Not quite a “Final Solution;” you left out a couple of things, like the barbed wire and the ovens.
Why not? Or is “informed consent” just a meaningless phrase used to disenfranchise people?
When this comes up what really needs to be addressed is, the spreading of disease and one’s responsibility in that matter.
This is why it’s a hot issue, not because of HIV or AIDS or politics or anything, it’s because how THIS particular issue can be applied to elsewhere.
Think about it, if one can say “you have HIV and you knew you had it and had sex, and pass it to your party, you can be charged with a crime.”
Now suppose I have the H1N1 (Swine) flu and go into work, maybe I don’t get sick leave and can’t afford to get a day off. The lady sitting next to me at work gets it and dies. Am I responsible? Is my workplace responsible for not giving me sick leave?
THIS is the real purpose behind these kind of debates.
Besides, HIV isn’t always a death sentence now-a-days.
As a gay man I can tell you AIDS is far to politcal in nature. This has really hindered not helped research at least today. I will admit when Ronald Reagan was president there may have been some justitication for it.
I don’t buy the “bug chasers” for one minute. I’ve been around since the first AIDS cases started in the early 80s and I’ve always heard rumours to the effect. But I’ve never run across one. Oh everyone says they “know” someone, but they can’t come up with anyone when push comes to shove.
Or the “bug chaser” is always retroactive. Find me a guy who is HIV negative and is actively seeking out HIV partners with the express purpose of getting infected? Try to find one? I would bet you couldn’t. It’s always after the fact.
Why? Because HIV research would LOVE would absolutely LOVE to be able to conduct a clinical experiement where they could actually infect someone with HIV for the purpose of research. And YES I’ve worked with a research hospital and for very special purposes the government would allow this, under strict controls. There was a trail in 1995 for an HIV vaccine where the government went ahead, got the volunteers but then it got cancelled, 'cause it the control animal group failed. But the government would’ve allowed it.
“Bug Chasers” in reality turn out to be tweakers who are looking to rationalize how they got HIV.
Markxxxx, on the other hand I remember an article by the ADVOCATE where they interviewed a bug chaser, in an article on bug chasing. I remember too a few months ago a gay poster, saying that his ex lover had shacked up with a HIV positive lover and was sponsoring a feed and seed party.
This, to me, is the most informed opinion I’ve seen in this thread, and I have a feeling it is being ignored.
It is not being ignored . . . but it doesn’t address the main problem: people who choose not to be tested.
This thread is not about people who take responsibility for their lives and their actions; it’s about irresponsible people who are either dishonest or in denial.
What if the people in question live in a country where mother-to-child transmission of HIV isn’t happening any more, because of better medical care? Mother-to-child transmission of HIV has been pretty much eliminated in wealthy countries.
There’s also a technique called sperm washing that can be used by HIV-positive men who want to conceive without transmitting HIV to the woman.
HIV-positive people can conceive a child with very little risk of transmitting HIV to the child. With modern treatments for HIV, they can also have a near-normal life expectancy. According to the HIV site at UC San Francisco:
Given that, why shouldn’t HIV-positive people try to have children? Sterilizing them isn’t going to stop them from having sex, or even going to stop them from having sex without using condoms. I’d think it might be counterproductive, in fact. A fertile man runs a risk that a sterilized one doesn’t when he has sex without using a condom- the risk of getting the woman pregnant and having to pay child support.
People who remain willfully ignorant are no less to blame than people who close their eyes before they throw a rock in the general direction of someone else. Their willful ignorance doesn’t excuse their behavior or their clear intent, and shouldn’t allow someone to get off the hook.
Proving the ignorance was willful is, admittedly a point I’m not 100% on how it will be accomplished, but it’s not as though that’s a unique difficulty.
After all, you don’t get out of statutory rape charges if you avoid asking your sex partners their ages beforehand, do you?
So what are you proposing, that every man, woman and child be tested for HIV every 6 months, and the government is kept informed of everyone’s HIV status, who has sex with whom, whose body fluids were exchanged, what protection was used and what lies may have been told?
Back to the real world: A woman discovers that she’s HIV-positive. She has had consensual sex with three men, each of whom claimed to be negative. Each of those men had sex with a random number of other people, all of whom claimed to be negative. Each of those people . . . etc.
So who is guilty here, and of what? There is certainly enough irresponsibility to go around, but if the woman wants to start pointing fingers, she has to begin by admitting her own irresponsibility for not protecting herself. Anyone who is old enough to have consensual sex, is old enough to know that people lie.
Anyone who is old enough to open a bank account, is old enough to know that bankers lie.
Anyone who is old enough to buy a can of organic beans, is old enough to know that food marketers lie.
Anyone who is old enough to marry someone claims to be unmarried/divorced/widowed is old enough to know that people lie.
Anyone who is old enough to do X should not accept any liability from relying on FALSE representations of ANYONE else.
You need to find a better class of people to fuck.
There are unintended consequences. You are often removing a parent and a provider . Who is to take care of the children and families if you remove one of the parents? Women can spread it too. Are you willing to take them away from their care giving positions? People are much more than one senseless act.
Again . . . this thread isn’t about responsible people who get tested and are upfront about their HIV status. It’s about all the others who don’t get tested, or who get tested and lie about their negative status . . . hopefully a minority.
Maybe a good idea might be to test people who are in rehabs and jail for IV drug abuse for HIV.
We need to screen. Then we can identify the minority who is mindlessly spreading disease, and maybe drop the spread of the disease dead in its tracks.
I thought it was just about those who get tested, know their positive status, then continue to have unprotected sex with people while lying about it?
By that logic, criminals should never be punished, since it’s always possible that someone’s parent/provider will choose to break the law.
I can only speak to the American legal system, since I don’t know the standards of evidence for most foreign countries. I think one of the major problems would be proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. You would have to prove that the victim was HIV negative before sexual contact occurred, was now HIV positive, and that they were positive as a result of the sexual contact. You would also have to prove that they did not know the assailant was HIV positive and that they did not consent to having sex if they did know. I imagine you would also need to prove that the assailant knew that he or she had HIV. In all, that is a very complicated piece of prosecution to get a conviction out of, especially when America’s standards of medical privacy are taken into account.
I think, in America at least, criminalization is the wrong tool. Instead we should continue our public education campaigns, particularly towards the poor. We need to destigmatize HIV testing. And for Pete’s sake, people, use condoms.