Viewing Thread:
"Life or Quality of Life?"

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.

My cousin Thomas died as a result of HIV AIDS 6 weeks ago. He was diagnosed in 1987. He took the huge amount of drugs every day for 16 years to keep himself alive. He had the bad patches in hospital, but, with exception to the last week of his life, he had a pretty good life. He saw his kids grow up and finish school, he had holidays and birthdays with them. So why would he sacrifice this just so he didnt have to take tablets every day? It's not the end of the world being pinned to an alarm that reminds you to take your medicine. Thomas's quality of life was good al in all, he was well more than he was ill. When you contract HIV you dont necessarily begin to feel ill straight away. You can feel fine for quite a while. Why just give up when you can have years to spend with your family and friends?

Lol now that's a come back and a half IB. Of course it has no merit but still :P:D

Poems are for girls.

I would agree that the fastest way to solve the problem would be to simply stick all people with this disease on a gigantic forced euthanasia list. However I am reminded of a poem I once read -

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

I think this poem effectively demonstrates the point that we have to LIVE together as a society for if we start to pick and choose who lives and who dies then eventually it may be your turn.

Darwock wrote:
> You do realise that you can be HIV+ and not have AIDS don't you? Of
> course, I shouldn't be surprised that your ideal solution would be
> some kind of genocide...
>
> Help us out, are you taking yourself seriously right now or not?

You do realise that HIV turns into AIDs after the virus has destroyed your imune system? After that you have AIDs and zero imune system so you can die of anything such as a common cold.

Cubist wrote:
> proper English grammar

*Slaps head*


If you burned all AIDS sufferers, the disease would probably come back. It had to come from somewhere.

Insane Bartender wrote:
> I don;t see how that's the fastest way. Best long term option, yes.
> Swiftest, no.

DOH! didn't see "fastest" :)

I don;t see how that's the fastest way. Best long term option, yes. Swiftest, no.

Insane Bartender wrote:
> AIDS, the crisis disease of the 21st century.
>
> Harsh as it may sound, the fastest way to rid the world of this
> plague is to kill off everyone who is currently infected by it. And
> I'm fairly certain that in some corners, this is being discussed as a
> back pocket possibility.
>

Not by education regarding safe sex?

Err, I didn't mention HIV monkey boy.