you have not had the insight
> into the illness that I have had.
I'm not claiming to know all the facts I am simply repeating what I was told in a 4 hours seminar on the subject. 2 of the speakers there were actually HIV+ and when asked they told us stories of how some of their friends had stayed off the pills, had a superb life without any side effects or symptons until they died of pneumonia and so on as you have said. This as I said however was when their HIV turned to AIDs. It just turned to AIDs faster without the pills. Of course it makes you more susceptible to these kind of ilnesses as your imune system is under constant bombardment from this incurable virus but many people are strong enough to pull through it with nothing more than Flu like symptons as the speaker told us. I'm sure there are those who have got weaker imune systems than others but I am trying to keep this general. People have different bodies but even if an entire hospital of people was filled with HIV patients with Tuberculosis that would still be an incredible minority and the majority would be relatively fine.
> I can tell you from seeing it first-hand that you dont know all the
> facts Cubist. HIV makes sufferers susceptible to illnesses such as
> bacterial infections, TB, MAC infections, and Salmonellosis among
> other things, and this is long before the patient develops AIDS. I'm
> sure you have probably never even heard of some of these illnesses,
> and i don't expect you to as I assume you have not had the insight
> into the illness that I have had.
I'm not claiming to know all the facts I am simply repeating what I was told in a 4 hours seminar on the subject. 2 of the speakers there were actually HIV+ and when asked they told us stories of how some of their friends had stayed off the pills, had a superb life without any side effects or symptons until they died of pneumonia and so on as you have said. This as I said however was when their HIV turned to AIDs. It just turned to AIDs faster without the pills. Of course it makes you more susceptible to these kind of ilnesses as your imune system is under constant bombardment from this incurable virus but many people are strong enough to pull through it with nothing more than Flu like symptons as the speaker told us. I'm sure there are those who have got weaker imune systems than others but I am trying to keep this general. People have different bodies but even if an entire hospital of people was filled with HIV patients with Tuberculosis that would still be an incredible minority and the majority would be relatively fine.
Cubist wrote:
>
> Actually it doesn't lead to diseases such as pneumonia until HIV
> turns to AIDs and the average time it takes from people getting AIDs
> from HIV is 10 years without medication. While you have HIV at worst
> you have flu like symptons every now and again whicg most of the
> population have anyway. You don't actually catch every infection
> around you until you have AIDs because that is when your imune system
> has been completely destroyed by HIV. Your body does produce very
> effective antibodies to the HIV virus which keep you feeling pretty
> good (except for those flu like symptons I told you about). It's just
> that they can never actually kill the virus and after around 10 years
> your body gives up, goes to AIDs and that's that. In those 10 years
> you can live a very normal and productive life:)
I can tell you from seeing it first-hand that you dont know all the facts Cubist. HIV makes sufferers susceptible to illnesses such as bacterial infections, TB, MAC infections, and Salmonellosis among other things, and this is long before the patient develops AIDS. I'm sure you have probably never even heard of some of these illnesses, and i don't expect you to as I assume you have not had the insight into the illness that I have had.
>
> Actually it doesn't lead to diseases such as pneumonia until HIV
> turns to AIDs and the average time it takes from people getting AIDs
> from HIV is 10 years without medication. While you have HIV at worst
> you have flu like symptons every now and again whicg most of the
> population have anyway. You don't actually catch every infection
> around you until you have AIDs because that is when your imune system
> has been completely destroyed by HIV. Your body does produce very
> effective antibodies to the HIV virus which keep you feeling pretty
> good (except for those flu like symptons I told you about). It's just
> that they can never actually kill the virus and after around 10 years
> your body gives up, goes to AIDs and that's that. In those 10 years
> you can live a very normal and productive life:)
I can tell you from seeing it first-hand that you dont know all the facts Cubist. HIV makes sufferers susceptible to illnesses such as bacterial infections, TB, MAC infections, and Salmonellosis among other things, and this is long before the patient develops AIDS. I'm sure you have probably never even heard of some of these illnesses, and i don't expect you to as I assume you have not had the insight into the illness that I have had.
Lindgren wrote:
> But not taking the medication would lead to things like pneumonia,
> which means the time a person would have would be maybe a couple of
> years, most of which would be spent in hospital I imagine,
> particularly in winter. How can that be a better quality of life than
> taking medication and living a life outside of the hospital walls?
> The patient would not have the side effects of the medication,
> instead they would catch every infection going and be extremely weak
> and fragile, and be sick most of the time with very little respite.
Actually it doesn't lead to diseases such as pneumonia until HIV turns to AIDs and the average time it takes from people getting AIDs from HIV is 10 years without medication. While you have HIV at worst you have flu like symptons every now and again whicg most of the population have anyway. You don't actually catch every infection around you until you have AIDs because that is when your imune system has been completely destroyed by HIV. Your body does produce very effective antibodies to the HIV virus which keep you feeling pretty good (except for those flu like symptons I told you about). It's just that they can never actually kill the virus and after around 10 years your body gives up, goes to AIDs and that's that. In those 10 years you can live a very normal and productive life:)
> But not taking the medication would lead to things like pneumonia,
> which means the time a person would have would be maybe a couple of
> years, most of which would be spent in hospital I imagine,
> particularly in winter. How can that be a better quality of life than
> taking medication and living a life outside of the hospital walls?
> The patient would not have the side effects of the medication,
> instead they would catch every infection going and be extremely weak
> and fragile, and be sick most of the time with very little respite.
Actually it doesn't lead to diseases such as pneumonia until HIV turns to AIDs and the average time it takes from people getting AIDs from HIV is 10 years without medication. While you have HIV at worst you have flu like symptons every now and again whicg most of the population have anyway. You don't actually catch every infection around you until you have AIDs because that is when your imune system has been completely destroyed by HIV. Your body does produce very effective antibodies to the HIV virus which keep you feeling pretty good (except for those flu like symptons I told you about). It's just that they can never actually kill the virus and after around 10 years your body gives up, goes to AIDs and that's that. In those 10 years you can live a very normal and productive life:)
But not taking the medication would lead to things like pneumonia, which means the time a person would have would be maybe a couple of years, most of which would be spent in hospital I imagine, particularly in winter. How can that be a better quality of life than taking medication and living a life outside of the hospital walls? The patient would not have the side effects of the medication, instead they would catch every infection going and be extremely weak and fragile, and be sick most of the time with very little respite.
Well your cousin Thomas does seem to have had a good enough life dealing with HIV however there is no denying that any HIV patients quality of life improves if they simply don't take the pills. They may have less time but at least it would be a better time. I wouldn't look at it as giving up, I would look at it as choosing to live happily for the time you have left instead of, as you said being "pinned to an alarm" for pills that'll just make you sick and give you horrible side effects in most cases. I'm not criticising your cousins decision just so you know. I am simply trying to comprehend the decisions of others. I know this is a sensitive topic and I don't want to offend/disrespect anyone by what I am saying, (just so you know) I am just speaking my mind and I hope no one feels I am being too well...you know.
Page: