Bareback= STD
- Thread starter learningtoplay
- Start date
That sucks, man
Dear learningtoplay,
First, let me offer my concern and condolences to you on this event. Also, I commend you for raising this topic on the forum; others would not be so forthcoming. Chlamydia is not lethal and is very treatable if caught early, but it is nonetheless a shock and a tremendous strain on an S.O. relationship. At least you were "lucky" and experienced symptoms - chlamydia can be asymptomatic and therefore many people are probably walking around with a disease that they will undoubtedly spread to future sexual partners.
Ignore the agency - They will lie to protect their business and you cannot rely on anything they tell you. They don't care what happens to your health, your SO's health, or your relationship with her. They just want you to keep using their services. No agency (or independent SP) will admit to being the source of infection. Sometimes they truly don't know and other times they know and continue working while receiving treatment (or awaiting test results). Either way, it's easier to assign blame to the john's other partners, be they SOs or SPs. You did the honourable thing and told both the girl and the agency. Your obligation ends after that point.
I am most concerned, however, about the actions of Public Health. My admittedly incomplete understanding of the process is that chlamydia is a reportable disease, one of 48 in Canada that range from chickenpox to West Nile to HIV. Data on reportable diseases is collected in order to establish incidence rates, and therefore to see if incidence rates are increasing - a sign of an outbreak and/or a failure in containment policies (vaccination, sanitation, awareness, etc.)
Normally, doctor-patient confidentiality is paramount, but there are several exceptions. From the Canadian Medical Association's Code of Ethics:
"Disclose your patients' personal health information to third parties only with their consent, or as provided for by law, such as when the maintenance of confidentiality would result in a significant risk of substantial harm to others or, in the case of incompetent patients, to the patients themselves. In such cases take all reasonable steps to inform the patients that the usual requirements for confidentiality will be breached."
In the case of STDs, HIV is a prime example. A phyisician is allowed to seek out and inform your sexual partners if you test positive and if he/she informs you of the process described above. Still, I believe they only inform your partner if they have reason to believe that you will not.
What appears to have happened in your case is a bit different - it is a public health policy known as "partner notification" and as you are well aware, it seems to occur independently of the physician-patient relationship.
Two useful links (both pertaining to HIV, though) are:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/aids/regulations/notification/hivpartner/reportquest.htm
http://www.aidslaw.ca/Maincontent/issues/testing/e-info-ta18.htm
The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has an "STD Control Protocol" that they follow and which I believe contains information on how partner notification is performed. I was unaware that chlamydia was part of this program, and I could not find an on-line version of this document to review for you. Therfore, I won't weight in too much on either side, other than to say that as you describe it, the notification process could definitely have been handled with greater care and sensitivity. Such boorish behaviour is really quite counterproductive on the part of Public Health - stories like this only serve to dissuade people from getting tested.
This is why clinics such as the HassleFree in Toronto are so popular. There is a level of protection and confidentiality not possible at other clinics. They will not call your wife if you get chlamydia or gonorrhea, but they still ask about S.O. relationships and the level of safe sex with your S.O., and they will insist that you use condoms with all current sexual partners until your test results come back. With HIV+, I don't know exactly what they do with a positive test. Being non-judgemental and confidential, they would likely choose a counselling- and support-based approach geared towards convincing you to tell your past sex partners, rather than taking unilateral action.
Good luck,
Bizkit
Dear learningtoplay,
First, let me offer my concern and condolences to you on this event. Also, I commend you for raising this topic on the forum; others would not be so forthcoming. Chlamydia is not lethal and is very treatable if caught early, but it is nonetheless a shock and a tremendous strain on an S.O. relationship. At least you were "lucky" and experienced symptoms - chlamydia can be asymptomatic and therefore many people are probably walking around with a disease that they will undoubtedly spread to future sexual partners.
Ignore the agency - They will lie to protect their business and you cannot rely on anything they tell you. They don't care what happens to your health, your SO's health, or your relationship with her. They just want you to keep using their services. No agency (or independent SP) will admit to being the source of infection. Sometimes they truly don't know and other times they know and continue working while receiving treatment (or awaiting test results). Either way, it's easier to assign blame to the john's other partners, be they SOs or SPs. You did the honourable thing and told both the girl and the agency. Your obligation ends after that point.
I am most concerned, however, about the actions of Public Health. My admittedly incomplete understanding of the process is that chlamydia is a reportable disease, one of 48 in Canada that range from chickenpox to West Nile to HIV. Data on reportable diseases is collected in order to establish incidence rates, and therefore to see if incidence rates are increasing - a sign of an outbreak and/or a failure in containment policies (vaccination, sanitation, awareness, etc.)
Normally, doctor-patient confidentiality is paramount, but there are several exceptions. From the Canadian Medical Association's Code of Ethics:
"Disclose your patients' personal health information to third parties only with their consent, or as provided for by law, such as when the maintenance of confidentiality would result in a significant risk of substantial harm to others or, in the case of incompetent patients, to the patients themselves. In such cases take all reasonable steps to inform the patients that the usual requirements for confidentiality will be breached."
In the case of STDs, HIV is a prime example. A phyisician is allowed to seek out and inform your sexual partners if you test positive and if he/she informs you of the process described above. Still, I believe they only inform your partner if they have reason to believe that you will not.
What appears to have happened in your case is a bit different - it is a public health policy known as "partner notification" and as you are well aware, it seems to occur independently of the physician-patient relationship.
Two useful links (both pertaining to HIV, though) are:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/aids/regulations/notification/hivpartner/reportquest.htm
http://www.aidslaw.ca/Maincontent/issues/testing/e-info-ta18.htm
The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has an "STD Control Protocol" that they follow and which I believe contains information on how partner notification is performed. I was unaware that chlamydia was part of this program, and I could not find an on-line version of this document to review for you. Therfore, I won't weight in too much on either side, other than to say that as you describe it, the notification process could definitely have been handled with greater care and sensitivity. Such boorish behaviour is really quite counterproductive on the part of Public Health - stories like this only serve to dissuade people from getting tested.
This is why clinics such as the HassleFree in Toronto are so popular. There is a level of protection and confidentiality not possible at other clinics. They will not call your wife if you get chlamydia or gonorrhea, but they still ask about S.O. relationships and the level of safe sex with your S.O., and they will insist that you use condoms with all current sexual partners until your test results come back. With HIV+, I don't know exactly what they do with a positive test. Being non-judgemental and confidential, they would likely choose a counselling- and support-based approach geared towards convincing you to tell your past sex partners, rather than taking unilateral action.
Good luck,
Bizkit
Actually, I'm pretty sure chlamydia isn't one of the diseases public health can contact third parties about here in Canada -- and I'm pretty sure that even HIV isn't too.
What they can do in Canada is quarantine (incarcerate) someone suspected of knowingly spreading a contagious disease, and/or criminally charge someone with the same.
But to the best of my knowledge, public health cannot these days notify partners.
That wouldn't really be all that effective anyway, as someone with a significant other that he didn't want to know (and had no reason to believe he'd infected, if they were not sexuallly active) simply would not provide that information. And then there's clinics like the Hassle Free that test and treat anonymously. So what would be the point of public health having such a policy, except to scare people into lying or not coming in at all?
This whole story sounds suspect to me. These "cautionary tales" often seem planted to engineer a certain level of fear in the general public -- but frankly, I think it more often than not backfires. Best to point people toward reliable sources of information that will allow them to make up their own minds what is best for them, than to try to scare them into a particular choice.
..c..
What they can do in Canada is quarantine (incarcerate) someone suspected of knowingly spreading a contagious disease, and/or criminally charge someone with the same.
But to the best of my knowledge, public health cannot these days notify partners.
That wouldn't really be all that effective anyway, as someone with a significant other that he didn't want to know (and had no reason to believe he'd infected, if they were not sexuallly active) simply would not provide that information. And then there's clinics like the Hassle Free that test and treat anonymously. So what would be the point of public health having such a policy, except to scare people into lying or not coming in at all?
This whole story sounds suspect to me. These "cautionary tales" often seem planted to engineer a certain level of fear in the general public -- but frankly, I think it more often than not backfires. Best to point people toward reliable sources of information that will allow them to make up their own minds what is best for them, than to try to scare them into a particular choice.
..c..
Why didn't you give a fake address, phone number, or cell number, and fake name? Did they ask to see your health card? And then tell them you would call them if further contact was necessary. Was it a muncipal std clinic? I've read online that it is required that they contact your SO if you test postive for certain std's, so thats what happened to you. Sorry to hear, hope you get better soon.
Why didn't you give a fake address, phone number, or cell number, and fake name? Did they ask to see your health card? And then tell them you would call them if further contact was necessary. Was it a muncipal std clinic? Why did u tell them you are married if you know your wife isn't infected? I've read online that it is required that they contact your SO if you test postive for certain std's, so thats what happened to you. Sorry to hear, hope you get better soon.
http://www.ices.on.ca/informed/periodical/subissue/177-ip9123.pdf
If in doubt, search the internet.
THe link contains all of the reportable diseases in ontario. Your MD must report them, and public health will attempt to trace contacts.
Hassle free is the way to go . However if you think it is possible you have infected your SO, probably should do the right thing.
If in doubt, search the internet.
THe link contains all of the reportable diseases in ontario. Your MD must report them, and public health will attempt to trace contacts.
Hassle free is the way to go . However if you think it is possible you have infected your SO, probably should do the right thing.
"Reportable" only means reportable to the government. Not to your SO.
Attempting to 'trace contacts' would be counterproductive as it would strongly discourage people from listing contacts.
..c..
Attempting to 'trace contacts' would be counterproductive as it would strongly discourage people from listing contacts.
..c..
i dont understand why so many think you cannot get an std from a bbbj. then if you kiss her after, you will infect your throat and tummy. i asked my doctor this and he said 100% you can get an std on your penis from bbbj from the girl.
think about it. if the girl has sucked on a penis previous (which she must, considering these girls do bbbj to anyone which is very unhealthy and not safe) to yours and the guy had an std, then she sucks yours, you will get it.
these girls have a life outside the business and i am 100% sure they have sex with other men.
it is also very unsafe to be going down on these girls. you are just meeting them for the first time and going down on them? that is very risky behaviour.
think about it. if the girl has sucked on a penis previous (which she must, considering these girls do bbbj to anyone which is very unhealthy and not safe) to yours and the guy had an std, then she sucks yours, you will get it.
these girls have a life outside the business and i am 100% sure they have sex with other men.
it is also very unsafe to be going down on these girls. you are just meeting them for the first time and going down on them? that is very risky behaviour.
you are very right and very smart. think about it. if she is saying cum in my mouth to you and doing you orally unprotected, god knows all the rest she does it too. and it's always the unattractive women that do it too in the business. i always play safe when i have gone to see a lady. if she hints anything about anything unpotected, i will not see her.BottomsUp said:This should settle the argument of whether bbbj's are safe or not. Yes, chlymidia bacteria can reside in the throat and can be transmitted orally. No need to describe how the sp would have contracted such an infection. So the next time an sp says cum in my mouth baby, you may want to consider how many have been there before and if any were contagious. Kinda like a non lethal version of russian roulette.
You make it sound like the safest thing to do is to avoid SPs altogether -- as in cross the street when you see us coming, don't touch any doorknobs we've touched or sit on any toilet seats we've sat upon.
Life is about risk. Maybe that's easy for me to say since I've been lucky enough never to test positive for any STD or to have symptoms of any STD -- but I'll admit that it's a possibility I face.
Condoms don't prevent transmission of all STDs, or any STDs all the time. If you're really that concerned about getting an STD, then you really SHOULDN'T be doing this.
Think about it! Never take a risk you aren't prepared to.
..c..
Life is about risk. Maybe that's easy for me to say since I've been lucky enough never to test positive for any STD or to have symptoms of any STD -- but I'll admit that it's a possibility I face.
Condoms don't prevent transmission of all STDs, or any STDs all the time. If you're really that concerned about getting an STD, then you really SHOULDN'T be doing this.
Think about it! Never take a risk you aren't prepared to.
..c..
O
Oil Please
I fully agree .JoyfulC said:"Reportable" only means reportable to the government. Not to your SO.
Attempting to 'trace contacts' would be counterproductive as it would strongly discourage people from listing contacts.
..c..
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_reports/wnv_plan_2005/app_7.pdf
The physician is obliged to report it to the ministry of health. The MOH is then obliged to attempt to trace contacts. The Physician can notify contacts, or choose to leave it to the MOH.
Will this dicourage people from being tested? - damn right - hence the avdvent of the hassle free clinic. Since the treatment is anonymous, they cant report who it is. The hassle free clinic is a classic example of a harm reduction approach to public health, like free needle exchange progams or methadone clinics.
No offense, but people should get facts straight, especially when providing advice to others regarding management of a positive STD test. 30 second search on the ontario ministry of health site or google will yield all you need to know.
The physician is obliged to report it to the ministry of health. The MOH is then obliged to attempt to trace contacts. The Physician can notify contacts, or choose to leave it to the MOH.
Will this dicourage people from being tested? - damn right - hence the avdvent of the hassle free clinic. Since the treatment is anonymous, they cant report who it is. The hassle free clinic is a classic example of a harm reduction approach to public health, like free needle exchange progams or methadone clinics.
No offense, but people should get facts straight, especially when providing advice to others regarding management of a positive STD test. 30 second search on the ontario ministry of health site or google will yield all you need to know.
