Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness. But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that./
The fundamental problem with this scenario is that it is unusably sloppy. Aside from being written in the second person (which generally results in statements that may be interpreted as accusatory), it provides very few initial assumptions:
1) There is a person named Ginger, presumed to be female (since referred to as "she").
2) There is a second, unnamed person, who has a "strong reason" to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD whose nature can cause serious illness.
3) This second person suggests that Ginger get tested and treated.
4) Ginger responds to this suggestion by claiming (a) that "making" $10,000 is a short term higher priority than this, and (b) she will seek treatment following that.
We are not given:
A) An explanation of the "strong reason" this unnamed person this unnamed person has for his or her belief. It could be anything from a mystical vision to the results of a recent test of Ginger's blood that indicates infection with the STD in question.
B) The nature of the relationship between Ginger and this second person. Perhaps this second person is perceived by Ginger -- and perhaps even a number of other persons -- as a stalker. Were this given, it might also explain why the second person is concerned with the matter.
C) Why this unnamed person insists on such urgency. It might take Ginger a couple of hours to "make" $10,000, leaving her plenty of time to deal with the STD the unnamed person alleges she has.
D) Whether or not Ginger's response should be taken at face value. One thing that seems quite clear is that Ginger and the person considering the evidence are two different persons; thus Ginger's response may or may not be her actual intents, values, or plans.
E) Why the second person would claim that Ginger is a prostitute -- at least one of the options given has this person making a public claim to this effect. It was not made an explicit assumption for the example, and could easily be intended as a malicious claim (assuming the the culture that this takes place in views prostitution as less than reputable -- we can be reasonably sure it isn't Ceres, given that a value is expressed in dollars and a communication mechanism called "Facebook" exists -- but beyond that it is unclear if this is, for example, the current US or perhaps an AnCap society in North America that evolves in the next 30 years), a delusion, or a simple mistake.
F) If, somehow, the unnamed person is correct about Ginger being a prostitute, that her means of "making" $10,000 involves her engaging in services that might spread the STD to others. She may well have other ways of getting the $10,000, such as selling some land, brokering a deal of some sort, performing a solo sex show,
etc.G) If, somehow further, the unnamed person is correct about Ginger being a prostitute
and that she plans to "make" the $10,000 in question by engaging in prostitution
and (to shorten this list of assumptions by several items) that she is either withholding or lying about her realistic understanding of the likelihood of some given STD infection, that she is not taking sufficient precautions to minimize the likelihood of the transmission of said STD.
H) If every implicit assumption given is accepted, why one might reasonably expect that Ginger would risk her reputation in what would presumably be a relatively lucrative career on the need to deal with a $10,000 debt in such a short term that treatment and work could not be done in parallel.
These are enough holes to drive a fleet of trucks through! The answers to each of these could dramatically change the ethical interpretation of such an attempt to spread information regarding Ginger.
If J Thomas, or someone else would like to present a clear and unambiguous scenario, that could be addressed reasonably. As given, however, I would most likely conclude that were the unnamed second person to post such claims, that he or she has diminished credibility, and that the claims were quite possibly made with some unstated ulterior motive.