Safe-sex clinic gets set to boost services

July 29, 2006

I don't want to criticize efforts to control disease but such efforts would not be needed if the sexual partners would take precautions.

A Montreal clinic specializing in treating sexually transmitted diseases is extending its services during the Outgames to help combat the global spread of infection. Dr. Rejean Thomas, director of Clinique l'Actuel on de Maisonneuve Blvd. E., said staff is bracing for a jump in walk-in clientele demanding antiviral medication on an emergency basis.
The clinic expects to be flooded with requests for medication, known as sexual post-exposure prophylaxis, which when taken within 48 hours of contact can significantly diminish the risk of HIV infection. "It's not the ideal prevention tool, but it's there when you need it," Thomas said.

Health officials are expecting thousands of people, many of whom are HIV-positive, to descend on Montreal for the First World Outgames, which dovetail the International Conference on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Human Rights.

The move to increase staff and medication at the clinic comes as health officials complain of battling "protection fatigue," a term to describe blase attitudes toward safe-sex warnings even though more than than 30 per cent of new cases of HIV are found in gays under 30 years old....

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...3a-1cb98c2448e3

geoffrey · July 29, 2006

So the safe-sex clinics have to bump up their availability when the gays come to town? Interesting... hopefully all the foreign ones have to pay for it, I don't feel like footing the bill for their sexual misadventures in Canada.

Does this doc really think all the gays will be going at it like mad for this week, all unprotected? If he does, well, maybe we should get the experts on this and decide if having a massive gay fest is really in our nation's best interest.

gc1765 · July 30, 2006

So the safe-sex clinics have to bump up their availability when the gays come to town? Interesting... hopefully all the foreign ones have to pay for it, I don't feel like footing the bill for their sexual misadventures in Canada.

How is that any different than having to pay the bill for the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver? Or any other similar event?

geoffrey · July 31, 2006

It's not. If STD rates skyrocketed during that, I'd be both shocked and upset that my money was paying for it. I'm not really a fan of paying for anyone's STD treatment.

What is the saying again... you need to lay in the bed you've made for yourself? A little fiscal responsibility fee would knock some sense into these idiots. Protection is free in Canada, there is no excuse besides irresponsiblity and lazyness. We need to stop rewarding those behaviors with a quick fix.

Black Dog · July 31, 2006

What is the saying again... you need to lay in the bed you've made for yourself? A little fiscal responsibility fee would knock some sense into these idiots. Protection is free in Canada, there is no excuse besides irresponsiblity and lazyness. We need to stop rewarding those behaviors with a quick fix.

I'm just curious, geoffery, given your repeated espousal of this line of logic (and now, I'm not picking on you or being a shit-disturber), but is there any evidence that forcing people to "accept the consequenses" of certain behaviours ie. sex, actually impacts future behaviours? Or is the notion that someone will cut out abehaviour once it lands them in hot water once just one of those "just so" stories?

gc1765 · August 1, 2006

It's not. If STD rates skyrocketed during that, I'd be both shocked and upset that my money was paying for it. I'm not really a fan of paying for anyone's STD treatment.
What is the saying again... you need to lay in the bed you've made for yourself? A little fiscal responsibility fee would knock some sense into these idiots. Protection is free in Canada, there is no excuse besides irresponsiblity and lazyness. We need to stop rewarding those behaviors with a quick fix.

It seems that you are opposed to paying for something which will not benefit you, which is completely understandable. My point is that STD prevention appears to be essential to the functioning of the Outgames, so it's all or nothing. Either the outgames are held with std prevention in place, or they are cancelled altogether. I'm guessing you would vote for the latter, am I right? Now consider all of the associated costs of the Outgames (including STD prevention), and consider all of the associated costs of the 2010 olympics. I'm guessing that the 2010 olympics will be much more expensive, so my question is are you opposed to the government spending money on the 2010 olympics, or just the outgames?

geoffrey · August 2, 2006

What is the saying again... you need to lay in the bed you've made for yourself? A little fiscal responsibility fee would knock some sense into these idiots. Protection is free in Canada, there is no excuse besides irresponsiblity and lazyness. We need to stop rewarding those behaviors with a quick fix.

I'm just curious, geoffery, given your repeated espousal of this line of logic (and now, I'm not picking on you or being a shit-disturber), but is there any evidence that forcing people to "accept the consequenses" of certain behaviours ie. sex, actually impacts future behaviours? Or is the notion that someone will cut out abehaviour once it lands them in hot water once just one of those "just so" stories?

STD infection isn't the consequence of sex. Let's be realistic, it's very easy to prevent STD transmission through publically provided protection (that's right, you don't even have to pay for it) and not having sex with hundreds of partners. People choose to be irresponsible and contract STD's, why should I pay for that?

If they had to realise the cost to everyone else of their actions, it'd be deterent for the next time. Like a speeding ticket.

If they want to provide condoms to everyone free of charge, I can be ok with that, it encourages responsiblity. If they want to provide medication (or whatever) to infected because after their irresponsiblity, I feel it encourages the 'oh well, there is no consequence to infection' mindset. And this mindset is very real.

If people want to live a high risk irresponsible lifestyle, that is their choice, but don't expect me to pay for the consequences of their behavoir.

It seems that you are opposed to paying for something which will not benefit you, which is completely understandable. My point is that STD prevention appears to be essential to the functioning of the Outgames, so it's all or nothing. Either the outgames are held with std prevention in place, or they are cancelled altogether. I'm guessing you would vote for the latter, am I right? Now consider all of the associated costs of the Outgames (including STD prevention), and consider all of the associated costs of the 2010 olympics. I'm guessing that the 2010 olympics will be much more expensive, so my question is are you opposed to the government spending money on the 2010 olympics, or just the outgames?

No, I pay for alot of things that don't benefit me, without too much issue. I pay for government sponsorship programs, East coast economic development, ect. ect.. The point is that these do benefit someone, where as, like I explained above, free treatment for acts of irresponsiblity doesn't benefit anyone long term.

As I also said in the above, I'm ok with them spending money on STD prevention, having free condoms available. I'm not ok with paying for someone's treatment that purposely decided not to use protection, even when it's freely available.

So there you go, I'm not opposed to the Outgames (besides being a flamboyant display), or the Olympics. In fact, I wish our athletes well at both.

--

The big question I still have is why are gays so much more like to get STD's? We can't ban their sexuality, that would be wrong. But we, as a society, ban many high risk lifestyles, like pedophiles and polygamists. It seems to me that the experts find this form of expression highly dangerous, and it seems that statistics agree.