A doctor treating HIV-positive patients has claimed that one of his patients has indulged in sexual relations with more than 100 partners “to take revenge” for her condition.
Dr I S Gilada, who heads an AIDS clinic at Grant Road said that a 29-year-old woman from the Western suburbs has been visiting him since the past two months.
While counselling her, the doctor learnt that she not only has multiple partners, but hunts for them with a vengeance to spread the virus she contracted through her husband.
“She was brought to us by her sister, who herself is HIV positive,” said Gilada. “We found out that she had learnt of her husband’s HIV-positive status in 2005, and that he had transmitted the disease to her as well. Although she divorced him, she couldn’t come to terms with the fact that he had knowingly passed on the virus to her,” he said.
Gilada said that during the counselling sessions, the woman, who works as a maid, claimed she has had more than 300 sexual encounters with 100 men over the past three years.
“She admitted to frequent encounters with men ranging from her employers and their relatives, to the liftman and students – all of whom have had unprotected sex with her,” said Gilada.
When asked about the case, Dr S S Kudalkar, president at the Mumbai District AIDS Control Society said the organization would investigate the matter.
“We will talk to the clinic and investigate the case. If it is true, then we will counsel the woman,” he said. “HIV is not just a disease of the virus, it is also a disease of human behaviour.
The National AIDS Control Organisation has mandated pre-test and post-test counselling to curb patients from forging sexual contacts with multiple partners,” said Dr Kudalkar.
Published by alaiwah
ALAIWAH'S PHILOSOPHY
About 12 years ago, while studying Arabic in Cairo, I became friends with some Egyptian students. As we got to know each other better we also became concerned about each other’s way of life. They wanted to save my soul from eternally burning in hell by converting me to Islam. I wanted to save them from wasting their real life for an illusory afterlife by converting them to the secular worldview I grew up with.
In one of our discussions they asked me if I was sure that there is no proof for God’s existence.
The question took me by surprise. Where I had been intellectually socialized it was taken for granted that there was none.
I tried to remember Kant’s critique of the ontological proof for God. “Fine,” Muhammad said, “but what about this table, does its existence depend on a cause?” “Of course,” I answered. “And its cause depends on a further cause?” Muhammad was referring to the metaphysical proof for God’s existence, first formulated by the Muslim philosopher
Avicenna.
Avicenna argues, things that depend on a cause for their existence must have something that exists through itself as their first cause. And this necessary existent is God. I had a counter-argument to that to which they in turn had a rejoinder. The discussion ended inconclusively.
I did not convert to Islam, nor did my Egyptian friends become atheists. But I learned an important lesson from our discussions: that I hadn’t properly thought through some of the most basic convictions underlying my way of life and worldview — from God’s existence to the human good.
The challenge of my Egyptian friends forced me to think hard about these issues and defend views that had never been questioned in the milieu where I came from.
These discussions gave me first-hand insight into how deeply divided we are on fundamental moral, religious and philosophical questions. While many find these disagreements disheartening, I will argue that they can be a good thing — if we manage to make them fruitful for a culture debate.
Can we be sure that our beliefs about the world match how the world actually is and that our subjective preferences match what is objectively in our best interest? If the truth is important to us these are pressing questions.
We might value the truth for different reasons: because we want to live a life that is good and doesn’t just appear so; because we take knowing the truth to be an important component of the good life; because we consider living by the truth a moral obligation independent of any consequences; or because we want to come closer to God who is the Truth. Of course we wouldn’t hold our beliefs and values if we weren’t convinced that they are true. But that’s no evidence that they are.
Weren’t my Egyptian friends just as convinced of their views as I was of mine? More generally: don’t we find a bewildering diversity of beliefs and values, all held with great conviction, across different times and cultures? If considerations such as these lead you to concede that your present convictions could be false, then you are a fallibilist.
And if you are a fallibilist you can see why valuing the truth and valuing a culture of debate are related: because you will want to critically examine your beliefs and values, for which a culture of debate offers an excellent setting.
View more posts
Dr I S Gilada, who heads an AIDS clinic at Grant Road said that a 29-year-old woman from the Western suburbs has been visiting him since the past two months.
NEVER MIND 
*** FIX THA, FIX THA KAL KA MATCH FIX THAT***
*** FIX THA, FIX THA KAL KA MATCH FIX THAT***
*** FIX THA, FIX THA KAL KA MATCH FIX THAT***
31.03.2011