Deliberately infecting others with HIV will no longer be a felony in California

09-10-2017 12:27pm

astrofool wrote: »

The punishment is for people who "knowingly" pass it on

No it isn't. It currently applies to people being treated for HIV, who engage in sexual intercourse with another person, knowing they have a negligible chance of passing it on. That's the problem.

We're moving to a society where people want to take whatever risk they want and not take responsibility for it.

Wait...aren't you implying that those who are having unprotected sex, possibly contracting HIV, are blameless?

09-10-2017 12:29pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Seriously?

You're more likely to pass on HIV without knowing you have HIV, than you are to pass on HIV when receiving HIV therapy.

The risk of passing on HIV when taking the anti-retroviral medication is about zero.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/25/health/hiv-zero-transmission-prevention-vaccine-study/index.html

Thank may be so, but this is in a country without universal healthcare.

People skip if they're feeling well so they can save on bills.. It's how the world works.

RWCNT · 09-10-2017 12:30pm

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

I'm starting to believe that you can get liberals to literally believe ANYTHING as long as you frame it as a diversity/discrimination issue. They'll swallow any new age political junk science that has that magic label attached. And I do mean anything.
I thought the US religious right had the monopoly on that sort of thinking, how wrong I was.

This is an ideology, society, and culture that is in full meltdown.

I'm no liberal, although you would probably class me as one, but you must be having a laugh talking about American liberals swallowing junk science when it's the ones on the other side who are denying the existence of global warming and objecting to evolution being taught in schools. I dont see what junk science really has to do with this subject, although I suspect you're probably referring to one specific completely unrelated subject when you refer to "new age political junk science that has that magic label attached"..

bear1 · 09-10-2017 12:58pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Seriously?

You're more likely to pass on HIV without knowing you have HIV, than you are to pass on HIV when receiving HIV therapy.

The risk of passing on HIV when taking the anti-retroviral medication is about zero.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/25/health/hiv-zero-transmission-prevention-vaccine-study/index.html

But those are two opposing arguments.
This is a discussion regarding knowingly passing on the disease.
If you are not in the know that you have the disease and you pass it on then this is completely different to having the disease, knowing about it and passing it on without warning to the other person.
I can't understand why you don't get this.

bear1 · 09-10-2017 1:00pm

seamus wrote: »

Non-disclosure? Sure. What is immoral isn't always illegal though.

There's the "giving" word again. "Giving" someone a disease and exposing someone to potential infection are two entirely different things.

One is an act of intent. The other is an act of negligence.

In the latter case, the act remains (effectively) criminal negligence, but there are far less hurdles to securing a conviction.

Each story would have its own context tbh. The number of people who've gone around deliberately attempting to infect others is tiny. Compared to those who didn't even know they were infected or who were careless/in denial, the number of deliberate infections is negligible.

Certainly should be actionable under tort, and chargeable with criminal negligence where it is a lifelong or life-limiting illness.

If I knocked someone over and broke their spine, leaving them in a wheelchair, I could expect a criminal charge. Why not the same for a permanent/long-term STD?

I see what you're saying.
And re the last part, I would agree to people being punished if they knowingly pass on the disease.

Donal55 · 09-10-2017 1:10pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wrote the below about Donal55 and would like to retract it and apologise.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! has easily taken that spot with his utter nonsense in here.

Apology accepted.
AHs is such a pleasent forum.ðŸ˜

astrofool · 09-10-2017 1:10pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Wait...aren't you implying that those who are having unprotected sex, possibly contracting HIV, are blameless?

You can answer who is to blame/blameless first

brevity · 09-10-2017 1:15pm

This makes no sense to me. What the **** are they thinking?

cruizer101 · 09-10-2017 1:34pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No it isn't. It currently applies to people being treated for HIV, who engage in sexual intercourse with another person, knowing they have a negligible chance of passing it on. That's the problem.

Why can't they just disclose this information and let their sexual partner make an informed decision if they want to take that risk or not.

Tenigate · 09-10-2017 1:42pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If you assume everyone you sleep with has HIV and accordingly take precautions then yes it is workable.

That's victim-blaming Joey.

Also doesn't stop someone from sabotaging condoms for example.

astrofool · 09-10-2017 2:43pm

Quite timely, should this guy be given a 6 month sentence?
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/man-accused-of-infecting-lovers-sent-text-saying-i-have-hiv-lol-809138.html

super_furry · 09-10-2017 3:24pm

Absolute insanity, especially considering that there's a very high profile case in the UK courts over just this issue right now.

lazybones32 · 09-10-2017 4:24pm

I remember the old number plates -pre 04D etc. There was a guy whose vw jetta was HIV. It never got old...for us anyway, he was probably sick of hearing the same joke on a weekly basis.

c_man · 09-10-2017 5:07pm

So knowingly donating HIV blood is now on a par with traffic offences i.e. both are misdemeanors? Absolute madness.

ceadaoin. · 09-10-2017 5:07pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

..and that eventuality is pretty much unheard-of, by now.

Honestly, some people here seem to think it's still 1985. HIV therapy is a victim of its own success: its increasing prevalence seems to be linked to the fact that individuals living with HIV should now enjoy normal lives. The law should change to reflect that.

The stigma clearly remains, however.

This is the US were talking about. If you have the money to pay for the drugs and if you can get insurance to cover you when you have a pre existing condition then you will be fine. Otherwise contracting HIV can still be a death sentence.

AIDS is the third leading cause of death among Black men and women between ages 35 and 44, and the fourth leading cause of death among Latinos of the same age group.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3700367/

pwurple · 09-10-2017 5:14pm

It makes no practical sense I imagine, should really be removed entirely.

You can just as easily class it under assault, fraud, attempted murder.

And as noted above, if you KNOW you have HIV, and are receiving modern treatment (not aromatherapy), then you are unlikely to even be able to infect someone.

One eyed Jack · 09-10-2017 5:27pm

pwurple wrote: »

It makes no practical sense I imagine, should really be removed entirely.

You can just as easily class it under assault, fraud, attempted murder.

And as noted above, if you KNOW you have HIV, and are receiving modern treatment (not aromatherapy), then you are unlikely to even be able to infect someone.

Then why not disclose the fact and allow everyone else the opportunity to determine for themselves how likely they want to be infected with HIV?

The measures are being introduced to "destigmatise" HIV, by allowing people with HIV to have lesser responsibility towards their sexual partners. It makes perfectly practical sense to put the responsibility squarely where it belongs, rather than trying to blame the rest of society for not wanting to put themselves at risk of being infected with a disease so people with the disease can feel better about themselves.

super_furry · 09-10-2017 5:29pm

Destigmatise HIV all you want, but not by putting other people at risk of being infected. Stopping the spread of the disease must being the number one priority, then you can worry about how society views it.

Noel82 · 09-10-2017 5:39pm

Some form of cancers are curable if treated properly, would it be OK to knowingly infect someone with those since you're doing the same thing by being HIV+ and knowingly having unprotected sex. What about infecting someone with diabetes?

There's some serious sickos on this thread, and in California too apparently. If reminds me of the parents forcing Sex "identity" on toddlers threads, anything goes for the regressive agenda.

Jurgen Klopp · 09-10-2017 6:13pm

You know what, as bad as I thought extreme left is, I always thought even they had a limit, but after this I really wouldn't be surprised if the next thing will be down grading the punishments for child molestation, abduction and everything else commuted by pedophiles as its a "sickness"

And they ****in wonder why Trump has so much support Jesus wept

Jurgen Klopp · 09-10-2017 6:16pm

It's estimated to cost $36,000 a month for retro viral drugs for just one person

What the **** happens if California or the US goes bust due to another economic meltdown and can't afford these drugs?

But of course that doesn't enter these morons heads for a second

And not only that but they do this as their murmurs of a Hepatitis outbreak state wide no doubt due to massive illegal immigrant problems

10-10-2017 4:42am

c_man wrote: »

So knowingly donating HIV blood is now on a par with traffic offences i.e. both are misdemeanors? Absolute madness.

My friend got HIV from a blood transfusion in India a decade ago. I can only imagine what he makes of that part.

uck51js9zml2yt · 10-10-2017 5:11am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Seriously?

You're more likely to pass on HIV without knowing you have HIV, than you are to pass on HIV when receiving HIV therapy.

The risk of passing on HIV when taking the anti-retroviral medication is about zero.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/25/health/hiv-zero-transmission-prevention-vaccine-study/index.html

But not absolute zero.

I'm sure the infected person would prefer not to have e it and be on meds for the rest of their lives

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-10-2017 6:39am

astrofool wrote: »

Quite timely, should this guy be given a 6 month sentence?
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/man-accused-of-infecting-lovers-sent-text-saying-i-have-hiv-lol-809138.html

The poor guy is only infecting people because he feels not included. They should throw an acceptance party for him, give him a cash reward and a gift basket.
The people he infected however should receive tolerance training for daring to bully this poor soul and making him feel excluded.

Deliberately infecting others with HIV will no longer be a felony in California

Comments