Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/aids

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Isn't that already a law?

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Kali said:

The reason they will not tell is because they figure if they tell someone? That person is gonna run for the hills and want nothing more to do with them.

Click to expand...

And that is their right. Not telling them of the AIDS would only enforce why a person would not want to be with them in the first place, untrustworthy and uncaring for your safety. Horrible. If they tell, then the person can make a healthy and informed choice. Nothing wrong with that. The person that is for the AIDS person is one that will not run. Only a horrible person would not tell. I couldn't even imagine.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Manc Skipper said:

Worried about your lover?

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

Stop. No need for this.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Yes they should

Assuming of course the term lover means they are having sexual relations

As the HIV/Aids virus is currently uncurable, the intentional passing it along is the equivalent of poisoning someone. And in my opinion the equivalent of attempted murder and should/when the victim die murder itself.

At least one or two Canadian cases of this has resulted in murder/manslaughter convictions

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

jamesrage said:

Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/aids.

Click to expand...

I can comment on this as a health professional.

No, they should not. I say this because of the policy level implications. All HIV/AIDS testing in North America has the option of anonymity. If it were law to inform your partners of your status, then fewer people would get tested, and thus more people would be ignorantly spreading the disease.

Think about it... if you suspect you MIGHT be infected but don't know for sure, some people would just talk themselves out of getting tested. After all, if it's illegal to not tell your partner that you're infected, it would be scary to have to deal with the conflict and drama that would follow. So those people might choose to not get tested out of fear of what a positive result might mean.

I find it hypocritical that those against the health care bill on the grounds that the government shouldn't be interfering in people's health would be in favor of mandatory HIV disclosure. If two people are having consensual, unprotected sex, then they are mutually making the choice to take a risk. It's not the government's job to manage the health and social lives of those infected.

Also, why just HIV? Even though herpes is not fatal, it is extremely life altering to those who are infected and suffer regular outbreaks of sores. Why does HIV get singled out?

I can just see the privacy and civil rights violations. There is no benefit to society here. I think very few instances of this type of criminal activity exist. The law would only end up punishing the vast majority of those infected who already live with a stigma hanging over their heads yet manage their lives responsibly. Such legislation removes their power to choose.

If you don't want to catch a disease, then use protection, don't have sex, or make sure that you and your partner get tested and share the results before engaging in unprotected sex. It's really that simple. We don't need big brother management of this situation.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Orion said:

I can comment on this as a health professional.

No, they should not. I say this because of the policy level implications. All HIV/AIDS testing in North America has the option of anonymity. If it were law to inform your partners of your status, then fewer people would get tested, and thus more people would be ignorantly spreading the disease.

Think about it... if you suspect you MIGHT be infected but don't know for sure, some people would just talk themselves out of getting tested. After all, if it's illegal to not tell your partner that you're infected, it would be scary to have to deal with the conflict and drama that would follow. So those people might choose to not get tested out of fear of what a positive result might mean.

I find it hypocritical that those against the health care bill on the grounds that the government shouldn't be interfering in people's health would be in favor of mandatory HIV disclosure. If two people are having consensual, unprotected sex, then they are mutually making the choice to take a risk. It's not the government's job to manage the health and social lives of those infected.

Also, why just HIV? Even though herpes is not fatal, it is extremely life altering to those who are infected and suffer regular outbreaks of sores. Why does HIV get singled out?

I can just see the privacy and civil rights violations. There is no benefit to society here. I think very few instances of this type of criminal activity exist. The law would only end up punishing the vast majority of those infected who already live with a stigma hanging over their heads yet manage their lives responsibly. Such legislation removes their power to choose.

If you don't want to catch a disease, then use protection, don't have sex, or make sure that you and your partner get tested and share the results before engaging in unprotected sex. It's really that simple. We don't need big brother management of this situation.

Click to expand...

Can't agree with you here. I think that if you know you are infected and you do not disclose this to someone you are having sex with, then you are directly putting them in harm's way and that's against the law. The gun is in your hand and you pulled the trigger by having unprotected sex knowing that it would result in their death. That's all it takes to prove culpability for manslaughter or attempted manslaughter.

I think that if it is transferred in commission of a rape, it should aggravate the rape to a capital offense just like a death that occurs in the commission of a robbery with a firearm.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

jallman said:

Can't agree with you here. I think that if you know you are infected and you do not disclose this to someone you are having sex with, then you are directly putting them in harm's way and that's against the law. The gun is in your hand and you pulled the trigger by having unprotected sex knowing that it would result in their death. That's all it takes to prove culpability for manslaughter or attempted manslaughter.

I think that if it is transferred in commission of a rape, it should aggravate the rape to a capital offense just like a death that occurs in the commission of a robbery with a firearm.

Click to expand...

Except that with modern medicine, people with HIV/AIDS can live full lives now, so there is no guarantee of death. AIDS is not a death sentence like it used to be, so I think manslaughter would be a tough sell. That's why a law has to be written in that deals specifically with criminal AIDS transmission.

I agree with your second paragraph. If someone uses their disease as a murder mechanism or just deliberately infects someone, then they should be held accountable for it. Other than that, I think mandatory disclosure laws that try to pre-empt this will be little more than a thinly veiled violation of privacy and civil rights.

Cases of criminal transmission are not common. Most people who pass on the infection don't know they're infected. A new law is not needed. The current system punishes people if they commit a crime, and it should stay that way. Forcing innocent people who haven't infected their partners to disclose a confidential condition is a violation of their right to choose.

It's none of the government's damn business who they are dating or having sex with. If they infect someone and that person presses charges, then that should be deterrent enough to others.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Orion said:

I can comment on this as a health professional.

No, they should not. I say this because of the policy level implications. All HIV/AIDS testing in North America has the option of anonymity. If it were law to inform your partners of your status, then fewer people would get tested, and thus more people would be ignorantly spreading the disease.

Think about it... if you suspect you MIGHT be infected but don't know for sure, some people would just talk themselves out of getting tested. After all, if it's illegal to not tell your partner that you're infected, it would be scary to have to deal with the conflict and drama that would follow. So those people might choose to not get tested out of fear of what a positive result might mean.

Click to expand...

Yes, they absolutely should. I think that exact opposite. I think that you are enabling irresponsible behavior. If a person does not act responsibly, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If the law does not cover this properly, then new laws should be passed that will make consequences so severe, that failure to get tested or inform your partner will scare the crap out of drama queens so badly that they will get tested.

If a person is too scared to go and get tested out of fear of drama, and they spread the disease, then they should be prosecuted for negligent -fill in the blank- (murder) if the person ends up dying. This would set a trend. This would show others that failure to get tested, to be responsible, would result in consequence. Being scared is a crappy reason to spread a deadly disease. What a crock of **** it is to have people act irresponsibly and have others enable such horrid behavior. :roll:

I find it hypocritical that those against the health care bill on the grounds that the government shouldn't be interfering in people's health would be in favor of mandatory HIV disclosure. If two people are having consensual, unprotected sex, then they are mutually making the choice to take a risk. It's not the government's job to manage the health and social lives of those infected.

Click to expand...

Most people operate under the assumption that their partner is not a fear mongering disease spreading idiot.

Also, why just HIV? Even though herpes is not fatal, it is extremely life altering to those who are infected and suffer regular outbreaks of sores. Why does HIV get singled out?

Click to expand...

Good point. Toss in most STD's and major diseases while we are at it. This is truly a good idea. Protect more people.

I can just see the privacy and civil rights violations. There is no benefit to society here. I think very few instances of this type of criminal activity exist. The law would only end up punishing the vast majority of those infected who already live with a stigma hanging over their heads yet manage their lives responsibly. Such legislation removes their power to choose.

Click to expand...

Bull****. There is a major benefit to society. Less disease.

If you don't want to catch a disease, then use protection, don't have sex, or make sure that you and your partner get tested and share the results before engaging in unprotected sex. It's really that simple. We don't need big brother management of this situation.

Click to expand...

Protection is not 100%. As a health service professional, you should know this. :roll:

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

from the OP:

• Open communication and trust are important for healthy relationships.

Click to expand...

On that I do agree. A new law would be impossible to enforce. You'd wind up right back where we are now, arresting people after the damage has been done.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Orion said:

If someone uses their disease as a murder mechanism or just deliberately infects someone, then they should be held accountable for it. Other than that, I think mandatory disclosure laws that try to pre-empt this will be little more than a thinly veiled violation of privacy and civil rights.

It's none of the government's damn business who they are dating or having sex with. If they infect someone and that person presses charges, then that should be deterrent enough to others.

Click to expand...

Yep. I think the asses that would knowingly have sex with people without telling their partner about a known disease are few. Haven't the ones who have done that in the past had manslaughter charges brought against them anyway.....without a law of disclosure in place?


Making disclosure an actual law seems to put too many people at risk. The first thing I thought of was the way they list the names of sexual offenders in the paper (yes I see that as a good thing) but what would stop officials from publicizing the names of the people who have HIV?

Not saying it would happen but that's just one of the slippery slopes I see as a possibility.


.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Such a law is just not necessary. Existing laws can be interpreted to prosecute such people as the sex did not involve informed consent (rape), and knowingly putting somebody somebody at risk of a deadly disease without their consent is manslaughter.

Flea said:

Orion said:

No, they should not. I say this because of the policy level implications. All HIV/AIDS testing in North America has the option of anonymity. If it were law to inform your partners of your status, then fewer people would get tested, and thus more people would be ignorantly spreading the disease.

Think about it... if you suspect you MIGHT be infected but don't know for sure, some people would just talk themselves out of getting tested. After all, if it's illegal to not tell your partner that you're infected, it would be scary to have to deal with the conflict and drama that would follow. So those people might choose to not get tested out of fear of what a positive result might mean.

Click to expand...

Yes, they absolutely should. I think that exact opposite. I think that you are enabling irresponsible behavior. If a person does not act responsibly, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If the law does not cover this properly, then new laws should be passed that will make consequences so severe, that failure to get tested or inform your partner will scare the crap out of drama queens so badly that they will get tested.

Click to expand...

I have a problem with your idea of forcing people who engage in high-risk behavior to get tested. This is neither enforceable nor ethical and it would make a mockery of both our legal and health systems.

Orion was arguing from a public health perspective with outcomes in mind. Most HIV spread is from people who do not yet know they are infected. If you create a situation that makes people less likely to want to get tested, then you actually increase HIV spread because the primary problem is that people who have HIV do not know that they have it.

Flea said:

If a person is too scared to go and get tested out of fear of drama, and they spread the disease, then they should be prosecuted for negligent -fill in the blank- (murder) if the person ends up dying. This would set a trend. This would show others that failure to get tested, to be responsible, would result in consequence. Being scared is a crappy reason to spread a deadly disease. What a crock of **** it is to have people act irresponsibly and have others enable such horrid behavior.

Click to expand...

Enabling would imply that these actions make it easier for them to engage in irresponsible behavior. This is not the case. Would you really be okay with increasing the spread of HIV so that you can be more sure to punish a small group of sociopaths? That would be, in itself, sociopathic.

Flea said:

Orion said:

If you don't want to catch a disease, then use protection, don't have sex, or make sure that you and your partner get tested and share the results before engaging in unprotected sex. It's really that simple. We don't need big brother management of this situation.

Click to expand...

Protection is not 100%. As a health service professional, you should know this.

Click to expand...

The only sure way to avoid an STD is to never have sex, as even if you're monogamous your partner could still cheat on you.

Protection significantly reduces the chances of transmission of almost all STDs. His idea of both partners getting tested is another good idea, but of course that's not 100% as false negatives are possible (though highly unlikely). And if we were talking about HPV, the strains that contribute to most cervical cancers are usually asymptomatic in males and generally not picked up in STD testing of males.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

missypea said:

Yep. I think the asses that would knowingly have sex with people without telling their partner about a known disease are few. Haven't the ones who have done that in the past had manslaughter charges brought against them anyway.....without a law of disclosure in place?

Click to expand...

Yes, they have. We live in an innocent-until-proven-guilty system. There is no need for a new law to come down on innocent people who are infected.

missypea said:

Making disclosure an actual law seems to put too many people at risk. The first thing I thought of was the way they list the names of sexual offenders in the paper (yes I see that as a good thing) but what would stop officials from publicizing the names of the people who have HIV?

Not saying it would happen but that's just one of the slippery slopes I see as a possibility.

Click to expand...

Actually it's not a slippery slope at all, it's something that would definitely happen. If people are forced to disclose their status by law, then you can say goodbye to anonymous testing, in which case you can say goodbye to a lot of people getting themselves tested regularly. Why would people get tested for HIV if the government is going to interfere in their lives?

A law like that would be a public health disaster. It would spread the disease more rapidly by putting negative pressure on getting tested, something that is already difficult to get people to do, even in developed nations where many areas offer it for free.

It's none of the government's damn business what your status is.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

tell them? no


show them ... with a requisite tattoo "HIV+" in their nether region? yes

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

In a moral sense , yes, absolutely.
In a legal sense, no, I think we are becoming a nation with far too many laws and too many lawyers.
But, I may be wrong.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Orion said:

It's none of the government's damn business what your status is.

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

But it IS the business of your sexual partner. As much their business as it would be if you were pointing a loaded gun at them.

If I load a gun, aim it at my partner and shoot... I don't see that much difference between that and having sex with them when I KNOW I have HIV and they do not know and do not consent to that risk.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Flea said:

Yes, they absolutely should. I think that exact opposite. I think that you are enabling irresponsible behavior. If a person does not act responsibly, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If the law does not cover this properly, then new laws should be passed that will make consequences so severe, that failure to get tested or inform your partner will scare the crap out of drama queens so badly that they will get tested.

If a person is too scared to go and get tested out of fear of drama, and they spread the disease, then they should be prosecuted for negligent -fill in the blank- (murder) if the person ends up dying. This would set a trend. This would show others that failure to get tested, to be responsible, would result in consequence. Being scared is a crappy reason to spread a deadly disease. What a crock of **** it is to have people act irresponsibly and have others enable such horrid behavior. :roll:

Click to expand...

You can't prosecute people for something they don't know. If it's illegal to infect your partner knowingly, and it's illegal to not tell your partner, then all that will happen is people will stop getting tested. Once they stop getting tested, you can't accuse them of knowingly infecting their partners.

When people test positive for HIV, clinic workers already sit down with them and offer to help make up a list of names and contacts for last partners. The clinic will then call those people and tell them that someone they've had sexual contact with has been diagnosed as HIV+ and they need to come get tested. The bases are already covered.

It is already life altering to find out if you have tested positive. How horrible would it then be to have the clinic or a police offer sitting there while you have to contact your husband or wife and spill the beans as if you're some stupid little child that needs supervision.

Flea said:

Most people operate under the assumption that their partner is not a fear mongering disease spreading idiot.

Click to expand...

It is also idiotic to have sex with someone in a new relationship while assuming the other person has no diseases. Your partner could just as easily not know they are infected with something. Some STIs, such as chlamydia, show no symptoms in both men and women.

Flea said:

Good point. Toss in most STD's and major diseases while we are at it. This is truly a good idea. Protect more people.

Click to expand...

In other words, more government involvement. Expansion of government power into the lives of people. As I said before, most people who spread disease sexually don't know they are infected. Making such a law would have little net benefit.

You know, people who fight government expansion but are in this thread in favor of such a ridiculous law need to take a hard look in the mirror and see why their government keeps getting more powerful. They are against government expansion except, of course, in cases that they agree with it. :roll:

Flea said:

Bull****. There is a major benefit to society. Less disease.

Click to expand...

Nope.

If the government must get involved in informing people in your life of your HIV+ status, then anonymous testing becomes obsolete, in which case many, many people will stop getting tested, myself included. I always use anonymous testing because I don't even want my family doctor having a record that I'm getting tested at all, regardless of what the result is. My sexual activities and status are nobody's damn business, and they're certainly not yours.

The overwhelming majority of HIV+ people would never want that horror inflicted on another person and so they take measures to not spread the disease. The overwhelming majority also tell partners they're involved with well before they both make the consensual choice to have sex, but that dialogue takes place when they are ready, and not when the law tells them to.

Flea said:

Protection is not 100%. As a health service professional, you should know this. :roll:

Click to expand...

I mentioned other methods. Don't be selective now. I also said they had the option of abstinence OR both people in the relationship getting tested and sharing the results. In most areas, especially cities, STI testing is free at public clinics. There is no reason why people cannot take responsibility for their own health and go get tested.

There are no barriers, financial or otherwise, to two consensual adults knowing their status in your country, so there is no excuse. A new law to baby people isn't necessary. People already have the power to know their own status and manage that knowledge in the context of a relationship.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

rivrrat said:

No, it's not.

But it IS the business of your sexual partner. As much their business as it would be if you were pointing a loaded gun at them.

If I load a gun, aim it at my partner and shoot... I don't see that much difference between that and having sex with them when I KNOW I have HIV and they do not know and do not consent to that risk.

Click to expand...

Then don't have sex with someone until they get tested and show you the results. Otherwise don't have sex with them.

As the partner in the relationship you have the power to demand this information or they can take a hike. If you aren't doing it, then you have no business petitioning for this kind of law.

People need to stop being lazy and irresponsible and take the power into their own hands. You don't need mommy government to do it for you.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Orion said:

Then don't have sex with someone until they get tested and show you the results. Otherwise don't have sex with them.

As the partner in the relationship you have the power to demand this information or they can take a hike. If you aren't doing it, then you have no business petitioning for this kind of law.

People need to stop being lazy and irresponsible and take the power into their own hands. You don't need mommy government to do it for you.

Click to expand...

i hear you
that person who is trying to misrepresent the junk bonds he is selling as AAA is not doing anything wrong
- nevermind -

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Orion said:

Then don't have sex with someone until they get tested and show you the results. Otherwise don't have sex with them.

As the partner in the relationship you have the power to demand this information or they can take a hike. If you aren't doing it, then you have no business petitioning for this kind of law.

Click to expand...

As a healthcare professional you know that's not ideal either since one must be tested multiple times in order to really be declared HIV negative. Upon a possible exposure, one is tested immediately, then months later since it can take some time before antibodies appear.

Therefore, someone would have to show me a negative test. Then live in a bubble for 6 months, and then show me another negative test before I could be sure.

People need to stop being lazy and irresponsible and take the power into their own hands. You don't need mommy government to do it for you.

Click to expand...

No kidding. If someone shoots you, you need to stop being lazy and irresponsible and take power into your own hands. We surely don't need mommy govt to handle justice for us. I completely agree. I actually do think we'd be better off if we all wore sidearms and had shootouts in the street to handle our squabbles. If someone tries to kill you, then you just kill them right back! After all, it's YOUR fault you didn't do a full background check, psycho-analysis, and obtain all of their medical records to know what psycho meds they might be on.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

LiveUninhibited said:

Such a law is just not necessary. Existing laws can be interpreted to prosecute such people as the sex did not involve informed consent (rape), and knowingly putting somebody somebody at risk of a deadly disease without their consent is manslaughter.

Click to expand...

Good to hear. I think that you are right. I did not think of that. Thanks.

I have a problem with your idea of forcing people who engage in high-risk behavior to get tested. This is neither enforceable nor ethical and it would make a mockery of both our legal and health systems.

Click to expand...

Maybe I mispoke, but I don't think that I said anything about forcing people to get tested, only that if they knowinglyhave sex with a person and not inform that person of the diesease, that they get prosecuted.

Orion was arguing from a public health perspective with outcomes in mind. Most HIV spread is from people who do not yet know they are infected. If you create a situation that makes people less likely to want to get tested, then you actually increase HIV spread because the primary problem is that people who have HIV do not know that they have it.

Click to expand...

People should not be forced to get tested. If you suspect having a AIDS, for example, and don't get tested and infect somebody and it gets tracked back to a previous partner that was infected, then they should be prosecuted.

Enabling would imply that these actions make it easier for them to engage in irresponsible behavior. This is not the case. Would you really be okay with increasing the spread of HIV so that you can be more sure to punish a small group of sociopaths? That would be, in itself, sociopathic.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous. It would not be sociopath at all. Get real. It might be unreasonable. I suggest that you look up what sociopathic behavior is before casting that about.

The only sure way to avoid an STD is to never have sex, as even if you're monogamous your partner could still cheat on you.

Click to expand...

All active sexual people should be regularly tested. This is responsible behavior. But we are not talking about meaningless sex, at least I am not, I am talking aabout people being with a trusted partner or entering a relationship. This is much different.

Protection significantly reduces the chances of transmission of almost all STDs. His idea of both partners getting tested is another good idea, but of course that's not 100% as false negatives are possible (though highly unlikely). And if we were talking about HPV, the strains that contribute to most cervical cancers are usually asymptomatic in males and generally not picked up in STD testing of males.

Click to expand...

Yep.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Orion said:

You can't prosecute people for something they don't know. If it's illegal to infect your partner knowingly, and it's illegal to not tell your partner, then all that will happen is people will stop getting tested. Once they stop getting tested, you can't accuse them of knowingly infecting their partners.

Click to expand...

Miscommunication. I am talking about people who have an idea that they are at risk or are knowingly infected. They are already prosecuted generally. People should get tested regularly.

When people test positive for HIV, clinic workers already sit down with them and offer to help make up a list of names and contacts for last partners. The clinic will then call those people and tell them that someone they've had sexual contact with has been diagnosed as HIV+ and they need to come get tested. The bases are already covered.

Click to expand...

True. But for those that don't get tested, the disease spreads. Less testing equals more disease. My point is extremely valid and very basic.

It is already life altering to find out if you have tested positive. How horrible would it then be to have the clinic or a police offer sitting there while you have to contact your husband or wife and spill the beans as if you're some stupid little child that needs supervision.

Click to expand...

I did not say that the cops need to be there while you call a partner, did I. I said that if they suspect being infected and don't get tested and spread the disease, that they get prosecuted.

It is also idiotic to have sex with someone in a new relationship while assuming the other person has no diseases. Your partner could just as easily not know they are infected with something. Some STIs, such as chlamydia, show no symptoms in both men and women.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. People should get tested regularly.

In other words, more government involvement. Expansion of government power into the lives of people. As I said before, most people who spread disease sexually don't know they are infected. Making such a law would have little net benefit.

Click to expand...

Less government. Testing is voluntary, but failure to test results in consequences.

You know, people who fight government expansion but are in this thread in favor of such a ridiculous law need to take a hard look in the mirror and see why their government keeps getting more powerful. They are against government expansion except, of course, in cases that they agree with it. :roll:

Click to expand...

I am a conservative in favor of less and smaller government and more personal responsibility.

Nope.

Click to expand...

Yep

If the government must get involved in informing people in your life of your HIV+ status, then anonymous testing becomes obsolete, in which case many, many people will stop getting tested, myself included. I always use anonymous testing because I don't even want my family doctor having a record that I'm getting tested at all, regardless of what the result is. My sexual activities and status are nobody's damn business, and they're certainly not yours.

Click to expand...

Never said that they were. Where do you draw such conclusions from? :roll:

What is our business though, is if you have a disease and are not informing partners.

The overwhelming majority of HIV+ people would never want that horror inflicted on another person and so they take measures to not spread the disease. The overwhelming majority also tell partners they're involved with well before they both make the consensual choice to have sex, but that dialogue takes place when they are ready, and not when the law tells them to.

Click to expand...

They might not want that horror, but they spread it anyway. Otherwise diseases would not be spreading as they do.

There is no reason why people cannot take responsibility for their own health and go get tested.

Click to expand...

Finally, some reason sets it.

There are no barriers, financial or otherwise, to two consensual adults knowing their status in your country, so there is no excuse. A new law to baby people isn't necessary. People already have the power to know their own status and manage that knowledge in the context of a relationship.

Click to expand...

They don't have the power if the other person holds it from them. They could get the power back by ending the relationship.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Orion said:

Except that with modern medicine, people with HIV/AIDS can live full lives now, so there is no guarantee of death. AIDS is not a death sentence like it used to be, so I think manslaughter would be a tough sell. That's why a law has to be written in that deals specifically with criminal AIDS transmission.

I agree with your second paragraph. If someone uses their disease as a murder mechanism or just deliberately infects someone, then they should be held accountable for it. Other than that, I think mandatory disclosure laws that try to pre-empt this will be little more than a thinly veiled violation of privacy and civil rights.

Cases of criminal transmission are not common. Most people who pass on the infection don't know they're infected. A new law is not needed. The current system punishes people if they commit a crime, and it should stay that way. Forcing innocent people who haven't infected their partners to disclose a confidential condition is a violation of their right to choose.

It's none of the government's damn business who they are dating or having sex with. If they infect someone and that person presses charges, then that should be deterrent enough to others.

Click to expand...

If they aren't having sex with their partner, then there's no reason to force disclosure. However, there is an obligation to inform your partner before placing them in harm's way. The partner has every right to choose, too, and to take their ability to make an informed decision away by not informing them amounts to a manslaughter or attempted manslaughter case.

At the very, very least a person should be held liable in civil court if they knew they had a positive status and did not disclose it before sex.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Let me clarify some things.

If someone has knowingly infected their partner with HIV, they should be charged with criminal negligence. Until such a crime is committed and proven in court, people with HIV should not be subject to pre-emptive laws that ensure they inform their partners. Before you jump to the support of such laws, you must consider the implications of what this would mean for health professionals and those infected.

I would hope that all people who know they are infected would tell their partners, and the overwhelming majority do this. Those who don't and expose others should face charges. That said, the same could be said of any disease. If you have mononucleosis and kiss your partner, infecting them, should you be charged with assault?

Likewise, do you think it would be pleasant for health professionals to be legally required to report the names of those infected with HIV? What a horrendous burden. I for one would never want that in my practice.

HIV is not a death sentence anymore, so the manslaughter / attempted murder argument does not stand, unless you can prove with 100% certainty that the person will absolutely die in the future due to AIDS related complications.

A pre-emptive law will hinder the testing system. It will create a negative incentive for getting tested, and the last thing our society needs in the year 2010 is fewer people getting tested. It has already been an uphill battle spanning decades to educate people on the importance of getting tested, and still not everyone does.

There is an important legal distinction to make here. If someone is diagnosed with HIV and has a partner, that alone is not a crime. They have to commit a negligent action that would knowingly infect their partner for it to enter the criminal realm. People who are simply infected and involved with someone else should not be subject to legal intrusions. Their partner does not have a RIGHT to know their confidential medical information. Disclosure is a choice. If mandatory disclosure is made law under HIV, then you might as well make it the same for every other disease. Should they be forced to reveal they have cancer? I mean, if you two are going to get married, they should have a right to know that you are going to die and probably consume a lot of finances in the process. Where do the legal demands end?

Secondly, as I already said, placing the emphasis on those infected removes the responsibility from the partner. If you are having sex with someone you have a responsibility to know their status. Here is a radical concept: ask your partner their status, and DEMAND PROOF. Why do you need the government to babysit you by forcing your partner to disclose their status?

This brings up another issue: government databasing. If you can no longer be anonymously tested because the government is enforcing mandatory disclosure, then all people who are HIV+ will necessarily be reported and databased to a number of agencies. If you are married then they will also be databasing your sexual orientation, among other private details. Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?

I understand the need for prevention. I understand wanting to reduce the risk as much as possible. We all want this just as much as we want a cure, but there becomes a point when the demands of risk management become absurd. People's rights should not be violated in the pursuit of the less than 1% of those infected who are criminally negligent. Just because there are a few bad apples does not mean you cut down the whole tree.

I would be in favor of a specific statute that criminalizes intentional infection along with its own specific sentencing guidelines, but I am adamently against databasing and mandatory disclosure simply because a person is infected. Being infected is not a crime and people who are HIV+ are not criminals.

Stay the hell out of their private lives and take responsibility for your own actions.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Flea said:

And that is their right. Not telling them of the AIDS would only enforce why a person would not want to be with them in the first place, untrustworthy and uncaring for your safety. Horrible. If they tell, then the person can make a healthy and informed choice. Nothing wrong with that. The person that is for the AIDS person is one that will not run. Only a horrible person would not tell. I couldn't even imagine.

Click to expand...

Agree. I was just trying to explain why someone may not tell.

Re: Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/a

Flea said:

Maybe I mispoke, but I don't think that I said anything about forcing people to get tested, only that if they knowinglyhave sex with a person and not inform that person of the diesease, that they get prosecuted.

Click to expand...

You had advocated prosecuting people who engage in high risk behavior and then fail to get tested, as you reconfirm in your next comment.

People should not be forced to get tested. If you suspect having a AIDS, for example, and don't get tested and infect somebody and it gets tracked back to a previous partner that was infected, then they should be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

Threatening prosecution is a means of attempting to force somebody to do something.

Ridiculous. It would not be sociopath at all. Get real. It might be unreasonable. I suggest that you look up what sociopathic behavior is before casting that about.

Click to expand...

According to the dictionary, a sociopath is, "A person whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." Trying to prosecute a small number of people when you know a secondary consequence of this will be to actually increase the incidence of HIV is, indeed, sociopathic.