HIV Forum
	Log in Register ProfileLog in

padnar Joined: 21 Jul 2008 Posts: 14				Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:32 am    Post subject: doctors not treating     somewhere I read dictors are not treating AIDS affected patients in India . I dont know about the situation now. what I want to know are doctors at risk? padma
Back to top

Simplyme Joined: 18 May 2008 Posts: 156				Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:51 pm    Post subject:     I imagine that in some areas the cases are so extreme and they are not equipped with the proper medications and tools to treat someone who is infected with the AIDS virus. I am not certain if that is the reasons for not treating patients in India but I have heard of some other areas in other countries having to turn away some patients because they lacked the ability to properly treat the patients.
Back to top

AusQtie Joined: 16 Jul 2008 Posts: 8				Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:38 pm    Post subject:     Unfortunately I believe it is decided on cost and the cost effectiveness based on how sick the person is. I would think due to a low income and large amount of infected they have determined that it is not cost effective to use the resources there but to use them else where. Having limited resources when it comes to medical aid is sad situation.
Back to top

bizofwords Joined: 11 Jul 2008 Posts: 167				Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:03 pm    Post subject:     ultimately, there is some risk as doctors come into contact with the bodily fluids of their patients from time to time; however there are ample precautions that can be taken and the risk is minimal
Back to top

Orrymain Joined: 22 Jul 2008 Posts: 72				Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:03 pm    Post subject:     Cost? That is just so wrong. I always wonder what the people who make those decisions will think when it hits closer to home and they are denied treatment. This is just appalling. _________________ ==Go to your happy place!
Back to top

bizofwords Joined: 11 Jul 2008 Posts: 167				Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:40 pm    Post subject:     Orrymain wrote: Cost? That is just so wrong. I always wonder what the people who make those decisions will think when it hits closer to home and they are denied treatment. This is just appalling. A lot of cancer treatments are approached the same way by insurance companies - especially in lung cancer which, like HIV/AIDS has that sort of "you did it to yourself" reputation
Back to top

DianaR Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 70				Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:53 pm    Post subject:     AusQtie wrote: Unfortunately I believe it is decided on cost and the cost effectiveness based on how sick the person is. I would think due to a low income and large amount of infected they have determined that it is not cost effective to use the resources there but to use them else where. Having limited resources when it comes to medical aid is sad situation. When it comes to treating diseases, there is no place on the face of the earth where you won't find doctors who deny people treatment based on available resources.
Back to top

Wildwoman Joined: 12 Aug 2008 Posts: 31				Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:09 am    Post subject:     bizofwords wrote: Orrymain wrote: Cost? That is just so wrong. I always wonder what the people who make those decisions will think when it hits closer to home and they are denied treatment. This is just appalling. A lot of cancer treatments are approached the same way by insurance companies - especially in lung cancer which, like HIV/AIDS has that sort of "you did it to yourself" reputation Your all to right bizofwords. And this is sad. After all the years and all the stories how can people still think this way? I will never understand things like that.
Back to top

Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

HIV forum -> HIV positive

You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum