The increasing problem of STIs

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....l-huge-rise-STIs.html

We read in an earlier post that the Government is to consider the introduction of a law called 'Clare's Law'.

In light of this should they also consider measures to help prevent this increasing problem of sexually transmitted infection (STI)?

It may sound rather draconian, but in this age of increasing divorces and separations, which often turns to a person experiencing several different sexual partners, perhaps a yearly STI free check could be enforced?

On completing a clean bill of health check, then the person could be issued with a certificate to that effect, (more or less like a MOT certificate).

Obviously this question is all 'tongue in the cheek', but what are your thoughts on this important issue?

[woofgang]

as grasscarp has already said, the cert would be meaningless...only valid at the actual time that the testing was done and even then there might be diseases eg HIV with a longer incubation period that didn't show up at the time of testing....basically IMO its a rubbish idea with no actual value.....sorry

[anotheoldgit]

It was just a thought, but obviously not appealing to ABers, or at least the one's that posted.

A thought however has come into my mind, if it is unworkable, does that mean that in those countries that require their prostitutes to take periodic health checks, then are these tests also a waste of time also?

[Kromovaracun]

"Why is it necessary to have a MOT to prove your vehicle is safe to go on the road, but not necessary to have a sexual health check to prove it is safe for two persons to have sex? "

Because a car isn't a person with a sense of privacy. And a malfunctioning car can kill someone, whereas consensual sex is a personal and private act that shouldn't need to be 'authorised'. I think people would be very much justified in disliking the idea of being frogmarched to a GUM clinic every year and made to tell somebody (even a professional) about their sex lives.

Don't get me wrong, I don't categorically reject every single privacy invasion - I don't consider myself that much of an idealist. But let's not forget that it's important. With the exception of obvious non-consensual cases like rape or child molestation, I just don't think the government should have any active intervention in people's sex lives.

"Yes in an ideal world persons should take necessary precautions, and although there are the resources that you suggest available, the lessons are not being learned. "

At the risk of being called a Thatcherite or something, the government has done everything it can justifiably do. After that, I think this is a problem for society - we can't just look to the government and expect it to solve this problem for us, because I don't think it can. Sex is just too much of a matter for individual responsibility for that. If people aren't insisting on protected sex, or they're not being careful enough, then we need to address that ourselves as a society.

[Kromovaracun]

"does that mean that in those countries that require their prostitutes to take periodic health checks, then are these tests also a waste of time also? "

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that where this happens it's considerably more often than annual - I've always thought it happened monthly or something like that. In that case, you can generally speaking catch an asymptomatic STI in its earlier stages and do something to treat it (unless it's HIV or something).

[jno]

I don't think health checks on prostitutes are a waste of time; but they're never going to be a guarantee.