So - if he won’t confess himself, then he isn’t truly repenting - so the priest isn’t bound by the seal? I hope so.
Yes she did ask him. He provided her with faked test results that were negative. She found the real results later in his personal papers when she was pregnant.
She was pregnant?
Oh FUCK! He even LIED to her!
What a total fucking waste of skin!
Fuck him!
I don’t think board rules permit me to type what I really think about this man and wish upon him.
Can you give us a link to the story that contains this?
I’m curious to read a full account.
Istara.
I’m not sure what the actual law is here but STD reporting doesn’t seem to happen in actual practice. I do know that the women married to Saudi men start stocking up on Amoxcil and the like every time hubby goes to Morocco on a “business trip.”
All the best
Testy
Before I had sex with my wife for the first time (mind you, she wasn’t my wife at the time), we discussed STDs, tests, etc. I assume she was monogomous while we were dating and engaged and therefore felt no reason to discuss if further.
In the UK in a case like this the man would be tried for GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm) not murder or attempted murder as there is one year and one day limitation for death after the act for a murder charge to be brought.
Murder general implies intent to kill. I don’t think this guy neglected to tell his wife because he wanted to kill her. Like others said, it’s possible it was all a case of denial for him. A lot of people who contract various diseases (whether they be STDs, cancer, or the like) go threw a period of denial…some take longer to get over it, and if this guy didn’t feel any effects of the HIV, then it makes it even easier for him to deny it and convince himself he won’t/can’t pass it on to his wife. I really wouldn’t call this guy a murderer.
And as has been pointed out…HIV is not AIDS. Sure, it leads to AIDS, but it can take several years in some cases, and as with AIDS, can be controlled threw modern medication. I have a friend who takes the coctail, and he’s been doing great for the past few years. His fiance knows, and the two of them are still living together happily, planning on getting married, and from what they tell me, have a great sex life. He is VERY much alive, and he lives with this disease.
I wonder if there are any dopers out there who can give a personal account of their own which would be more effective than my third person account from the outside. But as many people with HIV who have come ot accept it will tell you, being HIV+ is NOT a death sentance.
Still, what this man did is dispicable and absolutely horrible. I find it funny that, at least here in the states (or maybe just specific states), women HAVE to get a blood test before getting married, yet men don’t. Anyone know what the rules are for those in terms of making said information public? If a woman takes a blood test in order to get married, discovers she’s HIV+, does she HAVE to tell her husband, or does the whole “doctor/patient” rule come into effect here as well?
Overall, incredibly sad case…I’m curious to see how it turns out for the couple.
I think it varies state-by-state. My friend got married in Maryland - no blood tests. My sister got married in D.C. - blood test for her, not for my brother-in-law. I got married in Massachusetts - blood test for both of us (wife was for HIV and syphalis, just syphalis for me). We didn’t have to share our results but if any were positive, by law, we would have to get treatment (duh!) for the syphalis and counseling if wife were HIV+
And I bet Nevada doesn’t have a blood test requirement. Heck, you get go from engaged to honeymoon in less time that it would take to draw some blood - much less test it.
Why would only women have to take the test?
Don’t you guys have constitutional things against that sort of discrimination? Given how late HIV was discovered, compared to most of the (probably changed now) laws that discriminated against women, how on EARTH could anyone justify passing something that only tested the woman?
I think it’s because women can pass syphillis or HIV on to their unborn child. Not positive about that though.
I mean, I AM positive they can pass it on - I’m just not positive that that is the reason.
Indiana actually only tests for immunity to rubella (German Measles) in its pre-marital bloodwork, 'cause it can really mess a kid up if you get it when you’re pregnant.
Not that the other diseases mentioned can’t, but that’s Indiana!!
I have no knowledge of why Massachusetts only requires the HIV test for women. I just wanted to get married and not make waves.
It’s just bizarre though. Because if the man had HIV, and the couple then attempted to get pregnant, she would be at considerable risk of contracting it.
Don’t they understand that married couples have sex WITH EACH OTHER?!!
Yes, but presumably adults can discuss the status of their health with each other, or choose not to discuss it at all, and make an informed decision about whether they are willing to accept whatever risks might be attached. Unborn babies don’t have that option.
From the New York Penal Law, Section 125.25:
I do not know if the New York courts would hold that these facts could give rise to a factual finding of “depraved indifference.” But it looks pretty damn possible to me, speaking as (in essence) a criminal law layperson.
Here is a story that confirms what I wrote but doesn’t add much else.
Here’s a little more info - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s876432.htm
And here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,12070,974918,00.html
It turns out that the women insisted on the tests, because her fiance was from Ghana, which has high rates of HIV.