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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.”
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.
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.
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