(3)
Potential AIDS victims who refuse to be tested for the disease and then defend their right to remain ignorant about whether they carry the virus are entitled to that right. But ignorance cannot be used to rationalize irresponsibility. Nowhere in their argument is there concern about how such ignorance might endanger public health by exposing others to the virus.
We now have tests for the presence of the virus that are as efficient and reliable as almost any diagnostic test in medicine. An individual who tests positive can be presumed with near-certainty to carry the virus, whether he has the disease or not.
Everyone who tests positive must understand that he is a potential vector for the AIDS virus and has a moral duty and responsibility to protect others from contamination. We need not force everyone in high-risk populations to take the test. There is no treatment for the disease. Therefore, to insist on testing serves no therapeutic purpose.
Certainly there are those who would prefer ambiguity to certitude. However, a person who is at risk and refuses to have himself tested must behave as though he had been tested and found positive. To do otherwise is cowardice compounding hypocrisy with wrongdoing.
Surely an individual has a right to spare himself the agony of knowledge if he prefers wishful thinking to certitude. He must not use his desire for hope as an excuse for denial.
We have a duty to protect the innocent and the unborn. Voluntary premarital testing for AIDS is a protection for both partners and for the uncontaminated and unborn children. We know that AIDS is transmissible from male to female, from female to male, from parent to conceived child. We are dealing not just with the protection of the innocent but with an essential step to contain the spread of an epidemic as tragic and as horrible as any that has befallen modern man. We must do everything in our power to keep this still untreatable disease from becoming pandemic.
It may seem unfair to burden the tragic victims with concern for the welfare of others. But moral responsibility is not a luxury of the fortunate, and evil actions perpetrated in despair cannot be condoned out of pity. It is morally wrong for a healthy individual who tests positive for AIDS to be involved with anyone except under the strictest precautions now defined as safe sex.
According to the author, why is it necessary to have tests for AIDS since “there is no treatment for it”?
Because we have a duty to protect the innocent and the unborn.
（文章第三段提到艾滋病无法治愈，因此坚持艾滋病检测并没有什么医疗上的目的。但文章倒数第二段 提到我们有责任去保护无辜的人和尚未出生的人，因为艾滋病通过性传播和母婴传播，进行艾滋病检测不 仅仅是为了保护无辜的人，更是为了防止艾滋病成为现代人的流行病。）
Please explain the underlined paragraph in your own words.
One certainly has the right to pretend not to know thus doesn’t have to suffer from the pain of knowing just because he believe in his wish rather than truth. But he doesn’t have the right to forgive himself for denying reality to satisfy his desire for hope.
（一个人有权利因为执着于幻想而不去承认现实，但他不能将他自己对希望的渴望当作否认现实的借 口。）
What is the literal meaning of “to be involved with anyone”? What is the figure of speech employed here?
It means “to have sex with anyone”. Euphemism is employed.
（由上文可知。艾滋病可以通过性传播，从而可以推测，这里的“to be involved with anyone”就是指“同 某人发生性关系”，是一种委婉语。）