The idea is to destigmatize HIV. I don’t want to judge this before I hear both sides but I confess my first impression is unfavorable. I’m quite willing to be convinced otherwise though.
From your link.
IF what I bolded is true, it makes sense. IF.
Opposition
That’s overall. What are the stats on HIV-positive patients?
I don’t live in California. I would like to hear the reasoning behind the change.
My general opinion is that intentionally exposing someone to HIV is assault or fraud but I am not a lawyer either.
My more libertarian side says that you are responsible for who you have sex with. Demand a condom if you don’t know them that well or, better yet, don’t sleep with strangers. They could have a lot more than HIV and why are you sleeping with random people in the first place?
That said, I don’t think there is a lot of utility in locking people with HIV up for years just because they found a new hookup. The responsibility should be equally shared between those that agreed to have sex and there is no benefit to sending the cost and responsibility to the state.
What I don’t buy is the destigmatize HIV argument. It isn’t a death sentence now but it is still a very serious and extremely expensive disease that has to be contained throughout life just because of poor choices. It is one of the easiest diseases not to get as long as you follow some simple guidelines.
Under this law, HIV is treated like any other disease. Currently, the peneties for HIV are much harsher.
Exactly. The current law is more punitive for people with HIV than for syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, HCV. Maybe that made sense when there was no effective treatment for HIV and infections were virtual death sentences. But now that treatments have made most folks on treatment non-infectious and able to expect long life and health, it seems a bit excessive.
The cost of lifelong HIV treatment is considerably higher than treatment for syphilis or gonorrhea.
Agreed… even if they had gotten the expected symptoms and effect on life expectancy down to 0, which they haven’t, we’re still talking about at least tens of thousands of dollars in prescription and treatments costs for the victim, *with health insurance, over their lifetime.
Perhaps the law should have been amended to remove the words “exposed to” HIV (lowering penalties for lack of disclosure by someone being adequately treated for the infection).
The other listed diseases, while unpleasant and potentially leading to serious complications, are (for the most part) not incurable. That cannot be said for HIV.
Lying about HIV status when donating blood should in my opinion remain a felony.
Not unreasonable, IMHO. Not disclosing and passing the infection could be a felony, while not disclosing and not passing the infection, a misdemeanor. Though the latter is fraught with implications about being prosecuted for lying to your date.
Of course, proving who gave who the infection will always be a challenge. Even with modern viral genotyping.
I agree with this. I can understand wanting to have sex even though one is HIV positive, but donating blood? I see no upside for anyone in that situation, apart from cookies afterwards.
People who have sex without disclosing their HIV status should be stigmatized. It’s a bad thing to do.
I can’t find much, and it isn’t very current.
Cite. Something a little more current but not much less depressing -
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
The Ontario government is considering reducing penalties as well.
And that’s why I oppose reducing the penalties. Is wearing a condom so difficult?
Link: Ontario a ‘world leader’ in unjustly prosecuting people living with HIV, advocates say
That’s the explanation that made the most sense to me. I was initiallly quite miffed when I heard about this, thought it was PC BS, but it’s actually sensible given California’s policy on spreading other diseases.
Now whether California’s policy on spreading disease makes sense is another question. Doesn’t this mean that under California law it’s a misdimeanor to unleash a bio weapon? I know the feds would come down on you hard for that, but it just seems odd that intentionally giving someone ANY disease would get a slap on the wrist.
A lot of blood donations are not actually donated; the person giving their blood is compensated for their time. This is particularly true of plasma donations, which can take several hours between the wait time and the 1-2 hours it takes to extract whole blood, separate the plasma out in a centrifuge, and then return the red blood cells to the donor.
Payment isn’t much, around $20-$50 per visit done a maximum of two times a week. Is it sufficient motive to knowingly donate blood when HIV positive? Of course not. But people who do this are often in abject poverty and/or on the streets and may not be in the right frame of mind to begin with. It’s not hard to imagine the occasional donor who doesn’t see the warnings about HIV being transmissible in a blood donation, or is under the mistaken impression that the plasma extraction machine would screen it out.