But He Looked So Healthy! Australian Man Charged With "Knowingly Spreading HIV"

[Miss Philicia]

Your idea is predicated on assumption that nobody can be trusted - that's just not how things work.

Nobody can be trusted.  That's entirely correct.  Even in a supposed monogamous relationship where one choses to dispense with condoms that's correct, because we all know of monogamous relationships that aren't monogamous.

[mecch]

If an (allegedly) negative person is interested in fucking a person who refuses to use condoms (regardless of what that person claims about their hiv status), then the (allegedly) negative person should REFUSE to fuck them. Then there are no consequences. See how that works?

If the poz person refuses to take no for an answer and rapes the (allegedly) negative person, then the poz person should be tried for rape, with a more severe sentence being handed down if the person is judged guilty of not only rape, but also hiv transmission.

Pretty damn good. You should circulate this to legislators around the world, and the UN AIDS commission.

[Boze]

I see your point. And I agree with it - if everybody always used condoms, none of us would be here.

I think our difference of opinion stems from how we approach the situation. You seem take a more idealised view (what people should do) whereas I consider what people actually do.

I wish things were as you see them but human nature prevents it.

[john33]

aren't we meant to be constantly evolving and learning to be smarter (the human race in general).

No-one is responsible for my health except me. And the same applies to everyone. people acting in this fashion will cut the infection rates drastically. The President of Uganda proved this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p6b&continuous=1

I'm about to start repeating myself so i end here

[GSOgymrat]

If an (allegedly) negative person is interested in fucking a person who refuses to use condoms (regardless of what that person claims about their hiv status), then the (allegedly) negative person should REFUSE to fuck them. Then there are no consequences. See how that works?

If the poz person refuses to take no for an answer and rapes the (allegedly) negative person, then the poz person should be tried for rape, with a more severe sentence being handed down if the person is judged guilty of not only rape, but also hiv transmission.

So, by your logic, the onus lies on the negative person to stay negative and as long as I can talk someone out of using a condom I am morally justified in having unprotected with them. The negative person must take responsibility for their sexual health and I am absolved of responsibility unless I rape them.

[mecch]

I dont think Ann says that. But I also think you have a good point. That is why this topic is a ratfuck.

One of the problems is that people like to divide up the responsibility by the figure 100.  Oh, 50% on me, 50% on the other. That must be equal.

I think what Ann wants to argue is that its 100% on each person. So in a transmission scenario, you are dealing with the figure of 200 percent.
Its more the dare I say - buddhist kind of thinking.  We are all certainly 100% responsible for dealing with our current reality and if that includes an HIV infection so be it. 
If someone runs you down with a car, you are NOT responsible, but if you make that event turn your life miserable, you are responsible at least for that. If holding another responsible for transmision, in a messy and banal ordinary transmission scenario (not rape, etc.), prevents you from 100% responsibility today and in the future, you are baked.

[BT65]

I really don't see the predicament here that some would like to see.  If two people choose to have sex, then using a condom is also a choice; or not using one.  How many have had an STD, and really could not pin down who gave them the infection?  I realize HIV is a bit different (although much better than it was 21 years ago), but again, safe sex is a choice (other than forced sex).

Years and years ago, I got a bad case of chlamydia.  I could pin point it down to one of two persons.  Should I have gone, hell bent, in search of these people, and wail out nasties at them?  Naw.  I should have insisted in a condom, especially since I knew these two dudes were very promiscuous. 

Same dif.  I didn't insist my first ex-husband use condoms, even though I knew he was sleeping around, and I had heard, on the radio, about a "new, strange virus that kills people."  So, here I am, and here we are.  Lots of us, who didn't insist on condoms.

[Boze]

I think we are overcomplicating it. The issue in question (as per the article) is someone in 2010 having unprotected sex while knowing their HIV+ status.

This is both immoral and illegal. Full stop. People doing so should be condemned and not excused. Courts should figure out most effective way of stopping them from continuing to be a health danger to public at large.

I don't see why this has to transmute into a discussion of how someone who already has been infected  (ie all of us) should deal with their disease/accept self responsibility/etc.

[leese43]

I think we are overcomplicating it. The issue in question (as per the article) is someone in 2010 having unprotected sex while knowing their HIV+ status.

This is both immoral and illegal. Full stop. People doing so should be condemned and not excused. Courts should figure out most effective way of stopping them from continuing to be a health danger to public at large.

I don't see why this has to transmute into a discussion of how someone who already has been infected  (ie all of us) should deal with their disease/accept self responsibility/etc.

Exactly.. much the same as the drug dealer that's charged even though he's sold to people that know exactly what drugs can do to them.

[Rev. Moon]

Exactly.. much the same as the drug dealer that's charged even though he's sold to people that know exactly what drugs can do to them.

I hope that you're being sarcastic, Lees

[leese43]

I hope that you're being sarcastic, Lees

No, if I was gonna be sarcastic I'd be saying..just let them all carry on infecting others until we all finally get the message and let God will deal them

[sharkdiver]

Immoral? like suggesting HIV drug trials on death row inmates?

geesh,  unbelievable

[Boze]

Immoral? like suggesting HIV drug trials on death row inmates?

geesh,  unbelievable

Do you know the meaning of the word consent?

[mecch]

So far everyone has played nice in this quite animated thread and discussion. Let's continue shall we?

[jkinatl2]

Immoral? like suggesting HIV drug trials on death row inmates?

geesh,  unbelievable

Thank you!

Borz, at some point you and your ideologies will have to coem to terms with the fact that, at the moment of your diagnosis, you stopped being one of "them" and started being one of "us."

If you want to believe in stark black and white, then there should be no derivation in HIV progression or reaction to the medication. Yet there are. Once you begin to see that each situation is unique, maybe you will begin to understand that your way of thinking is part of the problem, not the solution to the AIDS crisis.

Trust me, in many circles, your HIV status has already branded you as a dangerous animal. You are already outside the loop, whether or not you can accept that fact now.

And that stark, absolute way of thinking is a good shortcut to isolation, illness, and death insofar as HIV is concerned. I have seen it happen literally hundreds of times.

[jkinatl2]

Exactly.. much the same as the drug dealer that's charged even though he's sold to people that know exactly what drugs can do to them.

Ah, the drug dealer. I assume you include cannabis in that? Because it is, after all, illegal.

[Boze]

Thank you!

Borz, at some point you and your ideologies will have to coem to terms with the fact that, at the moment of your diagnosis, you stopped being one of "them" and started being one of "us."

If you want to believe in stark black and white, then there should be no derivation in HIV progression or reaction to the medication. Yet there are. Once you begin to see that each situation is unique, maybe you will begin to understand that your way of thinking is part of the problem, not the solution to the AIDS crisis.

Trust me, in many circles, your HIV status has already branded you as a dangerous animal. You are already outside the loop, whether or not you can accept that fact now.

And that stark, absolute way of thinking is a good shortcut to isolation, illness, and death insofar as HIV is concerned. I have seen it happen literally hundreds of times.

Sorry - I don't follow. I mean I am trying to understand but don't get it what bothered you in my logic.

I am against HIV+ individuals engaging in condom-less sex with unknowing participants. It's black and white; I don't intend to do it. The point is not being HIV+ - which of course we all are, but the behaviour one engages in. 99.9% of positive people probably don't engage in this, don't understand why this is such a hot topic for all.

------
On the **voluntary** deathmate testing of HIV vaccine - I don't want to rehash that argument here, happy to talk about it in the relevant thread.

[skeebo1969]

Thank you!

Borz, at some point you and your ideologies will have to coem to terms with the fact that, at the moment of your diagnosis, you stopped being one of "them" and started being one of "us."

If you want to believe in stark black and white, then there should be no derivation in HIV progression or reaction to the medication. Yet there are. Once you begin to see that each situation is unique, maybe you will begin to understand that your way of thinking is part of the problem, not the solution to the AIDS crisis.

Trust me, in many circles, your HIV status has already branded you as a dangerous animal. You are already outside the loop, whether or not you can accept that fact now.

And that stark, absolute way of thinking is a good shortcut to isolation, illness, and death insofar as HIV is concerned. I have seen it happen literally hundreds of times.

Very well said Jonathan.

I am against HIV+ individuals engaging in condom-less sex with unknowing participants. It's black and white; I don't intend to do it. The point is not being HIV+ - which of course we all are, but the behaviour one engages in. 99.9% of positive people probably don't engage in this, don't understand why this is such a hot topic for all.
 

It's a hot topic for you cuz once again you missed the point.  Not one person here has said they are for people engaging in condom-less sex with unknowing participants.

[Miss Philicia]

[Boze]

Touche!

[john33]

Miss P
where did you get that gif, it's excellent.

And now back to your scheduled thread

[john33]

and for the rest

[Boze]

HIV positive acrobat may have affected hundreds nationwide
27. May 2010 15:07
By Dr Ananya Mandal, MD

HIV infected acrobat, 32 year old Godfrey Zaburoni allegedly infected hundreds of women all over Australia and a special task force will help track down all of these women.

Zaburoni lived in NSW in 2000 before he moved to Queensland. He however traveled back and forth. There are some men also who called alleging they had had unprotected sex with the HIV positive acrobat.

The health authorities have received an unexpectedly high number of calls after a hotline was opened and expected more calls to come. Spokesperson for the QH said that there are still many men and women who are getting tested by their own doctors. Many who called the 13HEALTH number after it was opened yesterday were referred to the Queensland Health Aids unit.

Earlier one of Mr. Zaburoni's sexual partners, a woman lodged a complaint against him after she tested positive for HIV. The charges against him included grievous bodily harm and malicious acts intended to cause grievous bodily harm. The police also had the names of 12 women which Zaburoni gave them. Five of these are from NSW.

Regional Crime coordinator Detective Superintendent Dave Hutchinson feels that the number is much higher. ?We are aware of a number of women we believe had unprotected sex with him but there could well be many others?Some of the women that have been identified certainly were very short-term relationships?so there could be any number of women out there like that.?

He added that Zaburoni could be awarded life imprisonment if convicted for these charges. He was presented at the Southport Magistrate's Court on Wednesday and remanded in custody until June 9.

Mr Zaburoni's sexual partners are urged to contact the Queensland Health hotline 13HEALTH (1343 2584) and Crime Stoppers 1800 333 000.

[mecch]

And still no information on whether the "HIV+ fiend" is on HAART.  Because surely he must not be, he must have a spectacular viral load.  AND must have spectacular charm and be unbelievably seductive with an enormous gorgeous penis no one could ever refuse to have so roundly infected hundreds across the nation.

Puleese, this is some freaking hysteria!

Actually I'm sure thats the guy who infected me. 

[john33]

ah but mecch, the papers rarely tell the whole story.

It'd spoil the slant they put on it, and consequently the future sales caused by scandal!

[Boze]

And still no information on whether the "HIV+ fiend" is on HAART.  Because surely he must not be, he must have a spectacular viral load.  AND must have spectacular charm and be unbelievably seductive with an enormous gorgeous penis no one could ever refuse to have so roundly infected hundreds across the nation.

Puleese, this is some freaking hysteria!

Actually I'm sure thats the guy who infected me. 

I think he could have slept with a lot of women. How many infected is unknown.

[leese43]

Ah, the drug dealer. I assume you include cannabis in that? Because it is, after all, illegal.

why wouldn't I? I really don't get the point you're trying to make in relation to what's being discussed. (in other words I don't need to be told that many people use it for therapautic reasons ...yada yada) Yes it's illegal so the dealer gets done if caught.

How about discussing why you think the two are different?

[Ann]

For the record, I am NOT excusing people who know they're hiv positive but yet have unprotected intercourse without telling their partner(s) they're hiv positive. I think it's wrong and it's something I would never, ever do. I doubt I'd even have protected  intercourse without disclosing.

HOWEVER. I am ALSO NOT excusing people who either know - or think they know - they're hiv negative but yet have unprotected intercourse with people of unknown (unproven) status. I think that's wrong too.

If we're going to charge the positive person with a crime, the other person should be charged too. The penalties wouldn't have to be the same, but if there are penalties for one, there should be penalties for both.

To take the example of drug dealing that Leese brought up, the drug dealer is charged with trafficking or possession with intent to supply - and the buyer is charged with possession. Two related crimes, two different penalties. See how that works? 


edited to add (unproven) for clarity

[Boze]

If we're going to charge the positive person with a crime, the other person should be charged too. The penalties wouldn't have to be the same, but if there are penalties for one, there should be penalties for both.

To take the example of drug dealing that Leese brought up, the drug dealer is charged with trafficking or possession with intent to supply - and the buyer is charged with possession. Two related crimes, two different penalties. See how that works? 

edited to add (unproven) for clarity

Alright, we're making progress

I disagree with you on whether the negative person should be charged. My logic rests on one very simple precept:

1) Law is meant to prevent people from harming others. There is no penalty for (failed) suicide but there are severe penalties for harming or killing others.

2) Knowledge confers responsibility.

I simply fail to see the offense that you would charge the infected with (vs infector). I realize there is no current law on the books - but what existing law do you find similar?

For the record - I don't think the drug sales analogy works very well because people consume drugs with full knowledge of the damage it may do to them. In this instance it's unknown.

[Ann]

For the record - I don't think the drug sales analogy works very well because people consume drugs with full knowledge of the damage it may do to them. In this instance it's unknown.

Like anyone in this day and age doesn't realise that if they have unprotected intercourse with someone, it may or may not result in them being infected with hiv or other STI. Same with drugs - it may or may not result in them having drug-related problems.

2) Knowledge confers responsibility.

Like I said above, people know that unprotected intercourse may lead to hiv or other STIs - so yes, that knowledge confers responsibility use condoms.

1) Law is meant to prevent people from harming others. There is no penalty for (failed) suicide but there are severe penalties for harming or killing others.

The person who has unprotected intercourse and becomes infected with something may well pass that infection on to others. A person who attempts suicide is not going to pass their suicide attempt on to others.

My logic is this: the hiv transmission laws are ultimately meant as a deterrent. If we're going to use them this way, then why not go to the full extent and also use them as a deterrent against people not using condoms?

It's like the seat-belt laws. They've saved a lot of lives. People don't like wearing seat-belts, but they'll buckle up to avoid getting a ticket.

With hiv, either both should be charged or neither should be charged. As it stands, it's like busting a dealer with heroin and letting the guy who just bought five dime-bags off him to walk away scot-free.

[Ann]

Ooops, one point I forgot to address.

I simply fail to see the offense that you would charge the infected with (vs infector). I realize there is no current law on the books - but what existing law do you find similar?

Again, it's like the seat-belt law. Failure to wear a seat-belt.

Failure to use a condom. Simple. As to what the penalty should be, how about a month inside? Or a few thousand in fines?

Like I alluded to above, if a person is going around having unprotected intercourse, the potential for onward transmission of hiv and other STIs is definitely there. So yes, penalising people for not wearing condoms would be protecting others.

[Boze]

With hiv, either both should be charged or neither should be charged. As it stands, it's like busting a dealer with heroin and letting the guy who just bought five dime-bags off him to walk away scot-free.

You really don't see the distinction? Purchaser of heroin bought HEROIN. The dealer sold HEROIN. The said drug is meant to induce certain effects in the user.

Here it's like a customer goes to a pharmacy for Tylenol and gets heroin. Turns out the pharmacist is a crook. The purchase of heroin was predicated on a lie and subterfuge.

----

I do agree that wearing condoms is similar to a seatbelt law. However infecting someone is like aggravated assault with a moving vehicle. First is a $50 fine, the other years in prison. They are just different levels of magnitude.

[Ann]

You really don't see the distinction? Purchaser of heroin bought HEROIN. The dealer sold HEROIN. The said drug is meant to induce certain effects in the user.

No, I don't see the distinction. Not using condoms is meant to induce certain effects in both parties involved - namely greater pleasure. Using drugs is meant to induce greater pleasure too.

Here it's like a customer goes to a pharmacy for Tylenol and gets heroin. Turns out the pharmacist is a crook. The purchase of heroin was predicated on a lie and subterfuge.

Yeah, right. Trusting a licensed pharmacist is far different to trusting a one-night-stand or fuck-buddy or someone you don't know well enough to know if they're hiv positive or not. It's a lot different to walk into a pharmacy and expect to trust the person behind the drug counter than it is to expect to trust someone in a highly charged sexual situation.

I do agree that wearing condoms is similar to a seatbelt law. However infecting someone is like aggravated assault with a moving vehicle. First is a $50 fine, the other years in prison. They are just different levels of magnitude.

The only similarity I'm getting at really, is the failure to wear a safety device. The outcome of the two failures are different.

When you fail to wear a seat-belt, unless you're a back-seat passenger, the only person you're going to harm is yourself.

However, when you fail to use a condom and become infected with something as a result, you're going to harm the next person you fail to use a condom with.

Personally, I don't think hiv should be criminalised AT ALL. But if you're going to criminalise one participant in a CONSENSUAL sex-act, then you should criminalise BOTH parties in that CONSENSUAL sex-act.

[komnaes]

Here it's like a customer goes to a pharmacy for Tylenol and gets heroin. Turns out the pharmacist is a crook. The purchase of heroin was predicated on a lie and subterfuge.

Hey, I want hot, sweaty unprotected sex ONLY.. I ONLY asked for joy and multiple orgasms. How was I to know I could get and how dare he also gave me any number of STDs or (for a woman with a man) unwanted pregnancy. Now how can one seriously think that those unpleasant things would ever happen to me? I say lock that bastard up because justice demands it.

[Boze]

You fail to recognize that the consensus was given to sex on the premise of a lie. Since he lied the act was not consensual.

[Ann]

You fail to recognize that the consensus was given to sex on the premise of a lie. Since he lied the act was not consensual.

Oh bollocks. How many times does it have to be said that relying on disclosure doesn't work? If someone is naive enough to rely on disclosure, then maybe they shouldn't be let loose in the world - for their own good.

If you want to continue to believe that people don't have the responsibility to protect their health, you just go right ahead. I'm outta here.

[komnaes]

You fail to recognize that the consensus was given to sex on the premise of a lie. Since he lied the act was not consensual.

Er, no, those people consented to have unprotected sex either not asking or choosing to believe a statement with no proof, and they all chose to believe one way or another that any consequences (STDs, pregnancy, whatever) that can be reasonably expected to come with unprotected sex do not apply to them.

[Boze]

This issue has been actually considered by the UK court and it sided (surprise, surprise) with me:

In R. v Konzani, the same court held that a person accused of recklessly transmitting HIV could only raise the defense of consent, including an honest belief in consent, in cases where that consent was a "willing" or "conscious" consent. In other words, the court distinguished between ?willingly running the risk of transmission? and ?willingly consenting to the risk of transmission.? This suggests that consent will only operate as a defense?in all but the most exceptional of cases?where there has already been prior disclosure of known HIV-positive status. A critical discussion of the Konzani case can be found here: http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/la/documents/WeaitCrimLRKonzani.pdf

I appreciate that you've agreed to disagree on this - i'm only posting it because it may be of interest to others following the issue.

[komnaes]

Thanks for pointing that out.. actually on one has ever argued that, as it's, this man is not legally liability. As the laws stand he's clearly is. You can throw as many cases as you can find to support your "legal" argument on consent - and in many jurisdiction the laws, either statutory or precedent, are on your side. Some of us have paid a lot of attention to this development and it's worrying us because we have repeatedly argued that these laws do not make good legal and social policy.

And you can disagree and can side track this discussion from comparing those women to consumers asking to buy painkillers only to get the most addictive drugs ever.

What you and most share your views is dong is to continue to refuse to engage in a discussion on whether one, knowing full well, constructively or otherwise, the risk of a HIV should share the responsibility of protecting oneself. If your answer is obvious no, then there's really little point to continue.

[Grasshopper]

"Yeah, right. Trusting a licensed pharmacist is far different to trusting a one-night-stand or fuck-buddy or someone you don't know well enough to know if they're hiv positive or not. It's a lot different to walk into a pharmacy and expect to trust the person behind the drug counter than it is to expect to trust someone in a highly charged sexual situation. "

Here in the Netherlands a pharmacist upon finishing his studies must perform the same oath of Hippocrates as any doctor......I shall do no harm etc etc.

So indeed this comparison is turning into a fruit salad.

[Boze]

What you and most share your views is dong is to continue to refuse to engage in a discussion on whether one, knowing full well, constructively or otherwise, the risk of a HIV should share the responsibility of protecting oneself. If your answer is obvious no, then there's really little point to continue.

I am engaging in a discussion - as this whole thread demonstrates

I agree that people should share responsibility for protecting self - after all, the people who were infected will have HIV. The question of punishment is both about deterrence and retribution (and yes - I believe in retribution as a part of the judicial process).
Your logic implies that a person would think - "I know the person I am about to have sex with would not knowingly infect me because were he to do so, I would report him to the police and he'll go to jail". I think that plays a very small part - most people would think "He looks healthy and said that he's negative. I don't think he is such a bastard as to knowingly do this to me".


I think the issue is very well described in the legal paper I quoted. The author takes the view shared by most participants of this thread - that this is a matter of public policy:

"Some commentators, including the present author, have argued that where a
person is aware of the risks associated with unprotected sex and has not satisfied
him- or herself that a partner is HIV negative (or free from other serious sexually
ransmitted infections (STIs)) the defence of consent should, in principle, be
available. The reason for taking such a position is, primarily, that the transmission
of HIV should be seen first and foremost as a public health issue and that everyone,
not just those who are HIV positive, has a responsibility for minimising the spread
of the virus. To impose criminal liability on those who recklessly transmit HIV or
STIs to people who are in a position to protect themselves against infection, and
elect not to, sends a message that people are, and should be, entitled to assume that
heir partners will ensure that transmission does not occur. The very fact that the
virus has spread so dramatically in recent years among the sexually active demon-
strates that this is simply not the case."

I happen to side with the court.

[komnaes]

I agree that people should share responsibility for protecting self ... Your logic implies that a person would think - "I know the person I am about to have sex with would not knowingly infect me because were he to do so, I would report him to the police and he'll go to jail". I think that plays a very small part - most people would think "He looks healthy and said that he's negative. I don't think he is such a bastard as to knowingly do this to me".

...

I happen to side with the court.

Good, in that case you can choose to agree to laws and policies that help perpetuate the stigma that you so dread.

And no, I don't think most participants here who are HIV+ would agree with using criminal punishment to help stop the spreading of AIDS. With that I will just quote a paper published by HIV/AIDS Legal Centre in Australia:

"Criminal trials for the transmission of HIV arouse considerable community interest, which
is often manifested in the form of fear, panic and outrage. Overwhelmingly, the community
response comes in the form of calls for unmitigated, punitive justice. However, the law must be
implemented in such a way that supports public health initiatives and which has the ultimate aim of
preventing the spread of HIV.

The objectives of criminalization include incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution and deterrence.
These are fundamentally ill-suited to achieving positive health outcomes. No studies to date have
shown that applying the criminal law to HIV transmission has prevented HIV transmission. There
is a serious risk that harsh punitive justice will reinforce the HIV/AIDS related stigma, spread
misinformation about HIV/AIDS and create a disincentive to HIV testing, as people fear a threat of
incurring criminal liability. Furthermore, application of criminal sanctions may in fact hinder access
to counselling and support, by discouraging honest disclosure to medical staff and creating a false
sense of security that the criminal law can protect a person from contracting HIV.

No one has the right to transmit HIV, but it is only through creating and implementing law that
fosters honesty within the HIV positive community, that the spread of HIV can be prevented. With
the exception of cases where individuals actually intend to do harm, criminalising HIV transmission
does not empower people to avoid HIV infection, and in fact may make it more difficult for them
to do so, endangering both public health and human rights. Therefore, the implementation and use
of the criminal law in the context of HIV transmission must be done with consideration for human
rights and one central objective, to prevent the infection of individuals and the spread of HIV within
the community."

[mecch]

No one has the right to transmit HIV, but it is only through creating and implementing law that
fosters honesty within the HIV positive community, that the spread of HIV can be prevented.

Not sure I get what this sentence means, in practice.   Laws that foster honesty in the HIV positive community?  Isn't a disclosure law doing just that - pushing for honesty?

Or is this badly worded. Does the author mean - making laws that protect us from discrimination and stigma, so that we can be honest without repercussions. 

[Ann]

Good, in that case you can choose to agree to laws and policies that help perpetuate the stigma that you so dread.

You said a mouthful, Shaun. It is often (not always) the case here that the people who are the most fearful of and do the most hand-wringing over stigma and discrimination are the self-same people who vociferously and ferociously support the draconian hiv laws - laws that only perpetuate stigma. It doesn't make any sense.




edited because part of a sentence mysteriously disappeared.

[jkinatl2]

You said a mouthful, Shaun. It is often (not always) the case here that the people who are the most fearful of and do the most hand-wringing over stigma and discrimination are the self-same people who vociferously and ferociously support the draconian hiv laws - laws that only perpetuate stigma. It doesn't make any sense.




edited because part of a sentence mysteriously disappeared.

Self-loathing rarely makes sense.

As I noted, it is overwhelmingly the persons more recently infected that feel this way. Once a person assimilates the notion of having HIV, a marked shift in attitude almost always follows.

There, I said it

[Miss Philicia]

It doesn't make any sense.

Self-loathing rarely makes any sense.

edit: woopsie, Jonathan beat me to the post with the exact same sentence   lol

[leese43]

LOL i don't share the same opinion as you so now I hate myself... You just all carry on patting each other on the back. Scratched record comes to mind, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Boze]

Good, in that case you can choose to agree to laws and policies that help perpetuate the stigma that you so dread.

And no, I don't think most participants here who are HIV+ would agree with using criminal punishment to help stop the spreading of AIDS. With that I will just quote a paper published by HIV/AIDS Legal Centre in Australia:

"Criminal trials for the transmission of HIV arouse considerable community interest, which
is often manifested in the form of fear, panic and outrage. Overwhelmingly, the community
response comes in the form of calls for unmitigated, punitive justice. However, the law must be
implemented in such a way that supports public health initiatives and which has the ultimate aim of
preventing the spread of HIV.

The objectives of criminalization include incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution and deterrence.
These are fundamentally ill-suited to achieving positive health outcomes. No studies to date have
shown that applying the criminal law to HIV transmission has prevented HIV transmission. There
is a serious risk that harsh punitive justice will reinforce the HIV/AIDS related stigma, spread
misinformation about HIV/AIDS and create a disincentive to HIV testing, as people fear a threat of
incurring criminal liability. Furthermore, application of criminal sanctions may in fact hinder access
to counselling and support, by discouraging honest disclosure to medical staff and creating a false
sense of security that the criminal law can protect a person from contracting HIV.

No one has the right to transmit HIV, but it is only through creating and implementing law that
fosters honesty within the HIV positive community, that the spread of HIV can be prevented. With
the exception of cases where individuals actually intend to do harm, criminalising HIV transmission
does not empower people to avoid HIV infection, and in fact may make it more difficult for them
to do so, endangering both public health and human rights. Therefore, the implementation and use
of the criminal law in the context of HIV transmission must be done with consideration for human
rights and one central objective, to prevent the infection of individuals and the spread of HIV within
the community."

1. The stigma is spread not by the laws but by individuals who knowingly infect others. The laws are meant to stop them being a hazard to society.
2. I don't identify myself with said individuals. I am said to observe that most individuals taking the other side in this debate choose to do so. My status does not make my identity, I can still think for myself.
3. I don't think these laws are meant as a form of public policy to stem HIV spread. That can only be achieved by sex education, HAART, etc. They are rather an exception. I haven't heard of more than a handful individuals prosecuted. Please show me examples where this policy was misued and the law was misapplied.
The original story of this thread is a perfect example of why they are needed - this guy has slept with hundreds of women. He needs to be stopped.

[john33]

Where are you getting these abitrary numbers from?

He himself said 12

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/25/2908964.htm

[Boze]

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=32806.msg404307#msg404307