Savage: AIDS patients must pay for treatments for those they infect

[Bricker]

In his current column commenting on the ethics of barebacking while HIV positive, Dan Savage says (http://www.thestranger.com/current/savage.html):


Speaking of new HIV infections, an apparently deadly strain of the virus that causes AIDS surfaced in New York City last week just in time for Valentine's Day. This new strain doesn't respond to the anti-retroviral meds that hold most infected people's HIV infections in check and, even more worrisome, it appears to induce a rapid progression to full-blown AIDS. The new HIV strain was discovered in a New York City man who told health officials he has had sex with hundreds of men in recent weeks while using crystal methamphetamine.

While inveighing at the current policy of forbidding partner notification by state health officials as a way to curb the spread of AIDS, Savage goes on to propose that someone who infects another should be liable for half the cost of the necessary anti-retroviral medications now required to sustain life. Savage models this after child support: screw around and make babies all you want, but know the quality of your life will suffer if you have eighteen years of child support payments to make for every baby you sire. He envisions placing responsibility for AIDS infections in the same way, speculating that one reason for irresponsibility is:

When extremely promiscuous gay men assess the risks and benefits of unprotected sex, most assume that if they get infected, or if they infect someone, that an AIDS organization or state health agency will pay for the AIDS meds they or their sex partners are going to need to keep themselves alive.

By putting the cost for AIDS meds in play in the risk-benefit calculation, Savage feels that the tide could turn in favor of healthier behavior, and "...Trojan won't be able to make condoms fast enough. "

This rationale appeals to the personal responsibility conservative in me.

I think it's workable.

[Siege]

I read the same column and was thinking about starting this GD thread myself. I'm with Bricker in that it appeals to my notion of people taking responsibility for their actions, including the costs of them. As a straight woman, I don't expect the government to pick up the tab for me if I get pregnant because I don't use birth control; it seems to me similarly unreasonable to expect the government to pick up the tab if I get AIDS because I chose not to take basic precautions. Yes, I realize pregnancy is only changed one's life, not ends it.

Is Savage's idea unreasonable?

CJ

[Freejooky]

Brilliant idea. Savage remains one of, if not the most reasonable voice on gay politics, having the balls to call out things like this.

[SentientMeat]

Individuals having to pay for life-saving medication.

<ERROR: DOES NOT COMPUTE>

[Princhester]

Forgive my ignorance, but would it be possible to test who infected who? Child support has become a clear cut thing with DNA tests, but imposing HIV support in a community that is (at least in part) promiscuous without a definite clear cut way of determining who infected who would be unfair. And probably very counter productive in that it would cause the infector to be very well motivated to deny all, making tracing of other of their infected partners even harder.

[DanBlather]

I can't believe people are looking to that invective spewing, maniac for policy. How about if Savage has to pay for the health-care of everyone who is gay-bashed as a result of his ramblings. Might as well pay for the health care of the returning veterans as well since he supports the war so rabidly. Then we can have the tobacco companies pay for the lung cancer and emphasyma treatments of their customers.

That said, I think that people who have unprotected sex while they knowingly have AIDS should be thrown in jail. I don't think that crystal meth users have the money to pay for much of anything.

[Mangetout]

It takes two to tango, doesn't it? Surely the infected person also participated in a choice to forego safe sex? (OK, in most cases)

[Rune]

Knowingly putting others in risk of infection with AIDS should be punishable on par with any other kind of attempt at manslaughter, including payment of any costs to the victim, unless he was aware of the risk, in which case it’s his own responsibility entirely.

[Ichbin Dubist]

DanBlather, they're talking about Dan Savage, the openly gay sex columnist, not Michael Savage, the openly stupid yellow journalist.

[Fear Itself]

I wasn't aware that AIDS patients had such deep pockets that made them worth going after. What are you going to do, garnish their future earnings?

[Metacom]

Is he only calling for gay people to pay for other infected gay people, or is he calling for any person who passes on the virus to pay for other people?

[Digital Stimulus]

First of all, I think that an infected person who knowingly "rides bareback" without informing their partner is pretty much committing manslaughter, if not first degree murder.

Now, to be accurate, some relevant quotes are missing:
I'm not suggesting that people who can't afford AIDS meds be denied them--God forbid.
In other words, contrary to SentientMeat's worry, he's not suggesting that people that contract HIV not be treated.
It could act as a deterrent, and that would be helpful. The difficulty is that it would be impractical to implement. It would require some kind of a determination process and the pitfall would be a lot of he said/he said situations.
And that addresses Princhester's question.

It seems to me that this is a question of whether deterrence would be effective. Savage's contention is: when people who spread HIV "are having their wages docked for drug-support payments, other gay men will be a lot more careful about not spreading HIV," which he likens to child support. IMO, there's a fundamental disconnect between the reason child support exists and why Savage thinks child support exists. Child support, at least in my mind, is more about the quality of life of the innocent party (the child), not about deterrence. I don't think the possibility of paying child support serves to deter casual sex in the least. If, similarly, his proposal doesn't act as a deterrant, there's no debate to be found here.

[ralph124c]

This is an interesting question: is there evidence that AIDs patients go out of their way to infect others?Years ago, I read of a man who (supposedly) was responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS around the USA. His name was Gaetan Dugas, and he was a Canadian airline steward. Supposedly, he had sexual partners in every city he visited, and went out of his way to infect people. At the time of his death (from HIV), he had infected over 1300 people.
Such behavior (if true) is reprehensible..it is just as if this guy (Dugas) went out and shot all of these people.
Has the gay community ever come to terms with this kind of horrible behavior?
One would think that the emergence of this nw, deadly strain of AIDS would have provoked some careful though (and behavior changes).

[black rabbit]

I can't believe people are looking to that invective spewing, maniac for policy.

Dan. Not Michael.

Savage Love. Not Savage Nation.

Cough.

[manhattan]

I wasn't aware that AIDS patients had such deep pockets that made them worth going after. What are you going to do, garnish their future earnings?I think this is the main hole in the idea. The principle is sound, but I have to imagine that the number of people who would be liable under the proposal who would also have the assets (and in the case of the new strain, even the lifespan) to make even a dent in the cost would be so vanishingly small that even the relatively modest cost of setting up a program would be a waste of resources. I'm also not convinced that it would be a deterrent -- it's not like there's a shortage of straight men impregnating single women despite the massive infrastructure in place to collect child support payments.

Partner notification, on the other hand, is a no-brainer for anyone who honestly wants to stop the spread of the disease. If you can't identify the vector you can't even try to interrupt it.

[Jonathan Chance]

I know I thought he was talking about Michael. Whew!

Manhattan is right. This one falls under the 'Steve Dallas rule of legal action: Never sue poor people'. If there's no juice there no point in squeezing.

A lawyer may correct me though but intentionally putting someone in danger of infection without their knowledge could be actionable in any event, couldn't it?

And partner notification is so much of a no-brainer I'm surprised there's any debate. What does non-notification lead to other than more infections?

[scule]

I can tell you right now that it would not be likely to make a difference. Read some research on risk-taking among gay men, from any of the various cohorts being studied around just North America or Europe. Sexual risk behaviour isn’t deterred by punitive threats, but by power and will. You have to give them a reason to believe in the need to be safe, and quite frankly, from the research I’ve read from the VIDUS and Omega cohorts in Vancouver and Montreal, the Ontario Men’s Survey, and the cohorts in San Francisco and New York who’s names I can’t remember (plus a whole bunch of other studies from all over the world), gay men engage in risk behaviours because they genuinely aren’t worried about getting sick. Many of them feel that even if they do contract HIV, they will still be fine because of HAART. Further, many cite safe-sex fatigue as a reason, meaning that they are simply tired of having to be careful (which is a pretty dumb excuse, frankly). And probably the most significant reason is many younger gay men (who were either quite young in the eighties or not even born when AIDS first arose) simply have not had the experience of seeing their friends and lovers die of AIDS. They just don’t see it as something to worry about.

Now, I am on the side of everyone here in saying that knowingly having unprotected sex while positive is reprehensible and should face penalties (in fact, I’m aware of court cases where men have been tried for just that). However, even if this were a good idea fiscally, I don’t think it would work preventatively because of some of the reasons listed (denying contact, claiming it was someone else that infected them, etc). HIV can be traced by strain, but the vast majority of HIV case in North America are HIV-1 subtype B, so unless they show a new strain or some sort of mutation it might be tough to pinpoint who exactly passed the disease to whom. The best way to do it is examine social networks and look for patterns. Further, the men who engage in barebacking consistently show a lack of concern for the risks, and I just don’t think this would change their outlook, since there’s only so much money you can take from them.

Prevention only really works when you get people to buy into your message. That takes something significant, like a charismatic leader, or, sadly, a series of negative events, like the death of a large number of HIV-positive people, before others will start to listen.

Incidently, two more points: the story of Gaetan Dugas is no where near definite, and is one possible scenario explaining the spread of HIV (though probably only a very small part of it is true). And also, for partner notification, the main reason generally used for not informing partners stems from the social stigma traditionally attached to HIV and AIDS, wherein letting anyone know you have it leads to discrimination and so on. So the fear was always that if one knows that people will find out that one is positive (once discovered by testing), one will be less likely to come forward for testing in the first place, and since HIV can remain so quiet and unnoticed in the body for a long time, it behooves public health officials to do what they can to get people tested. I disagree, because I believe the rights of the potential victim (for lack of a better word) outweigh the rights of the tester, so long as there is a definitive guarantee of privacy otherwise (officials can inform partners, but no one else).

[smiling bandit]

I'm wierded out by the fact that this thread went all the way down to Manhattan's post before someone nboted the ridiculouslness of this scheme, financially speaking. It has a certain "savage" (*groan*) justice to it, but I noted the implausability of the effort right off.

[John Mace]

And partner notification is so much of a no-brainer I'm surprised there's any debate. What does non-notification lead to other than more infections?

Is it? Why limit partner notification to AIDS? What if you have a known family history of a genetic defect and your female partner gets pregnent?

Besides, as Princhester pointed out, is there a way to KNOW who infected a person?

As much as I go for the presonal responsibility line, too, I just don't see that this is workable. And there is the matter of the "victim" here being personally responsible for his/her conduct as well. Safe sex, guys. Safe sex.

[Jonathan Chance]

Not at all, John. There's been notification for other STDs in various jurisdictions for decades. It's not like it would be breaking new ground here.

[John Mace]

Not at all, John. There's been notification for other STDs in various jurisdictions for decades. It's not like it would be breaking new ground here.

Notification, perhaps, but PAYMENT for treatment? That seems like some new ground, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jonathan Chance]

It is to me, though I suppose there's potential for civil liability.

But what you quoted me on was about notification. That's what I think is a no-brainer. More info is always better.

[scule]

Well, as I said above it might be possible to know who gave it to whom if two individuals show the same strain that is different than the norm (HIV-1 subtype B) and/or the same mutation(s). But that still has to be backed up with verification from the infected individual who is suspected of being the giver.

As for partner notification, as I said the biggest problem with HIV/AIDS is the social stigma. There has been difficulty in the past getting people to come forward because of this, so anonymous testing has been put in place to encourage people to get tested. If there’s a chance that someone else can find out that someone has it, then there’s a chance that that someone else can tell others and then the person is ostracised (that’s the fear, anyway). There’s debate on whether this is fair or not, but it’s the reason currently. It’s not the same as STIs because they are less stigmatized and generally not a death sentence.

[Little Nemo]

Just out of curiousity, do you also favor tobacco companies being required to pay the medical bills for any smokers who develop lung cancer? Or does a "personal responsibility conservative" draw the line when it's a corporation rather than an individual?

[Bricker]

Just out of curiousity, do you also favor tobacco companies being required to pay the medical bills for any smokers who develop lung cancer? Or does a "personal responsibility conservative" draw the line when it's a corporation rather than an individual?

No, because the tobacco company disclosed to its clients precisely what the risks were.

If an HIV+ man discloses his status and his partner chooses to go ahead, then I don't see any liability. But if the HIV+ man keeps his dangerous condition secret, then he's putting his partner at risk without the partner's consent. This is distinguished from the tobacco company, which is disclosing the danger ahead of time.

[John Mace]

No, because the tobacco company disclosed to its clients precisely what the risks were.

Not entierly true. There are still plenty of people alive today who started smoking long before the notices were placed on cigarettes.

[Bricker]

Not entierly true. There are still plenty of people alive today who started smoking long before the notices were placed on cigarettes.

They've had plenty of time to quit.

[Fear Itself]

They've had plenty of time to quit.Some forms of smoking-related cancer have extraordinarily long latency times. Someone who quit smoking more than 30 years ago can still develop smoking related cancer (http://dceg.cancer.gov/newsletter/News0401.html):Cigarette smoking was identified as another causal factor of esophageal adenocarcinoma, although the risk was less pronounced than that observed for squamous cell cancer of the esophagus. The risk for developing lung cancer or squamous tumors of the esophagus drops soon after smoking cessation, but the risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma remains high for at least 30 years among ex-smokers. "These findings suggest a long latency period for this tumor, with smoking having an early-stage effect," Dr. Fraumeni said. "If that is the case, the upward trend in incidence may partly reflect the smoking habits of 30 years ago."

[brickbacon]

This is a terrible idea for many of the reasons people have mentioned. But, it is also unworkable for the same reasons a pyramid scheme is. In fact, it is an inverted pramid scheme. Say one guy infects two people who each infect two more people. Say this continues for 4 "generations".

F1: One person infected
F2: Three people infected (F1+Two new cases in F2)
F3: Seven people infected (F1+F2+4 new cases)
F4: 15 people infected (F1+F2+F3+ * new cases)

Since the first guy is responsible for all the the new infections, is he supposed to pay for the treatment of 14 people? He would have to have deep pockets. Even if you only limit it to the person who directly infected you, the system would still be unworkable. For a situation in which an infected person (A) only infects one other person (B), person A would be paying for B, and somebody else would be paying for person A. Thus, there would be no economic impact on person A. Not to mention the fact that most people would not want the person responsible for making them sick, also responsible for their heathcare.

Also, what happens when some guy who infects 20 people dies? Do the people have to pay for their own drugs? I'm sure most people who have a HIV would rather spend their time enjoying life and trying to keep their spirits up rather than chasing the person who infected them for money, and being constanly reminded of the mistake they made. This is a terrible idea for so many reasons, but I'm sure you guys get the message.

[Martin Hyde]

Well if you have a dangerous septic ditch in your property and a young child falls into it and dies you will most likely be held legally responsible. And have to pay a good amount of money (I think I read once the average cost for a wrongful death suit is like $250,000) as compensation.

You were basically found "liable" because you created a dangerous situation, and you had a greater responsibility to stop people from injuring themselves other than just assuming no one would stray onto your property.

So I certainly don't see why if someone spreads AIDS by not telling their partners they are infected the person spreading it should at the very least be heald liable in a civil court.

Of course there are lot of people who are "judgment proof" because no amount of litigating is going to create any assets for these people to auction off and give to a plaintiff. But I'm sure there are many people who spread the disease who have assets and wages to be garnished.

[Agent Cooper]

But if the HIV+ man keeps his dangerous condition secret, then he's putting his partner at risk without the partner's consent. This is distinguished from the tobacco company, which is disclosing the danger ahead of time.


By consenting to unprotected sex, they are consenting to a serious amount of risk. I have a rather dead sex life myself, but I have never understood how people go about unprotected sex without the same type of fear as riding a roller coaster with no safety restraint would cause.

So you asked your partner if they have a (fatal) STD, they said no, so on with the good times?! WTF people. Even if I trusted anyone that much, I would not be able to have complete faith that they were *aware* of their possible infection.

While the suggestion has some merit on the "yeah! that would show em!" scale... practically, it could not ever work. In the few cases where you could prove that person A knowingly passed HIV to person B ... charge them with attempted murder and/or manslaughter. Raise it to murder if the victim dies from it while the perpetrator is in jail for one of the above.

And I always thought the gay community didn't like talking about HIV/AIDS as a "gay politics issue". Is the difference in number of gay vs straight people infected really that steep? That tone was why I assumed it was Michael Savage right off the bat...

As for tobacco, anyone who says they didn't know inhaling smoke of any kind is unhealthy is full of shit (ie ... involved in a lawsuit somewhere) or braindead.

[Fear Itself]

By consenting to unprotected sex, they are consenting to a serious amount of risk. I have a rather dead sex life myself, but I have never understood how people go about unprotected sex without the same type of fear as riding a roller coaster with no safety restraint would cause. Another valid analogy would be paternity awards where the father claims the mother told him she was using birth control. Even if she was lying, he is responsible for the child, and if she was using BC, it is not fool-proof, and he is still responsible for child support. Anyone engaging in sex of any kind, gay or straight, protected or not, runs a risk of infection. Consensual sexual relations between implies acceptance of that risk by both partners.

[Fear Itself]

between adults :smack:

[manhattan]

Of course there are lot of people who are "judgment proof" because no amount of litigating is going to create any assets for these people to auction off and give to a plaintiff. But I'm sure there are many people who spread the disease who have assets and wages to be garnished.Yeah. I'm all for clearing up any ambiguities in state laws as to whether it's an actionable tort to make it easier for injured parties to sue successfully, but setting up a whole system like the child support collections system still seems like a poor use of resources.

[Bricker]

Some forms of smoking-related cancer have extraordinarily long latency times. Someone who quit smoking more than 30 years ago can still develop smoking related cancer (http://dceg.cancer.gov/newsletter/News0401.html):

Under such circumstances, I absolutely support liability on the part of the tobacco companies.

[flight]

DanBlather, they're talking about Dan Savage, the openly gay sex columnist, not Michael Savage, the openly stupid yellow journalist.
Thank you. I was not familiar with Michael Savage and was having a mental meltdown at the characterization of Dan Savage.

[mhendo]

If an HIV+ man discloses his status and his partner chooses to go ahead, then I don't see any liability. But if the HIV+ man keeps his dangerous condition secret, then he's putting his partner at risk without the partner's consent. This is distinguished from the tobacco company, which is disclosing the danger ahead of time.But why does personal responsibility apparently only work for one partner?

Surely the argument can be made that, in this day and age, everyone should know that having unprotected sex before both partners have been tested dramatically increases the risk of contracting HIV and any number of other diseases?

When i was playing the singles game, i generally used protection. But when i didn't, i knew that any and every unprotected encounter was a risk, and if i had contracted some disease as a result then i like to think that the first person i would have blamed would be me.

Myriad studies show that taking the proper protective measures can reduce to risk of contracting HIV during sex to neglgible levels. Given that this is the case, why try to implement a system that places the burden of blame almost entirely on the infecting partner? As some people have already pointed out, finding out exactly who that person is might be extremely difficult. Furthermore, even if you could identify that person with 100% accuracy, you could not prove the level of negligence or intent that this whole system is trying to forestall. After all, the infecting person may not even know that he or she is infected.

[Abbie Carmichael]

Given that this is the case, why try to implement a system that places the burden of blame almost entirely on the infecting partner?

It doesn't. Savage suggested that the infecting partner pay 50% of the drug costs, and said that the other person bears half of the blame, too.

[Leviosaurus]

Savage models this after child support: screw around and make babies all you want, but know the quality of your life will suffer if you have eighteen years of child support payments to make for every baby you sire.

Has this resulted in straight people making less babies? I speculate it has not, and is therefore ineffective.

[mhendo]

It doesn't. Savage suggested that the infecting partner pay 50% of the drug costs, and said that the other person bears half of the blame, too.But my point was not specifically about the issue of payment; rather it was addressed more directly to Bricker's point about disclosing the danger ahead of time. Basically, i believe that everyone should be aware of the danger of having unprotected sex, no matter how much or how little they know about the HIV status of any particular partner.

I sort of see Savage's point, and i tend to agree with Freejooky that Savage is a voice of reason on most such issues. It just seems to me that there are too many holes (heh heh) in this idea for it to be workable, and that its implications for other areas of disease transmission are somewhat troubling.

In areas of consensual sex, i think that everyone needs to take 100% responsibilty for their own decisions. You shouldn't make your decisions about protection based on a guess about the possible infection status of your partner.

[laigle]

I'm all for it, provided it is demonstrated that the infector knew he was infected, did not inform the infectee, and did not take precautions to prevent transmission. I'm also for criminal penalties under those conditions, up to and including manslaughter charges.

The issue is determining whether someone knew they were sick and whether their partner knew this. I think the notion that HIV is being spread by nefarious nogoodniks on unsuspecting innocents is silly. HIV is spreading among sexually promiscuous individuals just like any other STD. And just like any other STD, people usually find out they have it after symptoms show and they've already infected others.

[kevja]

The idea is never going to work.

I'm a 50 year old gay man, and I have been out and active since the mid 70s. I'm glad I'm still alive. The safe sex thing really does work.

But each partner must take responsibility for their own actions. If HIV positive men are at a sex club and the choose to have unsafe sex, it's going to be a little hard to determine who gave what to whom. Things can get a little wild and mixed up.

If two men meet at a bar, or over the Internet and are having sex for the first time together the bottom should insist the top wear a condom. If either one of them does not practice safe sex, for any reason, both are equally responsible for the outcome.

If two men are about to enter into a relationship, both should be tested, and show each other the results. Sounds cold, but I don't care what kind of law they put into effect (pay half, the liar goes to jail, etc.). I'll take my life over some guys lie. No matter what price he has to pay for that lie.

When AIDS first hit back in the early 80s, we used to say, "act as if." Meaning figure everyone has it, so always play safe. Not eveyone wants to think that way, then or now. But a law like Savage suggests is not the answer.

And as far as Dan Savage being some kind of "tell it like it is gay man" -- forget it. He writes an entertaining sex advice culumn, that is probably more popular with heteros than gays because (again, imho) he really not all that happy being gay. Not that all gay men are. He just gets to present his "I want to be just like a hetero" each week in his column.

[Bricker]

But why does personal responsibility apparently only work for one partner?


Because the two partners are not in equal positions. One KNOWS he's HIV+ - the other knows, at best, that he's taking a risk. It's like a poker hand - everyone knows you take a risk of losing, but only one player KNOWS what the hidden cards are.

[Good Egg]

No, because the tobacco company disclosed to its clients precisely what the risks were.

If an HIV+ man discloses his status and his partner chooses to go ahead, then I don't see any liability. .


I disagree. The person who would agree to this is not exactly in their right mind. Its like having your mate say he will take this gun with one empty chamber and put it to his head. You say, Go ahead. That would be liable, as no person should ever want to try that.

That said, I heard something back when it first came to public light, that it would totally solve AIDS by simply quarrantining the patients. It sounded so bigoted, but when you give it deep thought, it would solve it totally.

[Gorsnak]

Are most transmissions of HIV cases where the infecting party is cognizant of his/her HIV+ status in the first place? I mean seriously, is that really a significant portion of the spread of AIDS? I just always thought that the primary mode of transmission was one in which the disease outraces diagnosis, i.e., where the person doing the infecting doesn't yet realize that he or she is infected. I would agree that having unprotected sex with someone while knowing you're HIV+ without divulging the risk to your partner is extremely reprehensible and I have no issues with pinning liability on them, but how many people are actually doing this? And in the case where the infector is ignorant of his/her status, where exactly is the liability coming from? Screwing around without condoms without knowing for certain that you and your partner are free of any and all STDs is foolish, sure, but I would have thought that having contracted HIV was already sufficient karmic justice for that foolishness without pinning on a monetary penalty.

[JillGat]

Most people will not avoid risky sex just because of the potential of having to possibly pay for medical treatment down the road. That's not how health behaviour - and most especially sexual behaviour - works.

In most parts of the US, there is confidential partner notification for HIV exposure available and offered to those testing positive at public health sites, btw.

I think the outrage about people continuing to fuel this epidemic is understandable. But the causes and solutions are much more complicated than holding people financially liable. That being said, I'm not optimistic about new HIV infection rates going down anytime soon without a vaccine. I'm also not optimistic about Americans deciding to exercise more and to swear off fast food.

[mhendo]

Because the two partners are not in equal positions. One KNOWS he's HIV+ - the other knows, at best, that he's taking a risk. It's like a poker hand - everyone knows you take a risk of losing, but only one player KNOWS what the hidden cards are.Interesting analogy.

If you go all-in with KK and get beaten by 2-7os, do you expect the winner to give you half the pot because you could not have reasonably predicted that you would lose the hand?

[DMark]

If you (unintentionally) become HIV positive, you obviously were not having safe sex or do not have the gene that protects you from getting HIV. I have that gene as there is no way in hell I could be alive today if I didn't have it. I was a VERY active Gay man, in NYC, in the 70's and continued in Europe in the 80's. At one point, my rolodex was nothing more than an obituary file.

For the most part, the vast majority of HIV cases are passed between unknowing partners.

I might as well sue for getting the flu from my co-worker.

However, even Gay men like me have both a brain and a dick. If you don't know how to use both safely, now that HIV information is freely available, well...don't put me on your jury when you want to sue someone for your own stupidity and/or carelessness.

[Good Egg]

Is there really a gene like that?

[laigle]

I disagree. The person who would agree to this is not exactly in their right mind. Its like having your mate say he will take this gun with one empty chamber and put it to his head. You say, Go ahead. That would be liable, as no person should ever want to try that.

Being stupid and being insane are two very different things. You're responsible for the stupid decisions you make, but the ones that result from insanity are generally deemed out of your hands.

[Marley23]

Are most transmissions of HIV cases where the infecting party is cognizant of his/her HIV+ status in the first place? I mean seriously, is that really a significant portion of the spread of AIDS?
I have no expertise here, but I think a lot more cases are transmitted out of thoughtlessness or wilful ignorance (where people don't get tested because they're afraid) than this way. Not sure if there's any cite that would be of use one way or another.

While I understand the appeal of this idea, it's just not practical for the reasons already mentioned.

[Bricker]

Interesting analogy.

If you go all-in with KK and get beaten by 2-7os, do you expect the winner to give you half the pot because you could not have reasonably predicted that you would lose the hand?

No, because I know the odds, athough favorable, don't guarantee a win for me with a KK. I can reasonably predict I'd lose the pot, even with an AA.

But the analogy here is going all-in against someone who KNOWS what I have in my hand, while I'm left to guess about what he has in his. That's the inequity.

[Guinastasia]

Question-if someone is deliberately trying to infect others with AIDS-say a guy is deliberately having sex with as many women as he can, without protection, on purpose-can he be charged with anything?

[kung fu lola]

Guin, I'm pretty sure that has happened.
Cite 1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3191312.stm) (UK)
Cite 2 (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7421/950-b) (UK)

I think there was a Canadian case, as well, but I am still looking for cites.

[Guinastasia]

Ah, thanks Lola.

[kung fu lola]

D'oh! Pressed submit too soon! :smack:
I forgot to qualify my cites with; "These are cases where men were convicted for passing on the virus to their SOs, not necessarily for having sex with as many women as possible in an attempt to infect them. I am pretty sure, though, that the Canadian case I am looking for is actually an example of what you described. If you look at what Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/aidsmary.htm) has to say, they don't discount the possibility of people infecting others for revenge, but they also say that it has never been identified as motive in any cases to date."

[furlibusea]

I kind of have to wonder how the hell this could ever be enforced? In sort of a random survey of my friends who's exes have been court ordered to pay health insurance for their children about 1/2 of them actually do. In a couple of instances with kind of disasterous results. In that survey (15 women), only 5 were fully up to date on child support, and a couple of them have never seen any of the court ordered child support.

Now, with children you can find out who the father is. This is mostly not the case with AIDs. These were relationships that were long lasting. Most of the riskiest behavior as it relates to AIDs involve short time relationships. I just can't see it being possible to do. I also don't see that gay men would be any more, or less responsible than the general population.

I do think Dan Savage is like alot of men I know who lived through the time of AIDs in the 80s and early 90s. Many of them are very angry at the young gays for the risks they are taking. We watched the deaths, and buried beautiful talented men. The idea of going back to that pain is inconceivable for me, and has to be worse for those who were closer. Even today when I run into people from college or my early days in theatre, there are names I don't ask about for fear of learning of another death.

The young men, weren't there and like young people from every generation, can't perceive their own mortality. They are so wrong. I can't fathom that putting fiscal concerns in there is going to change their ideas, when they don't even recognise they can die.

[Blalron]

It's a start, but I don't think it goes far enough. Anyone who knowingly puts others at risk of infection without informing them should be held criminally responsible. It should at least regarded as assault, if not attempted murder.

[DMark]

Is there really a gene like that?

Yes. There have been a few studies of late, and one I read about was done when a few men in NYC insisted their genes be tested as they could not believe they had not contacted HIV considering their past sexual history. The studies on them showed they did indeed have a gene that might have made them immune to HIV infection. I can't find that report, but found this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4152559.stm