20/20

[confidentIwillbeOK]

Anyone else watching 20/20 tonight about Phillipe Padieu who knowingly exposed multiple women to HIV? 12 or more Texan women were infected.  He was convicted this year and sentenced to 45 years in jail.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/hiv-criminal-busted-women-lied/story?id=8579258

This has been kind of tough to watch.....

"Doctor's say in all likelihood these women will one day die of AIDS...when depends on their immune systems".  This quote was near the end of the show.  Do you think this is fear mongering and/or shitty journalism?

[Snowangel]

Yup, I caught it.

I agree with the criminalization. I was glad to see that 23 states have laws for it now.  I totally understand the "it takes two to tango" argument but like the lady said, it only takes one to pull the trigger, especially when there is manipulation involved.

Snow

[emeraldize]

I wish I could have watched it. Got home and my sister did see it and left a v-mail to say she thought I would be very interested. Hopeful I can see it some other way.

[confidentIwillbeOK]

ABC streams 20/20 online:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020

...you will probably have to wait until at least tomorrow to watch it.

[Jeffreyj]

Yeah I saw it. The guy is an ass. I think he got what he deserved.

[skeebo1969]

   This is really something else...  So this man was dating possibly at the least 9 women at the same time?  I mean like wtf?!?!  Not trying to place blame on them for not being suspicious, but hell I know he had to have some unexplained disappearances during these relationships.  Anyways that's besides the point I know....

    They say in the article that they needed to prove he knew he was positive when these women chose to have sex with him without a condom, they never mentioned though if they proved he already knew.  I would think it would be easy though if he did know because he would have been registered with the health department when he was diagnosed.

   I agree with those who will say that these women should have used protection, but if you are dating someone for 4 1/2 years and you think he's committed to you chances are there will be an occasion foregoing protection.  We've all done it and we don't like being condemned for it, so neither should these women.  While they have to face the fact that they are responsible for their infection he should also be jailed for putting others at risk if he knew he was already infected.

   The only reason I hate the guy is because he's got a great physique and my body looks like crap!

[confidentIwillbeOK]

Yes....they proved he knew.  He was told in 2005.  One of the ladies he was dating picked him up at the doctor's office right after he found out.  He claimed he thought the test was a false positive. 

[GNYC09]

I also saw this show although I missed the end part where he blamed one of the women for giving him the virus.  I agree that he got what he deserved.  It goes way beyond the fact that he knew he was positive.  He actively coerced women into having unprotected sex and tried to prevent them from get tested for any STDs.  A number of them ended up with 30 T-cells before they found out.  He looked terrible in the end - I wonder if it was just the stress from being in jail or maybe he was not on meds?   

[Dale Parker]

I missed the show last night but followed confidentIwillbeOK's link and caught the show this morning.  I gotta say watching it has made me very confused.  My initial reaction is that he didn't get the sentence that he deserved. Knowing he was HIV+ and having unprotected sex he should be put in jail and they should start chopping body parts off of him until he dies very slowly and as painfully as possible.
  I know that in Canada there is a lot of controversy about charging HIV+ people with aggravated assault, attempted murder and even murder.  We have had at least two people charged and found guilty. Initially it makes sense.  Why wouldn't it? What's the difference between someone who knows (or even thinks) they have HIV and has unprotected sex and someone who puts anthrax in a letter and mails it to a person. There is no difference. I know some are going to say that it takes two to tango and it's up to every individual protect them selves. The fact remains that people are human. Part of being human means that sometimes our hearts (as well as other body parts) override the brain and we all do things we know we shouldn't be doing.
    This case does raise a lot of other questions when you sit down and start to think about it.  
1) Could a person who never smoked and gets cancer charge the parents (guardians) who smoked in their childhood home with murder?
2) Could an obese child who's parents fed them a fat filled diet do the same?
The possibilities are endless.
    The scary thing with these cases is, what is it going to mean for the number people getting tested for HIV. The groups for the "other side" argue that if you start charging HIV+ people with murder that people who are in high risk categories, those displaying some signs of HIV or those who get tested regularly will stop get tested. They think that the fear of testing positive and the  fear of possibly being charged with murder will prevent people from getting tested. They are sure that the numbers of HIV+ cases will rise dramatically.
  Right now I think that more than 50% of gay males get tested for HIV regularly just because they are at risk and not because they are displaying symptoms. A lot of guys find out they are positive early on from regular testing rather than displaying symptoms. Yes there are a lot of us (myself included) who don't get tested until we start display symptoms.
   We all know that once a door in law is opened that it usually gets taken to the extreme.  What's to prevent some over zealous D.A. to ask a newly positive tested person "OK you tested positive. Are you in a high risk category? Did you have any signs of HIV infection?  Rashes, night sweats, diareaha? Did you have unprotected sex with anyone? "  If you answered yes to any one of these you could be charged with aggravated assault, atempted murder or murder.
   Truthfully I'm sitting on the fence with this case. Yes I do want this bastard to go to jail for a long time but on the other hand are people going to stop getting tested because they are afraid of going to jail?  The saying "Damned if you do and damned if you don't comes to mind".

[mecch]

"Doctor's say in all likelihood these women will one day die of AIDS...when depends on their immune systems".  This quote was near the end of the show.  Do you think this is fear mongering and/or shitty journalism?

HIV infection is due for an overall in defining what it means to the general public.  I think this statement by journalists on national television is fear mongering.  These kinds of shows assume a "lowest common denomitator" of viewer intelligence. 

I think it would be extremely challenging to the viewers and the journalist to discuss a different prognosis in a story that is about the criminalisation of HIV transmission.....   See what I mean - its a bit of a contradiction. 

Sooner or later the general public will have to be educated that if they get HIV its not going to kill them, if they have access to medical treatment.   

All these issues may be too mindblowing in the current American public arena. 

I have been told by government health experts in Europe that they don't know what message to really give to the public anymore.  NOBODY wants transmission to be taken lightly, nobody wants hiv transmission to be taken lightly.  Fear is one of the pricipal arguments in Safe Sex Education.   How to reconcile that with what happens when you go to an ID now in seroconversion and he/she tell the HIV+ - normal life, normal lifespan, just change certain things... etc.  This will take time.

I dont know why I had such a major anxious reaction to HIV, other than my long history of living through the 80's and 90's.  I can understand why my fear levels were extremely high but also I wonder why they weren't mitigated with all the expert opinion that has been around a few years that HIV is a chronic manageable disease.  The last trip to my ID, he said living with diabetes would be a lot more cumbersome. Imagine that....

Then of course I went home and got the bills for another round of doctors, labs, and treatment. STICKER SHOCK.   

Maybe that should be part of the new Safe Sex Campaigns in certain countries without universal health care.  I know it was very central to my fear of HIV in the 80's and 90's.  F*cked if you got HIV, super duper f*cked if you had no good health insurance.

[dingowarrior]

I saw this last night and that comment at the end really upset me and my wife. This stigma in America in this day and age is SOOOO screwed up.
Not to mention, what that female prosecuter told the jury that these woman will "one day die of AIDS". This kind of mis-informed ,uneducated guess on HIV in this day and age in this country is what keeps people like myself and many others who would like to help educate and be living proof that you can still carry on a normal life,be married and also have children stay "in the closet" about our HIV status. I unfortunately cant because I dont want to subject my wife and children to the idiots who choose not to even educated themselves on this issue
I have a good mind however to write 20/20 a letter and point out those misguided statements they made last night in their report. It was sad and distubing to watch. And quite frankly a damn shame.

dingowarrior

[confidentIwillbeOK]

I have a good mind however to write 20/20 a letter and point out those misguided statements they made last night in their report. It was sad and disturbing to watch. And quite frankly a damn shame.
dingowarrior

You should!  Here is a handy dandy link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=20/20

...I asked for you guys' opinion before I sent in a comment because I wanted to make sure I was rightfully upset by that statement.  If a bunch of people send in a message maybe 20/20 will clarify their remark in a future episode.  The comment I left was very civil and polite and simply pointed out that with effective treatment HIV is not necessarily a precursor to an AIDS death and nowadays more + people die of other causes than HIV. 

[mecch]

Ok I sent a letter too.

[dingowarrior]

You should!  Here is a handy dandy link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=20/20

...I asked for you guys' opinion before I sent in a comment because I wanted to make sure I was rightfully upset by that statement.  If a bunch of people send in a message maybe 20/20 will clarify their remark in a future episode.  The comment I left was very civil and polite and simply pointed out that with effective treatment HIV is not necessarily a precursor to an AIDS death and nowadays more + people die of other causes than HIV. 

thanks for the link..I will certainly write them.

[Cliff]

This does bring up a question, is it likely that we will all die from AIDS, eventually.  Not all of us, cause people still die from other causes (car accidents, suicide, lung cancer, etc..).  But despite HAART being available, will HIV/AIDS eventually catch up with me (either directly through multiple resistance failures or indirectly via an early death from the meds, as in heart disease).

For some reason I can't picture myself living to 80 taking HAART.  Maybe because it's all too new.

The case seems like a slam dunk issue to me. 

[GNYC09]

What I also thought was crazy was the fact that six (or all?) of the women refused to be interviewed on TV unless 20/20 gave them wigs.  First off, do you think their neighbors won't recognize them just because they have some terrible wig on?  Secondly, it was interesting to see they were still so ashamed of their diagnosis that even after a high-profile court case they didn't want to show who they are.  Says a lot about the stigma they felt.

I also remember one woman saying she didn't think she could possibly get it because she wasn't a IV drug user or prostitute.  I understand where this is coming from but, as we know, anybody can get infected.  I'm not criticizing these women, I just found them to be an interesting reflection of what/how many people think/feel about this disease.

[mecch]

This does bring up a question, is it likely that we will all die from AIDS, eventually.  Not all of us, cause people still die from other causes (car accidents, suicide, lung cancer, etc..).  But despite HAART being available, will HIV/AIDS eventually catch up with me (either directly through multiple resistance failures or indirectly via an early death from the meds, as in heart disease).

For some reason I can't picture myself living to 80 taking HAART.  Maybe because it's all too new.

The case seems like a slam dunk issue to me. 

Ms Swiss HIV ID says I will not die from HIV. Let alone AIDS.  Does that have to do with when I got it and when I was treated and my general good sporty health? I don't know.  I doubt it. 

[BlueMoon]

I think the guy got what he deserved.  What bothers me though is the specific charge, assault with a deadly weapon.  Also the assertion that the victims will die of AIDS.  Prosecutors are care only about obtaining convictions (and advancing their careers), rather than the truth.

[skeebo1969]

What I also thought was crazy was the fact that six (or all?) of the women refused to be interviewed on TV unless 20/20 gave them wigs.  First off, do you think their neighbors won't recognize them just because they have some terrible wig on?  Secondly, it was interesting to see they were still so ashamed of their diagnosis that even after a high-profile court case they didn't want to show who they are.  Says a lot about the stigma they felt.

Wow didn't know about that, so essentially they're just adding to the stigma...hmmmm.  Crazy how us possy folks can be frowned upon because we caught something doing what just about every adult has partaken in....  I guess all std infected people are though when you think about it, it's not like we roll around in shit and mud all day.... 

[GNYC09]

What bothers me though is the specific charge, assault with a deadly weapon.

"Assault with a deadly weapon" just means either the intent to kill was there or that the women were attacked with something that could have been deadly.  This was clearly the case.