The Ministry of Health and Welfare said it will scrap compulsory human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) tests for foreigners seeking to acquire an entertainer’s E-6 visa, and workers renewing their E-9 visas here.
However, the tests will still be required of those seeking E-2 language teaching visas.
. . .
[T]he latest move is likely to spark more disputes over the continued testing requirement for E-2 visa applicants and holders.
“Education is considered a very intimate relationship. According to an unofficial survey by the Prime Minister’s Office, the majority of parents wanted solid evidence of their children’s teachers’ HIV status,” said an official of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
From TIME magazine's "Should Foreign Teachers Be Tested for HIV?" on the 24th:
[E]very few years, a fresh wave of anti-foreign teacher sentiment shines a light on the nation's lingering xenophobia.
This year, tensions over mandatory HIV/AIDS tests for foreign teachers have re-surfaced, sparking a heated national debate. In 2007, a series of sensational press reports fueled rumors that foreign English teachers were molesting students and spreading HIV/AIDS. Though the reports were never substantiated, the government began to require that all foreign teachers get tested for HIV, including those who were already in the country. Those who tested positive could have their contracts canceled and faced deportation.
Three years later, the law persists, though ethnic Koreans are exempted, regardless of where they are born or raised. Says Andrea Vandom, a former teacher who is petitioning a constitutional court over the tests: "I was being pinpointed as a disease carrier simply because I am not of Korean blood."
The excellent research and advocacy of professor Benjamin Wagner---named in the article---and blogger Gusts of Popular Feeling have long informed the dialogue on this issue and the one against hate-mongers like Lee Eun-ung. Read Wagner's "Discrimination Against Non-citizens in the Republic of Korea in the Context of the E-2 Foreign Language Teaching Visa" for an overview of the ignorance that informs the testing requirements, and Gusts of Popular Feeling's "The battle over HIV tests for foreign English teachers" for a look in November at the recent reaffirmation of tests for E-2 holders.
36 comments:
Lazy reporting, cribbed from K-blogs. The only difference between this and shoddy reporting from the likes of Kang is that dismantling HIV testing requirements for visa holders over a bogus application of "human rights" will actually lead to deaths.
Kushibo,
The issue isn't "lazy reporting," it's discrimination against E-2 visa holders. You sound jealous because you weren't part of the "K-blogs" which Time "cribbed." Duh, Time doesn't report on S. Korea and yes this story is 2 and 3 years old. A summary of the issue was presented to an audience outside S. Korea. Excellent job Time!
"Lazy reporting,"
I hadn't ever heard this by a "K-blog before...
King Gojong, Korea's last monarch, didn't think much of foreigners. "Uneducated louts," he called them, driven by "lechery and sensuality."
Many of the current Korean lawmakers, professors, journalists, etc...Have continued making racist statements such as those by King Gojong. Nice job researching Time!
jjj_alltheway wrote:
The issue isn't "lazy reporting," it's discrimination against E-2 visa holders.
The apparent "discrimination" against E-2 visa holders vis-à-vis HIV testing was engineered by foreign groups themselves.
It started with groups like ATEK cowering to F-series visa holders' demands that they be left out of any criminal background checks, mandatory drug screening, or HIV tests, even those F2s, F4s, and F5s who teach kids. And then, inexplicably, the "human rights abuse!" criers somehow convinced some other government agency to drop HIV testing for sex worker. Unfrickin' believable, yet it was applauded by all (including ATEK). The result was that E2s (and E1s?) were left as the only ones still in the HIV testing regimen.
Yeah, it seems unfair that E2s (and E1s) are the only ones required to get HIV testing, but that is the result of the "human rights abuse!" criers successfully dismantling it for other groups. It should be put back for everyone but until then, it will save some lives having it at least for E2s. One in 200 in the US is HIV infected, and about half are unaware, so they can't get the treatment they need early so they can survive the infection, nor can they change their practices to prevent infection to someone else.
You sound jealous because you weren't part of the "K-blogs" which Time "cribbed."
Um, yeah. Rather than being miffed that they wrote up a one-sided and misleading story about an important issue in a field I feel so passionate about I opted for a career change, I'm just feeling petty that they didn't cite my blog.
Sheesh. I couldn't care less if they cited my blog or not — even if they'd taken everything I wrote wholesale and put it in the story without mentioning me or my blog — so long as they actually had a balanced story that looked at the other side of the issue.
jjj_alltheway wrote:
The issue isn't "lazy reporting," it's discrimination against E-2 visa holders.
The apparent "discrimination" against E-2 visa holders vis-à-vis HIV testing was engineered by foreign groups themselves.
It started with groups like ATEK cowering to F-series visa holders' demands that they be left out of any criminal background checks, mandatory drug screening, or HIV tests, even those F2s, F4s, and F5s who teach kids. And then, inexplicably, the "human rights abuse!" criers somehow convinced some other government agency to drop HIV testing for sex worker. Unfrickin' believable, yet it was applauded by all (including ATEK). The result was that E2s (and E1s?) were left as the only ones still in the HIV testing regimen.
Yeah, it seems unfair that E2s (and E1s) are the only ones required to get HIV testing, but that is the result of the "human rights abuse!" criers successfully dismantling it for other groups. It should be put back for everyone but until then, it will save some lives having it at least for E2s. One in 200 in the US is HIV infected, and about half are unaware, so they can't get the treatment they need early so they can survive the infection, nor can they change their practices to prevent infection to someone else.
You sound jealous because you weren't part of the "K-blogs" which Time "cribbed."
Um, yeah. Rather than being miffed that they wrote up a one-sided and misleading story about an important issue in a field I feel so passionate about I opted for a career change, I'm just feeling petty that they didn't cite my blog.
Sheesh. I couldn't care less if they cited my blog or not — even if they'd taken everything I wrote wholesale and put it in the story without mentioning me or my blog — so long as they actually had a balanced story that looked at the other side of the issue.
jjj_alltheway wrote:
The issue isn't "lazy reporting," it's discrimination against E-2 visa holders.
The apparent "discrimination" against E-2 visa holders vis-à-vis HIV testing was engineered by foreign groups themselves.
It started with groups like ATEK cowering to F-series visa holders' demands that they be left out of any criminal background checks, mandatory drug screening, or HIV tests, even those F2s, F4s, and F5s who teach kids. And then, inexplicably, the "human rights abuse!" criers somehow convinced some other government agency to drop HIV testing for sex worker. Unfrickin' believable, yet it was applauded by all (including ATEK). The result was that E2s (and E1s?) were left as the only ones still in the HIV testing regimen.
Yeah, it seems unfair that E2s (and E1s) are the only ones required to get HIV testing, but that is the result of the "human rights abuse!" criers successfully dismantling it for other groups. It should be put back for everyone but until then, it will save some lives having it at least for E2s. One in 200 in the US is HIV infected, and about half are unaware, so they can't get the treatment they need early so they can survive the infection, nor can they change their practices to prevent infection to someone else.
You sound jealous because you weren't part of the "K-blogs" which Time "cribbed."
Um, yeah. Rather than being miffed that they wrote up a one-sided and misleading story about an important issue in a field I feel so passionate about I opted for a career change, I'm just feeling petty that they didn't cite my blog.
Sheesh. I couldn't care less if they cited my blog or not — even if they'd taken everything I wrote wholesale and put it in the story without mentioning me or my blog — so long as they actually had a balanced story that looked at the other side of the issue.
When did ATEK "leave out" F visa holders? The fiasco between E and F visa holders started because F visa holders didn't like E visa holders complaining about obvious discrimination against E-2 visa holders themselves. F visa holders were afraid of what "might" happen as a result. That itself was stupid! But, when did..."ATEK cower to F-series visa holders' demands that they be left out of any criminal background checks, mandatory drug screening, or HIV tests, even those F2s, F4s, and F5s who teach kids?"
If I remember correctly, quite the opposite was true. Why can't you get your facts straight?
Kushibo goes on..."Rather than being miffed that they wrote up a one-sided and misleading story..."
Yes, discrimination by the powerful against a minority group is usually one-sided. Do you really think Time magazine ought to create lies to try and justify the discrimination by the Korean government/ministry of justice/Immigration? How would you try to justify it?
I'm not surprised you're on the Korean government's side!
jjj_alltheway wrote:
I'm not surprised you're on the Korean government's side!
I'm on the side of people not dying.
And I'm certainly not on the side of the government when the government is removing HIV testing for E6 visa holders, which ATEK applauded.
Instead of fighting to dismantle all HIV screening, ATEK and the powers that be should be pushing for screening for everyone (and I myself believe that should include all ROK nationals, but let's start with the people seeking to come in with new visas).
They/We should also be pushing for clear regulations that any foreign national who is found to have contracted HIV during their visa period in South Korea should automatically be allowed to enter South Korea's rather comprehensive HIV treatment regimen, to include a special visa status (if they need it) that allows them to stay in South Korea to keep getting that treatment if they wish to stay.
Kushibo,
You're the King of all side-steppers. It appears you know nothing about the E/F fiasco and blame ATEK for everything. ATEK isn't really part of this equation since the Korean government doesn't even listen to Ban, Ki-moon.
jjj_alltheway wrote:
You're the King of all side-steppers. It appears you know nothing about the E/F fiasco and blame ATEK for everything.
I'm not side-stepping anything. I would have to go back and look into what was going on, but I recall ATEK wanted to do a "background checks for all" but got opposition from F-series visa holders. In fact, you and I seem to be recalling the same thing, that F-series visa holders thought ATEK was going to try to have fairness applied by dragging F-series visa holders into the system of background checks and any other requirements (which, in my opinion, they should be). And what I recall is that ATEK got a lot of criticism for that, and they ended up dropping the "background checks for all" platform in favor of "if not for all then for none" (though they didn't exactly call it that).
But that's based on recall, and I'd have to go and look up old posts here and elsewhere, and Korea Sparkling is now gone.
And no, I'm not "blaming ATEK for everything." In fact, I was kinda sorta blaming people who I thought were against ATEK's agenda at the time, the F-series English teachers.
ATEK isn't really part of this equation since the Korean government doesn't even listen to Ban, Ki-moon.
Well, the Ministry of Health does, since they removed the HIV testing requirement for foreign sex workers. But the Ministry of Education apparently doesn't, since they have chosen to keep the HIV testing requirement for E2 (and E1?) visa holders.*
And I only brought up ATEK in the context of them giving in to F-series visa holders' demands and then later applauding the removal of HIV testing requirements for E6 visa holders. I certainly don't blame them for everything. My criticism is with the people who have been working to dismantle HIV testing requirements for the various groups, citing a bogus "human rights abuse" notion related to testing for a communicable disease in which 10% of the cases have been from a group that is 2% of the population (800 of 7800 HIV-positive people have been foreign nationals in South Korea).
jjj_alltheway, I am very sympathetic to the idea that it's unfair to require E2 visa holders to be tested and no other foreign visa category (even though working with children may provide some justification). My qualm is with the idea that to make things "fair" we should race to the bottom where no one is tested. Would you consider it fair and non-discriminatory if all visa categories (including F-series) are required to be HIV-tested? Would it make a difference to you if ROK nationals were also tested, through military service exams and/or annual physicals required by their workplace?
There's no scientific reason for this test. What are medically documented risks of a student getting HIV from a teacher?
And let's not kid ourselves, it's a political move to assuage Korean fears that foreigners bring disease.
"One in 200 in the US is HIV infected, and about half are unaware, so they can't get the treatment they need early so they can survive the infection, nor can they change their practices to prevent infection to someone else."
A better figure would be what's the infection rate among white university educated largely middle classed North Americans, ie the demographic Koreans want to test.
I'm not sure what your argument is, Kushibo. The Korean humans rights commission seems to have agreed such HIV testing is a violation of human rights for a broad range of visa holders and yet it still remains for E2 holders. It's inconsistent and since we know the political genesis, discriminatory.
Regarding my "argument," these are the points I made in that link above:
1. Mandatory testing for anyone with a visa that allows them to stay in South Korea beyond the period of a tourist visa (preferably in line with mandatory testing for all ROK nationals residing in South Korea as well).
2. Deny long-term visa if they test positive (except for F-series family visas)
3. Provide foreign residents who test positive during their residency in South Korea with the same comprehensive HIV treatment that ROK nationals would receive. Provide a long-term medical treatment visa for such individuals, if necessary.
As you can see, this is the opposite direction from eliminating mandatory HIV testing, which is an outmoded tactic from the days when HIV infection was a death sentence and an HIV diagnosis was a forced outing of one's sexual orientation for most people.
Times have changed, and it's time we start looking at HIV as more akin to tuberculosis, where screening people who come in to a population pool from outside is a reasonable means of control, but where the people who are infected are treated fairly while preventing them from protecting others.
Do you think eliminating mandatory testing for E2 visa holders will save lives? I don't. I think the opposite is true; in the US, where 1 in 1000 is HIV-positive but does not know it, mandatory testing will save lives — including that of the infected. But that's also a reason to bring back mandatory testing for E6 workers, as well as to expand it to F-series visa holders, E7s, etc. The notion of "human rights" abuse involved with mandatory testing is bogus and outdated.
I don't know what's going on here. My posts keep appearing and then disappearing. And it appears someone has been trying to hack into my gmail account and change the password.
This should have appeared first, before the three points made above.
Puffin Watch wrote:
There's no scientific reason for this test. What are medically documented risks of a student getting HIV from a teacher?
There is a scientific reason for this test: Routine testing is now the best hope for reducing further infections and for getting people life-saving treatment earlier enough so that it can actually save their lives.
Now whether testing only E2 visa holders has any scientific reasoning, I would agree with you that that makes no sense. But where you and I may part ways is that I think HIV testing should be expanded to include everyone, not dropped for E2 visa holders.
And let's not kid ourselves, it's a political move to assuage Korean fears that foreigners bring disease.
If they're all about assuaging Korean fears that foreigners bring disease, then what why was mandatory HIV testing dropped for E6 visa applicants?
The answer was that that was indeed political: We don't want Korea to look bad internationally, so we should drop Korea down to a lower standard of prevention, in the name of "human rights."
A better figure would be what's the infection rate among white university educated largely middle classed North Americans, ie the demographic Koreans want to test.
Had a little trouble finding that, but among college-students in the US, 1 in 500 are HIV positive, about ten times higher than the South Korean population. (Full disclosure: I could not find the CDC study cited in that link, but I didn't look that hard.)
I'm not sure what your argument is, Kushibo. The Korean humans rights commission seems to have agreed such HIV testing is a violation of human rights for a broad range of visa holders and yet it still remains for E2 holders. It's inconsistent and since we know the political genesis, discriminatory.
The political genesis is that most foreign nationals had to get HIV-tested in order to get a visa, not just English teachers, and various groups successfully lobbied the Ministry of Justice (?) to drop it for E6 visa holders — unfrickinbelievable — but not yet so with the Ministry of Education, which decides only E2 and E1 visas.
Now what is my argument? I think it's pretty clear in the link in my first comment. In a nutshell, it should be an expansion of HIV testing, not an elimination.
It sucks if it's only E2 visa holders, but that's not a reason to get rid of it. And lest you think this is me supporting the Korean government position, it is not, for several reasons. First, I think the decision to eliminate it for E6 visa holders — a move applauded by ATEK — was just fvcking stupid, and it will mean people die. Second, I believe that foreign nationals who are infected with HIV during their visa period in South Korea should be allowed to fully participate in the comprehensive medical care that is given to ROK nationals, even if that means granting them a long-term residential visa to do so.
30% of the comments left on the Time article thread by Kushibo
50% of the comments here by Kushibo.
Kushibo, the one-man stigmatizing machine.
Puffin Watch wrote:
There's no scientific reason for this test. What are medically documented risks of a student getting HIV from a teacher?
There is a scientific reason for this test: Routine testing is now the best hope for reducing further infections and for getting people life-saving treatment earlier enough so that it can actually save their lives.
Now whether testing only E2 visa holders has any scientific reasoning, I would agree with you that that makes no sense. But where you and I may part ways is that I think HIV testing should be expanded to include everyone, not dropped for E2 visa holders.
And let's not kid ourselves, it's a political move to assuage Korean fears that foreigners bring disease.
If they're all about assuaging Korean fears that foreigners bring disease, then what why was mandatory HIV testing dropped for E6 visa applicants?
The answer was that that was indeed political: We don't want Korea to look bad internationally, so we should drop Korea down to a lower standard of prevention, in the name of "human rights."
A better figure would be what's the infection rate among white university educated largely middle classed North Americans, ie the demographic Koreans want to test.
Had a little trouble finding that, but among college-students in the US, 1 in 500 are HIV positive, about ten times higher than the South Korean population. (Full disclosure: I could not find the CDC study cited in that link, but I didn't look that hard.)
I'm not sure what your argument is, Kushibo. The Korean humans rights commission seems to have agreed such HIV testing is a violation of human rights for a broad range of visa holders and yet it still remains for E2 holders. It's inconsistent and since we know the political genesis, discriminatory.
The political genesis is that most foreign nationals had to get HIV-tested in order to get a visa, not just English teachers, and various groups successfully lobbied the Ministry of Justice (?) to drop it for E6 visa holders — unfrickinbelievable — but not yet so with the Ministry of Education, which decides only E2 and E1 visas.
Now what is my argument? I think it's pretty clear in the link in my first comment. In a nutshell, it should be an expansion of HIV testing, not an elimination.
It sucks if it's only E2 visa holders, but that's not a reason to get rid of it. And lest you think this is me supporting the Korean government position, it is not, for several reasons. First, I think the decision to eliminate it for E6 visa holders — a move applauded by ATEK — was just fvcking stupid, and it will mean people die. Second, I believe that foreign nationals who are infected with HIV during their visa period in South Korea should be allowed to fully participate in the comprehensive medical care that is given to ROK nationals, even if that means granting them a long-term residential visa to do so.
Will wrote:
30% of the comments left on the Time article thread by Kushibo
50% of the comments here by Kushibo.
Kushibo, the one-man stigmatizing machine.
If you can't address the arguments, attack the person. The very definition of an ad hominem attack.
Who am I stigmatizing? I believe that mandatory HIV testing should be applied to everyone in South Korea, including ROK nationals, so who am I stigmatizing?
Oh, wait. Maybe I'm stigmatizing people who have HIV, because if they get tested and find out they're positive, then they'll have that "HIV-positive label." It's best to avoid discrimination by never finding out in the first place.
Well, of course, you'll eventually find out, when you get full-blown AIDS that could have been avoided. Now that's stigmatizing.
My messages keep appearing and disappearing, perhaps because they're too long, so I'm going to carve up the first part of my response to Puffin Watch and see if that works...
Puffin Watch wrote:
There's no scientific reason for this test. What are medically documented risks of a student getting HIV from a teacher?
There is a scientific reason for this test: Routine testing is now the best hope for reducing further infections and for getting people life-saving treatment earlier enough so that it can actually save their lives.
Now whether testing only E2 visa holders has any scientific reasoning, I would agree with you that that makes no sense. But where you and I may part ways is that I think HIV testing should be expanded to include everyone, not dropped for E2 visa holders.
And let's not kid ourselves, it's a political move to assuage Korean fears that foreigners bring disease.
If they're all about assuaging Korean fears that foreigners bring disease, then what why was mandatory HIV testing dropped for E6 visa applicants?
The answer was that that was indeed political: We don't want Korea to look bad internationally, so we should drop Korea down to a lower standard of prevention, in the name of "human rights."
Puffin Watch wrote:
A better figure would be what's the infection rate among white university educated largely middle classed North Americans, ie the demographic Koreans want to test.
Had a little trouble finding that, but among college-students in the US, 1 in 500 are HIV positive, about ten times higher than the South Korean population. (Full disclosure: I could not find the CDC study cited in that link, but I didn't look that hard.)
I'm not sure what your argument is, Kushibo. The Korean humans rights commission seems to have agreed such HIV testing is a violation of human rights for a broad range of visa holders and yet it still remains for E2 holders. It's inconsistent and since we know the political genesis, discriminatory.
The political genesis is that most foreign nationals had to get HIV-tested in order to get a visa, not just English teachers, and various groups successfully lobbied the Ministry of Justice (?) to drop it for E6 visa holders — unfrickinbelievable — but not yet so with the Ministry of Education, which decides only E2 and E1 visas.
Now what is my argument? I think it's pretty clear in the link in my first comment. In a nutshell, it should be an expansion of HIV testing, not an elimination.
It sucks if it's only E2 visa holders, but that's not a reason to get rid of it. And lest you think this is me supporting the Korean government position, it is not, for several reasons. First, I think the decision to eliminate it for E6 visa holders — a move applauded by ATEK — was just fvcking stupid, and it will mean people die. Second, I believe that foreign nationals who are infected with HIV during their visa period in South Korea should be allowed to fully participate in the comprehensive medical care that is given to ROK nationals, even if that means granting them a long-term residential visa to do so.
Puffin Watch wrote:
I'm not sure what your argument is, Kushibo. The Korean humans rights commission seems to have agreed such HIV testing is a violation of human rights for a broad range of visa holders and yet it still remains for E2 holders. It's inconsistent and since we know the political genesis, discriminatory.
The political genesis is that most foreign nationals had to get HIV-tested in order to get a visa, not just English teachers, and various groups successfully lobbied the Ministry of Justice (?) to drop it for E6 visa holders — unfrickinbelievable — but not yet so with the Ministry of Education, which decides only E2 and E1 visas.
Now what is my argument? I think it's pretty clear in the link in my first comment. In a nutshell, it should be an expansion of HIV testing, not an elimination.
It sucks if it's only E2 visa holders, but that's not a reason to get rid of it. And lest you think this is me supporting the Korean government position, it is not, for several reasons. First, I think the decision to eliminate it for E6 visa holders — a move applauded by ATEK — was just fvcking stupid, and it will mean people die. Second, I believe that foreign nationals who are infected with HIV during their visa period in South Korea should be allowed to fully participate in the comprehensive medical care that is given to ROK nationals, even if that means granting them a long-term residential visa to do so.
1. Mandatory testing for anyone with a visa that allows them to stay in South Korea...
Any nation should have the right to do this before entry. That's fair.
Times have changed, and it's time we start looking at HIV as more akin to tuberculosis,
TB is way more communicable than HIV. The odds a teacher will give TB to a student via casual contact is high. The odds a teacher will give HIV to a student or anyone in Korea via casual contact is very low. Surely they should test for TB. Right? If HIV and TB are in western populations are roughly equal. Stats I've found:
tb diagnosed per year: 4 per 100,000
hiv diagnosed per year: 12 per 100,000
HIV is 3 times more prevalent but then TB is many, many times more communicable.
But as I've noted, you really want to look at the rates for the demographics you're bringing in on visas.
Do you think eliminating mandatory testing for E2 visa holders will save lives? I don't. I think the opposite is true; in the US, where 1 in 1000 is HIV-positive but does not know it, mandatory testing will save lives
About .4% of the USA population is infected with HIV. The CDC reports 1 in 5 are unaware of their HIV infection. So what are the odds an ESL teacher will have HIV? Say 20,000 teachers from the USA. That's 73. If 1 in 5 are unaware that's 15.
So mandatory testing will, no doubt, make a dozen people aware they have HIV. Then again, mandatory reading of all mail and email by the FBI will save a lot of lives too... The notion of "human rights" abuse involved with mandatory reading of mail and emails is bogus and outdated. Yes?
And yes I agree if we have HIV tests for young white people on E2 visas and the logic is not "they are an immoral vector for disease!" and the logic is "we need a logical and fair public health policy" then HIV testing should expand to all visa classes as you say if done as a requirement for the visa. If done in country then it has to equally apply to all humans in the country based on good scientific evidence, not mob fears.
Dammit. Sorry Kushibo I posted a rather lengthy reply to your post, accidentally double posted, deleted one of the double posts and the remaining one is no longer there. Gah!
Anyway, in sum: I 85% agree with you.
Yeah, it seems unfair that E2s (and E1s) are the only ones required to get HIV testing
Unfair that non-Korean E2s are the only ones required to do so. Gyopos, by virtue of their Korean blood, are apparently immune to HIV and are therefore not required to have HIV testing done as part of their E2 process.
For the record, I am for these all-encompassing "health" checks (HIV, drugs, whatnot) to be applied to any and all who teach children (since it is the Korean parents who are driving this hysteria). I've said it from the beginning, apply it equally across the board for any visa and any nationality/citizenship if they teach children.
Health checks and CBCs are required this way for public schools (E2, F2, F5, Korean, foreign, everyone), so this should be the same in other non-PS schools, namely camps and hagwons.
As such, this has never been an Immigration issue and has always been a Ministry of Education issue. Why Kimmi needs to stick their nose in this issue is beyond me.
Darth Babaganoosh wrote:
Unfair that non-Korean E2s are the only ones required to do so. Gyopos, by virtue of their Korean blood, are apparently immune to HIV and are therefore not required to have HIV testing done as part of their E2 process.
You're referring to kyopos with an E2 visa, not being required to do the HIV testing? Is that a written rule or is it just the way it's being enforced.
Either way, that is wrong-headed policy (if true), but I'm not here to defend the E2s-only policy, since I think everyone should be tested when they get a residential visa.
Okay, now it looks like my messages are being read, so I'll try this one again.
Puffin Watch wrote:
There's no scientific reason for this test. What are medically documented risks of a student getting HIV from a teacher?
There is a scientific reason for this test: Routine testing is now the best hope for reducing further infections and for getting people life-saving treatment earlier enough so that it can actually save their lives.
Now whether testing only E2 visa holders has any scientific reasoning, I would agree with you that that makes no sense. But where you and I may part ways is that I think HIV testing should be expanded to include everyone, not dropped for E2 visa holders.
And let's not kid ourselves, it's a political move to assuage Korean fears that foreigners bring disease.
If they're all about assuaging Korean fears that foreigners bring disease, then what why was mandatory HIV testing dropped for E6 visa applicants?
The answer was that that was indeed political: We don't want Korea to look bad internationally, so we should drop Korea down to a lower standard of prevention, in the name of "human rights."
Puffin Watch wrote:
A better figure would be what's the infection rate among white university educated largely middle classed North Americans, ie the demographic Koreans want to test.
Had a little trouble finding that, but among college-students in the US, 1 in 500 are HIV positive, about ten times higher than the South Korean population. (Full disclosure: I could not find the CDC study cited in that link, but I didn't look that hard.)
I'm not sure what your argument is, Kushibo. The Korean humans rights commission seems to have agreed such HIV testing is a violation of human rights for a broad range of visa holders and yet it still remains for E2 holders. It's inconsistent and since we know the political genesis, discriminatory.
The political genesis is that most foreign nationals had to get HIV-tested in order to get a visa, not just English teachers, and various groups successfully lobbied the Ministry of Justice (?) to drop it for E6 visa holders — unfrickinbelievable — but not yet so with the Ministry of Education, which decides only E2 and E1 visas.
Now what is my argument? I think it's pretty clear in the link in my first comment. In a nutshell, it should be an expansion of HIV testing, not an elimination.
It sucks if it's only E2 visa holders, but that's not a reason to get rid of it. And lest you think this is me supporting the Korean government position, it is not, for several reasons. First, I think the decision to eliminate it for E6 visa holders — a move applauded by ATEK — was just fvcking stupid, and it will mean people die. Second, I believe that foreign nationals who are infected with HIV during their visa period in South Korea should be allowed to fully participate in the comprehensive medical care that is given to ROK nationals, even if that means granting them a long-term residential visa to do so.
This is very frustrating. More than half the messages I post appear momentarily and then they're gone. I've been trying to respond to Puffin Watch for days, and I'd like to respond to his recent comment and Darth's, but Blogspot is all mucked up (others reported similar problems on my Blogspot site as well).
Puffin Watch wrote:
There's no scientific reason for this test. What are medically documented risks of a student getting HIV from a teacher?
There is a scientific reason for this test: Routine testing is now the best hope for reducing further infections and for getting people life-saving treatment earlier enough so that it can actually save their lives.
Now whether testing only E2 visa holders has any scientific reasoning, I would agree with you that that makes no sense. But where you and I may part ways is that I think HIV testing should be expanded to include everyone, not dropped for E2 visa holders.
And let's not kid ourselves, it's a political move to assuage Korean fears that foreigners bring disease.
If they're all about assuaging Korean fears that foreigners bring disease, then what why was mandatory HIV testing dropped for E6 visa applicants?
The answer was that that was indeed political: We don't want Korea to look bad internationally, so we should drop Korea down to a lower standard of prevention, in the name of "human rights."
Assuming 20,000 ESL teachers, testing will uncover about 8 people (20% of 1 in 500 of 20,000) who have HIV but don't know it.
If the FBI opened and read everyone's mail, we'd save more than 8 people a year, no doubt.
But at some point you might agree ends do not justify the means.
And I completely echo Darth's position. If you believe HIV presents a danger to children, test everyone.
I remember what I deleted accidentally. TB and HIV are present in North American populations. TB is far more infectious via casual human contact. Koreans should surely test for TB if we add HIV to a visa requirement. Do they?
Puffin Watch wrote:
And I completely echo Darth's position. If you believe HIV presents a danger to children, test everyone.
Test everyone? Test everyone?!
What a dogmad great effin' idea! Man, I wish I'd thought of that!
Oh, wait. I did. Over and over and over and over again.
I didn't say you didn't say "test everyone", Kushibo.
A lot of changes with blogspot since . . . well, the last time I looked, and I figured out how to access the spam queue and restore deleted comments.
Post a Comment