Notification, perhaps, but PAYMENT for treatment? That seems like some new ground, but correct me if I’m wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
between adults :smack:
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.
Under such circumstances, I absolutely support liability on the part of the tobacco companies.
Thank you. I was not familiar with Michael Savage and was having a mental meltdown at the characterization of Dan Savage.
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.
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.
Has this resulted in straight people making less babies? I speculate it has not, and is therefore ineffective.
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.