Knowingly giving someone HIV could now become only a misdemeanor in California

[Ajay]

If they don't tell their partener, and that partener gets the disease, yes. It is absolutely no different than randomly firing a gun. I think Hep C should be in the same boat as well.

I don't really see it as any different than stealthing, which a lot of people are pushing to be considered rape.

Heh. An I thought stealthing had something to do with making planes invisible to radar
I've learned something new today - time to go to bed. Oh, and who are the jerks doing this to their partners (wtf is wrong with ppl!).
Time to bring back public stocks - a few days of public humiliation should help these bozos

 

[momeNt]

what if there was less transmission because of this then before? Would you go with the science or would you stick your head in the sand because your sensibilities about justice come first?

I'm not sure how your response has to do with what I said. But judging by your other posts on this topic, I wonder if you are missing the point. Isn't it the transmission of the disease that is crime in question? Whether or not somebody has no viral load and can't transmit the disease is completely besides the point is it not?

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm not sure how your response has to do with what I said. But judging by your other posts on this topic, I wonder if you are missing the point. Isn't it the transmission of the disease that is crime in question? Whether or not somebody has no viral load and can't transmit the disease is completely besides the point is it not?

The actual science shows that it's best to get people into treatment. With the way the law is now less people seek to find out if they have hiv or not. So by reducing the crime you will have less hiv transmission. Look it all up.

 

[Ajay]

The actual science shows that it's best to get people into treatment. With the way the law is now less people seek to find out if they have hiv or not. So by reducing the crime you will have less hiv transmission. Look it all up.

Wouldn't a purposely infected 'partner' still have recourse in a civil suit to seek damages? If so, this could be a reasonable compromise. If not, then I wouldn't be supportive (not that I live in Cali). Actions need proportional consequences except where it harms the public good (and increased reporting and treatment is a public good).

 

[JSt0rm]

Wouldn't a purposely infected 'partner' still have recourse in a civil suit to seek damages? If so, this could be a reasonable compromise. If not, then I wouldn't be supportive (not that I live in Cali). Actions need proportional consequences except where it harms the public good (and increased reporting and treatment is a public good).

We live in a country where you can sue anyone for anything. Im sure someone giving you hiv is under that umbrella.

 

[highland145]

Wouldn't a purposely infected 'partner' still have recourse in a civil suit to seek damages? If so, this could be a reasonable compromise. If not, then I wouldn't be supportive (not that I live in Cali). Actions need proportional consequences except where it harms the public good (and increased reporting and treatment is a public good).

Thanks for the AIDS. The court gave me a lien against your house.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

With the way the law is now less people seek to find out if they have hiv or not.

That seems so illogical. 'I might have HIV but I'm not gonna check because I have to have sex and I don't want liability'? Do people actually think this way?

 

[JSt0rm]

That seems so illogical. 'I might have HIV but I'm not gonna check because I have to have sex and I don't want liability'? Do people actually think this way?

Is it illogical to avoid testing for something? Yes. But people do it with regards to all kinds of medical issues. The human mind isn't logical. Even those who think they are logical aren't truly. We are animals not computers.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Is it illogical to avoid testing for something? Yes. But people do it with regards to all kinds of medical issues. The human mind isn't logical. Even those who think they are logical aren't truly. We are animals not computers.

The testing part itself, I can understand, but this reasoning of 'I must have sex but if I spread HIV I'll be liable unless I know about it so I won't get tested' is just so far out of left field I can't process it.

 

[Ajay]

Thanks for the AIDS. The court gave me a lien against your house.

Well,yeah it sucks - but everything about AIDS/HIV sucks.

 

[JSt0rm]

The testing part itself, I can understand, but this reasoning of 'I must have sex but if I spread HIV I'll be liable unless I know about it so I won't get tested' is just so far out of left field I can't process it.

And thats why this law is changing.

 

[Amused]

Cool. Let's slip it to your family.

How do you propose to do that? Do you even know how HIV is spread? Can you do more than troll?

 

[JSt0rm]

How do you propose to do that? Do you even know how HIV is spread? Can you do more than troll?

highland wants to pound man ass raw.

 

[highland145]

How do you propose to do that? Do you even know how HIV is spread? Can you do more than troll?

Wasn't really trolling you. AIDS/HIV isn't the death sentence that it once was but 10K+ people die from it every year with ~40K new cases a year. That is down 20% from 2005 according to the article I read. Being positive and not telling your partner should be criminal.

highland wants to pound man ass raw.

You offering?

 

[momeNt]

The actual science shows that it's best to get people into treatment. With the way the law is now less people seek to find out if they have hiv or not. So by reducing the crime you will have less hiv transmission. Look it all up.

The law is the cause of the stigma, the law is the response to the stigma. It is mostly the stigma that stop people from being tested. People are not taking a calculated risk of not getting tested specifically to avoid the criminal act of "knowingly transmitting". Don't be daft.

 

[JSt0rm]

The law is the cause of the stigma, the law is the response to the stigma. It is mostly the stigma that stop people from being tested. People are not taking a calculated risk of not getting tested specifically to avoid the criminal act of "knowingly transmitting". Don't be daft.

Read the studies.

 

[momeNt]

Read the studies.

From the few I skimmed, it was mostly the stigma and that obviously had to be basically just conjecture, not scientific analysis. Changing the law sounds like the cart in front of the horse. But I guess at the very least we can actually measure and see if more people get tested now and perhaps query their motives for being tested.

 

[Amused]

The law is the cause of the stigma, the law is the response to the stigma. It is mostly the stigma that stop people from being tested. People are not taking a calculated risk of not getting tested specifically to avoid the criminal act of "knowingly transmitting". Don't be daft.

The law serves no other practical purpose but to further and compound the stigma. Old, outdated knee-jerk reaction laws that, for the first time in history, criminalized a disease.

Criminalizing a disease is about as effective as criminalizing an addiction.

 

[kage69]

I guess this is my conservative side coming out because the intentional part kinda bothers me, even though Amused you make a perfectly sound point.

Dog damnit I'm so conflicted on this one.

 

[Sunburn74]

Wasn't really trolling you. AIDS/HIV isn't the death sentence that it once was but 10K+ people die from it every year with ~40K new cases a year. That is down 20% from 2005 according to the article I read. Being positive and not telling your partner should be criminal.

Also despite treatment, the disease has a lot of issues associated:
Many many cancers are HIV associated and still occur despite treatment, particularly lymphomas and colon cancer
Coronary artery disease and heart failure
Pulmonary hypertension
HIV associated kidney disease (particularly FSGS)
A ton of auto-immune disorders are HIV related
etc etc

I don't think anyone for a second should think that just because we have suppressive medications these people are out of the woods. The reality is that suppressive medications seem to decrease overt death from HIV associated immuno-suppression and they do affect the risk of death from some of the comorbid conditions that arise from having years of suppressed HIV infection, but affect the latter to a lesser degree. Its essentially out of the frying pan into the warm water bath. Yes its not falling into the fire, but you're still cooking and are on the menu.

 

[edcoolio]

highland wants to pound man ass raw.

Why the hatred of homosexuals? Are you planning a hate crime?

You are not very enlightened. How sad for you.

 

[edcoolio]

Concealing a deadly communicable disease, then knowingly and purposefully engaging in behavior to spread it is, by definition, criminal.

Furthermore, since these types of situations are clearly a public health hazard (spread of AIDS, Hep C., etc), the laws should be federal.

I would add that a Civil action is not anywhere near the punishment needed to put some kind of judicial controls on such predatory and life-threatening behavior.

 

[highland145]

I would add that a Civil action is not anywhere near the punishment needed to put some kind of judicial controls on such predatory and life-threatening behavior.

Amused disagrees so I'm trolling.