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.
Worried about your lover?
Moderator's Warning: |
Stop. No need for this. |
Should those with HIV/Aids be required by law to tell their lover they have HIV/aids.
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.
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.
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.
• Open communication and trust are important for healthy relationships.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Protection is not 100%. As a health service professional, you should know this.
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.
It's none of the government's damn business what your status is.
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:
Most people operate under the assumption that their partner is not a fear mongering disease spreading idiot.
Good point. Toss in most STD's and major diseases while we are at it. This is truly a good idea. Protect more people.
Bull****. There is a major benefit to society. Less disease.
Protection is not 100%. As a health service professional, you should know this. :roll:
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.