Immigration megathread part 3

[jonsastar 11]

Originally posted by robbie

Also, someone has to live here for 3/4 years in order to gain residency. if you wanted to turn someone down on health grounds you should do it then.

 

Kind of defeats the object doesnt it?

 

What about the people they sleep with in 3/4 years, that could be an awful lot of infected people.

[jonsastar 11]

Originally posted by royjames

We are not stopping them coming back but its far better to know what they have brought back so we can minimise the risk of spreading what they have brought back.

Ignorance is not the way forward,seems a bit draconian but still.

 

Are there laws to stop people with AIDs sleeping around if they know they are infected?

 

This to me is attempted murder and should be dealt with as such.

[royjames 10]

Yes Jon I agree with you on that,not sure what the law says though on the matter.

[Guest]

Originally posted by jonsastar

Kind of defeats the object doesnt it?

 

What about the people they sleep with in 3/4 years, that could be an awful lot of infected people.

 

anyone can visit here on holiday. Are you suggesting that all visitors to the country have to undergo a medical test? No tourists would come. Also, what about Brits who go to countries where diseases are rife?

[Guest]

Originally posted by jonsastar

Are there laws to stop people with AIDs sleeping around if they know they are infected?

 

This to me is attempted murder and should be dealt with as such.

 

If you sleep with someone and you knowingly have AIDS and don't inform them or protect yourself then I think it is treated as attempted murder. Wasn't there a high profile court case recently when someone got sent down for doing exactly that?

[cgksheff 44]

A man was found guilty in England of GBH in 2003 after knowingly infecting 2 women.

He succeeded in getting an instruction for retrail on appeal. However, the appeal decision did make it clear that if unprotected sex takes place by a knowingly infected person then an offence has been commited.

I'm not sure if the retrial has gone ahead or not.

 

There was an earlier case in Scotland and a more serious charge was made there.

[xafier 10]

AIDS = death

 

therefore if you don't care to mention to the woman/man you sleep with that your carrying it and you have unprotected sex surely your basically doing something similar to holding a gun to their head with 1 barrel with a bullet and 5 not and pulling it?

 

personally I see it pointless to do the tests, it would be a waste of money... what purpose would it serve? we wouldn't refuse them, and it's not like we can go "you have AID's, here wear this sign!"

 

all it would prove to do is inform the person if they didnt know they had it, which most likely they would know unless they'd only recently caught it!

[nick2 10]

I think screening for TB is a good idea as it's very easy to catch, one person sneezing on the bus and about 20 people could catch it.

 

AIDS on the other hand is not that easy to catch, so isn't as much of a threat to the health of the "general public", unless the person intends to come here and shag everyone in sight.

[cgksheff 44]

Under the existing legislation, immigration officers are able to refer persons seeking leave to enter the UK, including those seeking asylum, to medical inspectors at ports of entry.

Current policy is to refer for medical examination anyone who mentions health or medical treatment as a reason for their visit, or who appears not to be in good mental or physical health, or who intends to remain in the United Kingdom for more than six months and comes from an area of the world which is high risk for tuberculosis.

In addition, the Immigration Rules state that those seeking leave to enter the UK for more than six months should normally be referred.

 

This is an extract from Migration, public health and compulsory screening for TB & HIV by Richard Corker which is worth a read.

[Yodameister 10]

There are public health issues in terms of who should be tested for certain diseases and when.

 

These are issues that need to be discussed in a cool, calm way.

 

But the raising of this issue just before an election, and as part of that election campaign, and the involvement in the current asylum/immigration furore is really not the way we should go about it.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by xafier

AIDS = death

 

In most cases yes,

 

BUT

 

HIV != AIDS

 

(HIV does not equal AIDS)

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by royjames

Yes I agree you will need to test the tourists as well as the rest,like I said either do it right or forget it.

I wonder if this will be put into the (OTHER PLACE) is this political or not??

 

I hope not

 

This is a very real public health issue if we take it beyond the context of just immigrants and asylum seekers, and include screening for all travellers that have travelled from, or through, countries with a high risk of diseases.

 

Thousands of Britons catch malaria each year, and return home as unwitting carriers - the infection still has to take place through either mosquitoes or other biting insects, but as the average temperature is increasing the range of malarial mosquitoes, we'd be right to be cautious.

 

Also, travellers returning from countries with even more lax controls on antibiotics than we do, should be screened for new resistant strains of bacteriological infection

 

The action taken in conjunction with these medical procedures would constitute a political matter as well as a healthcare one.

 

I would suggest that treatment, free at the point of delivery, should be offered, especially to those infected with tuberculosis.