| Question Of The Month |
| Here it is, boys and girls, the question of the month. We want your opinions, and you shall e-mail those opinions to [email protected]. Oh, and one more thing: responses are limited to 100 words or less, so make your opinion quick. |
| Question of the Month for April 2005: Should athletes who test positive for HIV/AIDS or any other dangerous diseases or viruses be expelled from participation in sports? |
| Nick says: "I think that you would have to keep them from playing in sports that involve a lot of physical contact, like basketball, football, soccer and wrestling, but I think golf and maybe some other sports with no physical contact between the competitors would be ok for kids that have HIV/AIDS to play. Sports are a great thing and even I couldn't deny any guy or gal from playing them. Even if they had HIV/AIDS." Fatla says: "Heck yes they should! In certain sports... For instance, in golf there is almost no way that they can transfer blood. Or in chess. In sports like wrestling, however, where bleeding is quite common, then no. So, if the sport is a physical one (wrestling, football, basketball, poker...) then no, but in the unphysical ones (golf, chess, bowling, karate...) then yes." Patrick says: "If a professional spors star has HIV or AIDS they should not be able to play just because of the safety of the other athletes, they weren't the stupid ones having sex without a condom or touching people they probably shouldn't be touching so why would you let them guys be at risk. I mean what if LeBron James got it, AIDS acts different in all kinds of people, that could cut his career down and who knows he could be the next Jordan, just because someone with AIDS brushed cuts up with him, it's not fair for the other players and they should be tested every six months." Cheyne says: Here you refer to HIV/AIDS as a punishment for haning sexual relations with the wrong person. However, what if the person was passed the disease by their parents,or got it from a medical accident? Also, as far as brushing cuts goes, read the next response. Newtie says: "Well, let's see... should people with major diseases be able to play? My answer is definitely yes! I don't think there is any reason why they shouldn't be. If they are still able to play their game and there is no danger to other players (even if there is, precautions can be taken) then let them do it! If you don't, it's almost like being prejudice against them." Cheyne says: Very helpful of you to point out for us that there are precautions taken, i.e. instant treatment of cuts in high school sports. Shyanne says: "I believe that everyone deserves a fair shot!! Yes they should be tested for everything!!! And if they do contain a harmful disease that could endanger others, then precautions should be taken and everone is safe... however, it should not be exposed to the public because then no one will want to play with them.... you can not catch the disease by just rubbing up on someone unless they were bleeding and besides as soon as someone starts bleeding in a sport it is taken care of right away, so no one really has to worry about it. They should be treated no differently than anyone else... everyone makes mistakes, theirs just hapen bote a little more life-threatening!! They are humans too..." Cheyne says: Right on. |