High Court approves of exposing teenage girl to HIV

Raging_Ninja

http://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0310/946421-high-court-hiv/

Boy is in the care of the state. Boy has HIV. Boy meets girl. Boy may or may not be having sex with girl - they are just "close friends". High Court decides girl does not need to warned that boy could give her HIV because data protection and it's not proven that they are having sex.

Why do the courts never take public safety into account? They also deny all accountability for their decisions as well.

Brussels Sprout

I presume in cases like this the court's job is to make decisions that are constrained by the laws (and possibly the constitution).

In this one case it seems that absolutely the girl should be warned but where do you draw the line?

Just to play devil's advocate: What if the boy is gay or asexual or just not into that girl. Should she still be warned then if they really are just friends? Should every girl (or boy) that he ever comes into contact with be warned just in case they were thinking of entering a sexual relationship with him? Should he just be mandated to tell everyone when he first meets them?

It's not as simple as the headline makes it out to be.

One eyed Jack

Misleading thread title OP.

Doltanian

I would see nothing wrong with creating a publiclly accessible database of HIV patients allowing people to check if their partner had this life ruining disease. The Leftwing of course would go insane.

Pepefrogok

This is just the progression of the far left ideology, look at California, they actually passed a law recently that it would no longer be a felony to knowingly pass on HIV to a sexual partner! Said it stigmatized the people with HIV, they are mental, at the same time the California leaders also made a law that would allow more serious penalties for misgendering someone ffs, they actually believe knowingly infecting someone with HIV is less serious than calling a transsexual woman sir. Sure you already have plenty of progressives on here that believe people are bigots/Nazis for not wanting to sleep with trans people. God I hope people are waking up to this crap.

corner of hells

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Misleading thread title OP.

I was all set for a day of outrage , now I dunno what I'm going to be outraged about.

corner of hells

Doltanian wrote: »

I would see nothing wrong with creating a publiclly accessible database of HIV patients allowing people to check if their partner had this life ruining disease. The Leftwing of course would go insane.

Oh I dunno , witch hunts and all that
.We don't have a publicly accessible data base for sex offenders for good reasoning.

RDM_83 again

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Misleading thread title OP.

Read the article it's not misleading

Mr Justice Michael Twomey ruled that even if the woman was willing to have unprotected sex with the young man, and assume the risks associated with that, then the low risk of HIV in such circumstances, and the fact that HIV was not a terminal illness, could not justify breaching a patient's right to confidentiality, which should only be breached in exceptional circumstances.

This is ridiculous, it may not be life threatening if one is able to access a very expensive constant medication for the rest of one's life and it presumed that they won't ever try anal sex or similar.

Ireland is starting to emulate the worst ideas of the USA

On a political note this is why I don't have a big problem with the Polish judicial reform, judges are not meant to be so apart from their society.

You can bet if it was one of Micheal Twomneys kids that was at risk this wouldn't have been the judgement but we know they wouldn't be ever in the social circles of kids in HSE care

facehugger99

Doltanian wrote: »

I would see nothing wrong with creating a publiclly accessible database of HIV patients allowing people to check if their partner had this life ruining disease. The Leftwing of course would go insane.

Why stop at HIV.

Make everyones medial records public and searchable.

corner of hells

facehugger99 wrote: »

Why stop at HIV.

Make everyones medial records public and searchable.

Indeed , my own family is devastated by Huntingtons , Vascular Dementia , Alzheimer's and cancer , I for one would all that on a public data base.

One eyed Jack

Pepefrogok wrote: »

This is just the progression of the far left ideology, look at California, they actually passed a law recently that it would no longer be a felony to knowingly pass on HIV to a sexual partner!

No, this particular case is nothing like the new California law at all. That's why the thread title is misleading. I have no doubt there's more to this case than what's simply been reported in the article in the opening post, but the case itself centres around a teenage boys right not to have their medical history made public when there is no compelling reason to do so. The CFA were unable to provide sufficient evidence that the boy and girl were in a sexual relationship, so there was no justification for informing the girl that the boy was HIV positive.

I don't agree with the California law btw, but that's not even remotely what this case is about. I don't know whether the OP intended to imply that was the case, or whether it was a genuine misunderstanding of the circumstances of this particular case on their part.

RDM_83 again

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, this particular case is nothing like the new California law at all. That's why the thread title is misleading. I have no doubt there's more to this case than what's simply been reported in the article in the opening post, but the case itself centres around a teenage boys right not to have their medical history made public when there is no compelling reason to do so. The CFA were unable to provide sufficient evidence that the boy and girl were in a sexual relationship, so there was no justification for informing the girl that the boy was HIV positive.

I don't agree with the California law btw, but that's not even remotely what this case is about. I don't know whether the OP intended to imply that was the case, or whether it was a genuine misunderstanding of the circumstances of this particular case on their part.

You didn't read the last part of the article did you, even if they were able to show they were having sex the judgement would have been the same

Joshua J

facehugger99 wrote: »

Why stop at HIV.

Make everyones medial records public and searchable.

Because only the looney left could think it a bad idea silly. We should have a searchable database for people convicted of domestic violence so you can check on your future partner. We should have a searchable database for people who have attempted suicide in case I might get a ride in their car. We should have a searchable database for people who have defaulted on a loan in case they ever ask me for a lend of money. And one that will have boards creaming itself, we should have a searchable database for people who aren't vaccinated. Maybe we just make eveyones whole life searchable. A fascists paradise.

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Read the article it's not misleading



This is ridiculous, it may not be life threatening if one is able to access a very expensive constant medication for the rest of one's life and it presumed that they won't ever try anal sex or similar.

Ireland is starting to emulate the worst ideas of the USA

On a political note this is why I don't have a big problem with the Polish judicial reform, judges are not meant to be so apart from their society.

You can bet if it was one of Micheal Twomneys kids that was at risk this wouldn't have been the judgement but we know they wouldn't be ever in the social circles of kids in HSE care

That part of the judges opinion I don't agree with, but that was an IF, not the actual circumstances of the case before him. It would be a completely different case in those circumstances.

c.p.w.g.w

If the girl was to get HIV, could the boy be held liable since he knows he carries the disease, or could the state be held liable

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

You didn't read the last part of the article did you, even if they were able to show they were having sex the judgement would have been the same

I did, and that's why I'm pointing out that it would be a completely different case. The judge might as well have been giving his opinion on what he'd do if he won the lotto.

One eyed Jack

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

If the girl was to get HIV, could the boy be held liable since he knows he carries the disease, or could the state be held liable

The boy could be held liable, and the State could be held liable, yes.

The_Valeyard

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

If the girl was to get HIV, could the boy be held liable since he knows he carries the disease, or could the state be held liable

Interesting point. I would assume he is on the Prep drug to minimize the risk of transfer

c.p.w.g.w

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The boy could be held liable, and the State could be held liable, yes.

Surely there is a public health issue. If you carry such a disease you should be legally bound to inform any potential sexual partners

corner of hells

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Interesting point. I would assume he is on the Prep drug to minimize the risk of transfer

No PEP is prescribed if you're at risk immediately after exposure , maybe you're thinking if triple therapy

suicide_circus

That girl is going to make a fooking mint off the state in a few years.

suicide_circus

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Surely there is a public health issue. If you carry such a disease you should be legally bound to inform any potential sexual partners

Apparently not, AIDS for everyone.

One eyed Jack

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Surely there is a public health issue. If you carry such a disease you should be legally bound to inform any potential sexual partners

Absolutely, but the whole point of the judgement in this case was that the CFA lacked sufficient evidence to be able to prove that the boy and girl involved were in a sexual relationship or were anything more than friends. That's why I'm suggesting there are elements to this case that aren't being reported and likely can't and won't be reported on. If anything, the article is just irresponsible, lazy, clickbait journalism.

suicide_circus

If theyre not at the bauld thing and they are good friends why is it a secret. Dangerous logic I know.

facehugger99

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Surely there is a public health issue. If you carry such a disease you should be legally bound to inform any potential sexual partners

People should be compelled to take an IQ test, the results of which would be available to any potential partners, who may not wish to pass the stupid gene onto any offspring.

Pepefrogok

corner of hells wrote: »

No PEP is prescribed if you're at risk immediately after exposure , maybe you're thinking if triple therapy

Prep is available to all gay men in the UK who simply want to have unprotected anal sex, this is a massive cost to the NHS but these gay men have a louder voice than the children with cancer who are not having many treatments funded. Sick work.

Raging_Ninja

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The boy could be held liable, and the State could be held liable, yes.

The State agency did it's best to warn the girl, but have been forbidden by the High Court.

Recent cases have confirmed that the Courts cannot be held accountable for the consequences of their decisions. For example:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/high-court-strikes-action-by-widower-of-sylvia-roche-kelly-1.2077335?mode=amp

suicide_circus

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

The State agency did it's best to warn the girl, but have been forbidden by the High Court. Recent cases have confirmed that the Courts cannot be held accountable for the consequences of their decisions.

An untouchable oligarchy

One eyed Jack

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

The State agency did it's best to warn the girl, but have been forbidden by the High Court.

Recent cases have confirmed that the Courts cannot be held accountable for the consequences of their decisions. For example:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/high-court-strikes-action-by-widower-of-sylvia-roche-kelly-1.2077335?mode=amp

You're correct on the first count, incorrect on the second, and the article you linked to doesn't back up your second claim, but I don't see how that contradicts anything in my post you quoted?

c.p.w.g.w

facehugger99 wrote: »

People should be compelled to take an IQ test, the results of which would be available to any potential partners, who may not wish to pass the stupid gene onto any offspring.

Well low IQ is generally visible to the naked eye, but HIV certainly isn't.

corner of hells

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Well low IQ is generally visible to the naked eye, but HIV certainly isn't.

Can you tell if someone has a high IQ by just looking at them ?

kylith

corner of hells wrote: »

Indeed , my own family is devastated by Huntingtons , Vascular Dementia , Alzheimer's and cancer , I for one would all that on a public data base.

You’d be ok with anyone looking that up? You’d be ok with prospective employers being able to search it and decide not to hire you because you have an increased risk of getting something?

corner of hells

kylith wrote: »

You’d be ok with anyone looking that up? You’d be ok with prospective employers being able to search it and decide not to hire you because you have an increased risk of getting something?

Erm I was being sarcastic.

c.p.w.g.w

corner of hells wrote: »

Can you tell if someone has a high IQ by just looking at them ?

A 5 minute conversation can tell a lot