Legal Moralism vs. Education

A Congressional every quarter member by Julie Rovner, "Congress Faces Major Fight everywhere AIDS Testing," presents the utilitarian orient of go step up, used by Rep. William Dannemeyer. Dannemeyer wants a law that would require mandatory AIDS examination for those quest a marriage license, all patients between 25 and 49 in hospitals, convicted prostitutes and intravenous drug abusers, as advantageously as clients of clinics for sexually transmitted diseases. According to Rovner, "Dannemeyer adduces officials have been viewing the pestilent as a civil rights issue rather than a overt health problem, placing the rights of those with the AIDS virus above the rights of the unexposed to wait AIDS-free." This clearly shows a hierarchy of set, placing the health of the uninfected legal age above the civil rights of the AIDS victims.

Those opposing this point of view think that "sodomy statutes and other laws against homosexuality serve as a powerful brake on the most slopped weapon we have against AIDS, the use of a vigorous public education campaign." They stone legal moralism because it seems to pass judgment on specific groups such as homosexuals, if not blatantly, then subtly through the supporting of laws that could be construed as anti-gay. Those for education oppose morality in law because "serious restrictions on familiarity sensnot r

The laws against homosexuality in nearly half the states, as well as continuing kind prejudice, prevent public health agencies from developing and aggressively carrying out frank and open sex education campaigns for safer homosexual sex, as well as frustrating prompt medical tutelage as a part of an overall protection strategy.

The article then lists five criteria. This satisfies the utilitarian perspective's need for criteria, as well as clearly valuing the good done for the majority over the loss of privacy suffered by some individuals. The article does say that "it is unlikely that any currently proposed program for mandatory testing could meet each of these standards." This article does a good credit line of presenting both sides.

Those on the side supporting education as the way to combat AIDS use a policy-making perspective because they want to communicate information that affects the public. They want pile to become more aware of the causes of AIDS and how to protect themselves and how to slack off the spread of this devastating disease. This group believes in treating AIDS victims fairly, in respecting the individual's rights, and in giving people information so they can then be free of biased laws and be liable by using the information on safety. These characteristics identify the political perspective. They show a public motivation, based on their confide to inform the public for the benefit of all, with no specific group's values or morals being forced on a smaller group. They are concerned with justice in term of homosexuals' rights, and they stress respect for dissent. They want "a public health policy resting on the right to be different in fundamental choices."

An article, "AIDS Screening, Confidentiality, and the Duty to Warn," by Larry Gostin and William Curran, in the American Journal of Public Health, also takes a utilitarian point of view: Justification for legally authorized selective masking piece must be based upon the undisput
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!