POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: Miss Philicia on October 23, 2008, 02:37:33 pm
-
source (http://www.q-notes.com/2008/10/23/gay-dj-put-on-house-arrest-for-second-hiv-violation/)
Gay DJ put on house arrest for second HIV violation
Raleigh man admits to failing to use condom
by Matt Comer | October 23rd, 2008
RALEIGH — A gay disc jockey in Raleigh originally convicted of violating HIV infection regulations in August has been placed on house arrest after admitting he broke probation orders in early October.
On Sept. 6, Q-Notes reported that Joshua Waldon Weaver, 23, who works in clubs in Raleigh and Wilmington, pleaded guilty to charges that he failed to disclose his HIV-positive status and engaged in unprotected sex with three people. Weaver was given a suspended jail sentence and placed on probation. The terms of his probation ordered Weaver to use protection when engaging in sexual activity.
About two weeks ago Weaver was arrested after Wake County Public Health officials contacted his probation officer with information that he had possibly violated court orders by having sex without a condom. Assistant District attorney Boz Zellinger told The News & Observer that health officials became aware of the DJ’s violation after he contracted another sexually transmitted disease that could have been prevented by the use of a condom.
Weaver could have faced 40 days in jail for his most recent violation, but District Court Judge Jacqueline Brewer instead sentenced him to six months of electronically-monitored house arrest. He will not be allowed to leave his father’s house except for probation-approved employment. Brewer also ordered Weaver to undergo a psychological evaluation.
If Weaver breaks his probation again, he will face up to 25 days in jail and prosecutors will ask for a two-year quarantine in a state prison hospital.
“His behavior hasn’t changed,” Zellinger told the Raleigh newspaper after the hearing. “We’re trying to address the callousness his actions have demonstrated.”
Zellinger added, “It’s not a witch hunt. It’s a desire to change his behavior to benefit the community.”
Weaver’s attorney, Evonne Hopkins, who declined to speak with Q-Notes for our original Sept. 6 story, said she’s “confident we will not be back here.”
“Josh is very sorry we’re back in court,” she said.
North Carolina Administrative Code 10-41 and North Carolina General Statute 130A-144(f) address control measures regarding the spread of HIV and require those with communicable diseases — including other sexually transmitted diseases, hepatitis and tuberculosis — to comply with measures intended to curb their proliferation.
Weaver is only the second Wake County resident in 15 years to be sentenced for failing to follow laws governing the transmission of communicable diseases, according to The News & Observer. In 2007, only 16 people statwide were convicted of violating the communicable disease law. Rather than HIV, many of the instances were related to diseases such as tuberculosis or hepatitis.
-
Interesting. I am surprised they are not trying to slap him with attempted murder. I don't see how the ankle bracelet helps any. If he wants some ass, he is going to find a way to get it.
-
wow. strange. conflicting. the other dude who was finding guys on craigslist and deliberately infecting them disgusted me. but i kinda feel bad for this dj dude. like, yeah, he should have used a condom but some times people slip. and he shouldn't have been house arrested for having sex with other people - those others have a responsibility to protect themselves also. i mean, shouldnt there be some intent?
i wonder what the facts are in this case.
-
This whole thing Philly, just make me want to puke.
When are they going to start arresting people for not wearing their seat belts, being stupid in public, drinking at home, snorting anything fun, electing stupid people to government who cannot take responsibility for any thing they do, and so onn and so on?
I wonder if the state is advocating condoms in school, and other public education locations? Does the state provide condoms all over the place, or do they somehow forget that if there are laws about using protection, then they must provide such protection to the whole population to ensure compliance.
Shit this country is regressing more and more to the dark ages. What a load of crap.
Edited because I had an additional thought.
-
I've always wondered what is meant by 'unprotected sex'. I know that it obiously implies that no condom was used, but was it oral sex (getting or giving) or anal (bottom or top)? It certainly makes a difference in whether or not a person was really put at risk... sorta like waving a gun around in the air or pointing it directly at a person's head with the safety off and a finger on the trigger! Also, there's a big risk difference between a person with a high viral load an an individual who's undetectable. In some states' HIV regulations there appears to be no difference; any sort of sexual contact is legislated. NC's statutes don't really differentiate between HIV and a few other diseases, TB for example. On a 'positive' note, it doesn't appear that he punished too harshly compared to what he could have received.
-
When are they going to start arresting people for not wearing their seat belts,
Here in Florida you get ticketed for doing so. You can also choose not to wear a helmet when you operate a motorcycle. Should we seek to run them over because they are not protecting themselves?
-
On this basis the DJ should get a ticket, since the risk of death or injury from HIV, counting acquisition as injury, is the same or perhaps a lower as for driving in the US. Or perhaps in reverse driving over the speed limit should get you 5 years in the slammer or sommat.
2001 - deaths in road accidents: 42,900, 90,000 injuries to pedesrians, 17,726 deaths among HIV+ folk, 39,262 new cases << prob should be a bit higher.
- matt
-
And people wonder why we can't get a control on the spread of HIV when you have some positive folks with thoughts that it's okay to spread HIV around.
-
And people wonder why we can't get a control on the spread of HIV when you have some positive folks with thoughts that it's okay to spread HIV around.
Where, exactly, do you see that? Please direct me to the post.
-
Reread some of your posts jk. You don't see it as a problem to KNOWNLY transmit HIV to others. You don't see where the positive person should be held accountable. I see it as a big problem if HIV positive people are not going to see a problem with it.
-
Reread some of your posts jk. You don't see it as a problem to KNOWNLY transmit HIV to others. You don't see where the positive person should be held accountable. I see it as a big problem if HIV positive people are not going to see a problem with it.
This is not only utterly untrue, it is flamebaiting.
-
It was not to be taken as flame baiting and I'm sorry if you do. If people read your replies you give them that opinion that the positive person is not at fault and shouldn't be held accountable.
-
Rod, you now have probably implicated most of the LTS on this board. Take me away, lock me up, I knowingly had unprotected sex with many men in 1984, and they me.
Have a nice arguement with yourself, because JK has always stated emphatically that infection is always, and always has been a two way street. The responsibilty lies with both parties, period! If a person is HIV-, only they have the power to keep themselves that way, and to place the burden of responsibility for their status to the HIV+ person is unequivically insane. Nobody can personally take the responsibility for another persons life and life decisions, they are ours and ours alone.
-
Rod, you now have probably implicated most of the LTS on this board. Take me away, lock me up, I knowingly had unprotected sex with many men in 1984, and they me.
Have a nice arguement with yourself, because JK has always stated emphatically that infection is always, and always has been a two way street. The responsibilty lies with both parties, period! If a person is HIV-, only they have the power to keep themselves that way, and to place the burden of responsibility for their status to the HIV+ person is unequivically insane. Nobody can personally take the responsibility for another persons life and life decisions, they are ours and ours alone.
What I find insane is that a person who seeks to infect others should not be held accountable. Accountability will be assumed when they (negative party) picks up their positive status... When they come here blaming the other party then we can slap them around and make them feel awful for not using condoms to begin with.. See it works itself out in the end.
Damn I almost get the sense here that some of us are bitter that we might just have to use condoms on ourselves to prevent others from getting it.
I also think having unprotected sex back in 1984 where many of us were unaware of our status or HIV for that matter, is a poor example as opposed to some guy who has already had his hand slapped in 2008 for having unprotected sex while knowing he is positive... not to mention he continues to do so. Hell he even picked up additional baggage (STD) whilst breaking his terms of probation.
-
I agree with Daddy Tim. Infection is a two-way street. Pretty soon no one will have to take responsibility for anything that happens to them-they will be able to blame another person. Sort of like a perpetual and continual victim. I get really tired of people saying they are the way they are because it's someone else's fault. Bleh.
-
What isn't mentioned in that article is whether or not the person the DJ had unprotected sex with was already HIV+ or not. Many HIV+ people choose to have unprotected sex with other HIV+ people. I'm not saying it's right or smart, but there's certainly no chance of infecting someone who's already infected except for this case where the DJ actually caught a different STD from his partner. Should THAT person be arrested also for transmitting a disease? Tit for Tat don't you think?
-
It was not to be taken as flame baiting and I'm sorry if you do. If people read your replies you give them that opinion that the positive person is not at fault and shouldn't be held accountable.
If by "people" you mean others besides yourself, I would be thrilled if these "people" came out of the woodwork and accused me of the same thing.
You have seen my posts in this and other threads for years. If this is the level of disrespect you hold for me, then I highly recommend that you place me on ignore.
I have always said, emphatically and at length, that infection among consenting adults is a two way street. I have never said that the positive person holds no accountability, only that as currently written, HIV criminalization is a farce that further stigmatizes all of us with HIV. Including those who presume to pass judgments on other positive persons without evidence.
-
And people wonder why we can't get a control on the spread of HIV when you have some positive folks with thoughts that it's okay to spread HIV around.
I'm pretty certain when Jk asked Where, exactly, do you see that? Please direct me to the post.
he was refering to THIS thread.
I have never seen a post from JK that has ever stated he agrees that unprotected sex performed by someone who is HIV+ is OK...never.
Hgs
Jan :-*
-
I agree with Daddy Tim. Infection is a two-way street. Pretty soon no one will have to take responsibility for anything that happens to them-they will be able to blame another person. Sort of like a perpetual and continual victim. I get really tired of people saying they are the way they are because it's someone else's fault. Bleh.
I agree, but it happens all the time.
Lucas
-
The passions from the other thread are invading this one.
The newsarticle doesn't say if the DJ was boffing other HIV+ guys.
We had similar problem with the other thread - the thread title said "knowingly spreading" but it took awhile to establish what our poster knew and didn't know about that typhoid mary's intentions. And then people didn't bother to read that info kindly provided by the OP, but went on posting to the misleading title.
Since everyone seems to want to have a debate out these issues, why doesn't someone open a proper, formal thread with the debate question clearly stated in hypothesis, and then the discussion sides can be more disciplined and specific to a precise circumstance of sex, disclosure, responsibililtiy and HIV transmission.
In the mean time, I will post up the Dutch rape case..
Best to all
-
All I would like to say is that I would totally shag that DJ myself. And if I hadn't moved off from Wilmington.....never mind.
-
The passions from the other thread are invading this one.
The newsarticle doesn't say if the DJ was boffing other HIV+ guys.
We had similar problem with the other thread - the thread title said "knowingly spreading" but it took awhile to establish what our poster knew and didn't know about that typhoid mary's intentions. And then people didn't bother to read that info kindly provided by the OP, but went on posting to the misleading title.
Since everyone seems to want to have a debate out these issues, why doesn't someone open a proper, formal thread with the debate question clearly stated in hypothesis, and then the discussion sides can be more disciplined and specific to a precise circumstance of sex, disclosure, responsibililtiy and HIV transmission.
In the mean time, I will post up the Dutch rape case..
Best to all
I think you've found your calling. Cat herder.
-
I'm not sure how the judge can require him to use a condom..... I mean where is the legal precedent for such an invasion of his behavior?
Now, I'm not saying he shouldn't be disclosing his status, or playing safe with people who are unknown, or neg. But, dammit, if a poz person wants to have sex with another poz person, that's their business.
I think the prosecutor's threat to lock the guy up for 2 years is rediculous. What he needs to do is get a better lawyer and get the hell out of North Carolina.
I think it would be different if the guy was going out and deliberately infecting people. For all we know he is having anonymous sex in a sex club.... and let he who is without sin cast the first stone.... and you better keep that stone in your pocket!
I think there needs to be a rational mix of disclosure, individual responsibility, and respect for others. If you are out there being a cum dump in a sex club, don't come crying when you get a collection of STDs that includes HIV. At the same time, disclosure is a reality. You need to afford someone the opportunity that many of us were denied, the opportunity to confront the risk and play safe or not play at all.
I can say for certainty that it will encourage people not to get treated for various diseases. I'm guessing he caught something annoying like syphillis, clamydia (sp?), or gonorrhea. I say annoying because they are easily treated with antibiotics. Linking treatment and punishment is a dissappointing precedent.
Blame serves no good purpose. It cures no person. It treats no illness. It advances nothing good. It is the doorway to hatred and revenge which are toxic in their own special way. It's a sad day in NC that they are stuck on blame instead of education, treatment, and open discussion.
-
I'm not sure how the judge can require him to use a condom..... I mean where is the legal precedent for such an invasion of his behavior?
Actually, there have been a number of legal precedents over the years that would, in fact, allow a judge to do this. A quick pass through my old text book "The Law and the Public's Health" shows one very shocking (in my opinion) precedent: Buck v. Bell - This gives the state the right to forcibly sterilize mentally disabled people in some circumstances. You also have compulsory vaccination laws, helmet laws, the old blood testing requirements for marriage licenses, etc.....
Now, before anyone goes off calling me crazy -- I'm not making a judgement here -- just citing facts.
Mike
-
He was for-warned by a judge in court... his probation, etc... and he has continued to have casual sex without proper cautions... like using a condom he has no regards to anyones health let alone his own... I see no problem in locking him up for a few years... posting his picture for everyone to be on the lookout... The government should have quarantined people in the begining back when this disease started spreading in the early 1980's... then maybe it would not be as widespread in this country as it is today.... but, that's a shoulda woulda coulda... Now people who continously keep catching spreading diseases should have to abide by the law... I see no problem in placing this individual in prison... lock him up... Next!
-
The government should have quarantined people in the begining back when this disease started spreading in the early 1980's..
You mean when they thought you could get it by kissing? Sweat? Hugging? You'd be in jail too, I wager.
Consensual sex involves two parties. And consensual bareback sex involves two parties who are willing to risk giving and getting HIV infection. Whats the punishment for the uninfected party when s/he ends up positive? I mean, with a track record of barebacking, they ought to be locked up too, right? As a precaution?
Dude, sometimes I think you are putting one over on the rest of the class. I mean, no one could possibly be.... well, I just turned on FOX. I stand corrected.
-
Joshua Waldon Weaver, 23, who works in clubs in Raleigh and Wilmington, pleaded guilty to charges that he failed to disclose his HIV-positive status and engaged in unprotected sex with three people.
He's guilty PERIOD. Not once but twice...
-
He's guilty PERIOD. Not once but twice...
And the people who volunteered to have consensual bareback sex with him? Innocent victims? Are we back to that?
For the record, I think the sentence was fair, all things considered. But I also think it does ZERO to further HIV awareness and prevention. Its vengeance, not justice, and certainly not education.
-
He's guilty for failure to disclose.
-
He's guilty for failure to disclose.
Ah, that whole world being black and white thing again. So noted.
The guys who gave it up have no responsibility whatsoever in this. I get it.
Sorry Rod, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I can't seem to communicate in an appropriate manner with you.
-
Ah, that whole world being black and white thing again. So noted.
The guys who gave it up have no responsibility whatsoever in this. I get it.
Sorry Rod, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I can't seem to communicate in an appropriate manner with you.
Not to get me to believe that a known positive person doesn't have more responsibility and should be held more accountable.
-
The government should have quarantined people in the begining back when this disease started spreading in the early 1980's... then maybe it would not be as widespread in this country as it is today....
You = clueless
-
There are two discussions going on here. Unfortunately, the two have little to do with one another.
The first discussion is whether or not the DJ is guilty of violating the law. It is very cut and dried in criminal matters -- either the state can prove he did violate each element of the law or can not prove that. If they can prove that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be found guilty.
The second discussion seems to be more of a moral nature...as in who is responsible? The various criminal codes I am familiar with in the U.S. seldom take note of the acts of the alleged victims in the case. I am a lawyer, for those who have not guessed that. In law, and in particular in criminal cases, I seldom find that having any sort of a moral responsibility discussion is helpful at all in determination of guilt or innocence. The criminal code is almost always entirely focused on the acts of the accused. For example, one can not consent to be murdered.
On another note, the judge ordered him to do something or not do something. He apparently violated that order in contempt of the court. The court can and will do something to him for thumbing his nose at its order.
But morally, on the other hand, we each need to take responsibility for our own well being. I think consenting to having unprotected sex is agreeing to the possibility that you will contract a STI, including HIV. However, I don't know how a state legislature would write that sort of morality into the law.
-
He's guilty PERIOD. Not once but twice...
Sorry Rod but your are wrong..... it would be thrice !
-
The government should have quarantined people in the begining back when this disease started spreading in the early 1980's...
Ouch!! Yeah and I fear if that been done it would have evolved into just killing us off by now... being that the government is run by dickwads like Bush.
Agree with Philly on this....
-
The government should have quarantined people in the beginning back when this disease started spreading in the early 1980's... then maybe it would not be as widespread in this country as it is today....
Or perhaps, Governments would have taken a stand and dealt with HIV without all the attacks against those communities most affected. They could have also invested in educating people about how they can keep themselves safe, instead of moralising to a public that ain't listening. Maybe then, people would start taking responsibility for their own sexual health, instead of always blaming those with HIV.
Shame on you for suggesting that we should have quarantined HIV people.
-
Since I live in NC I'll throw my 2 cents in. This story is about Joshua Weaver, not the men he had sex with. He was caught having unprotected sex with people and not disclosing his status, which is against the law. The judge basically said "I don't think jail is the best consequence but I am putting you on probation. Don't do it again." Weaver confesses that while on probation he had unprotected sex with three more people without disclosing. The judge then basically said "Obviously you are not taking this seriously. I'm upping the consequence to house arrest and sending you for counseling so you can understand why having unprotected sex with people without disclosing is wrong. Do it again and we are talking jail."
I don't see the problem. We are talking about being honest and using a condom, not never having sex again. Yes, the public needs better HIV education. Also if the participants were HIV+ it changes things, but the story doesn't give that impression. Having HIV and not telling your sexual partners and not using safer sex practices harms people. I think, and I believe the majority of people in NC would agree, there needs to be a consequence for that. As far as the people he had sex with I hope none of them became infected.
-
He was for-warned by a judge in court... his probation, etc... and he has continued to have casual sex without proper cautions... like using a condom he has no regards to anyones health let alone his own... I see no problem in locking him up for a few years... posting his picture for everyone to be on the lookout... The government should have quarantined people in the begining back when this disease started spreading in the early 1980's... then maybe it would not be as widespread in this country as it is today.... but, that's a shoulda woulda coulda... Now people who continously keep catching spreading diseases should have to abide by the law... I see no problem in placing this individual in prison... lock him up... Next!
I suppose you would include yourself in that quarantine? Because at the end of the day we only have your word that you practice safe sex, and in your quarantine world, your word would not be good enough.
-
hmmm
When it comes to HIV, the law is truly an ass
Not disclosing your HIV-positive status is not always wrong
- matt
-
hmmm
Not disclosing your HIV-positive status is not always wrong
Not disclosing your status and having unprotected sex is.
-
I can think of several examples of when it isn't but can anyone else? This is I guess a challenge to people's thinking caps. There are parallels, eg shooting people, damaging property, it's a well-established principle - and a real life matter of safety too for some people.
- matt
-
If you are HIV positive there is no responsible reason for one not to disclose their status if they are going to have sex, protected or not.
-
I can think of several examples of when it isn't but can anyone else? - matt
Ummm when they disclose to you first?
-
If you are HIV positive there is no responsible reason for one not to disclose their status if they are going to have sex, protected or not.
It may be easy for some to decide to always disclose their status. For others, these things are less cut and dry. I can think of times, when the last thing on my mind was worrying about whether the sex was safe or not. Going from having unprotected sex, suddenly to have to think about the way in which negotiate and have sex, on top of having to deal with HIV is difficult enough.
I am not trying to justify it, I just think there are many times when not telling a partner, can seem the easier and less complicated option.
-
He was for-warned by a judge in court... his probation, etc... and he has continued to have casual sex without proper cautions... like using a condom he has no regards to anyones health let alone his own... I see no problem in locking him up for a few years... posting his picture for everyone to be on the lookout... The government should have quarantined people in the begining back when this disease started spreading in the early 1980's... then maybe it would not be as widespread in this country as it is today.... but, that's a shoulda woulda coulda... Now people who continously keep catching spreading diseases should have to abide by the law... I see no problem in placing this individual in prison... lock him up... Next!
Quarantined? Holy Cow. That is incredibly offensive! I would have been one of those quarantined.
Just Unbelievable!
I'm surprised none of the Moderators have picked this up
-
It may be easy for some to decide to always disclose their status. For others, these things are less cut and dry. I can think of times, when the last thing on my mind was worrying about whether the sex was safe or not. Going from having unprotected sex, suddenly to have to think about the way in which negotiate and have sex, on top of having to deal with HIV is difficult enough.
I am not trying to justify it, I just think there are many times when not telling a partner, can seem the easier and less complicated option.
No guilt involved either I take it? Disclosure is not a negotiation in my opinion... I think with this we can see why disclosure laws should and always will exist.
-
Quarantined? Holy Cow. That is incredibly offensive! I would have been one of those quarantined.
Just Unbelievable!
I'm surprised none of the Moderators have picked this up
All of our poor Moderators are probably in Quarantine!
I too was offended by this statement. Should all people who have infectious diseases be Quarantined? Ridiculous.
-
And the people who volunteered to have consensual bareback sex with him? Innocent victims? Are we back to that?
Where has it been stated that they are innocent victims? If I slice my own throat I won't go to jail, but if you slice my throat you surely will.
-
No guilt involved either I take it? Disclosure is not a negotiation in my opinion... I think with this we can see why disclosure laws should and always will exist.
I know two of the three people who I have slept with since my diagnosis. And I know that I didn't give them HIV. They have both then gone out there since and picked it up elsewhere.
The other, I believe gave me hep c. Thanks for that.
Since then, I've withdrawn from having any sexual contact with anybody. Frustrating, but at least I don't have to worry about such things.
I wouldn't use a word like guilt. I was all over the place and certainly not of clear mind in the months following my diagnosis. Nor was I innocent before.
-
If I slice my own throat I won't go to jail, but if you slice my throat you surely will.
Assuming you do not die, if you slice your own throat you will be determined to be a threat to yourself, and placed in at least a 72 hour observation in a mental health facility. There are ramifications for self-destructive behavior.
Also, equating unprotected sex with slicing comeone's throat was inaccurate in 2000. In 2008, it is an overstatement beyond the pale.
A) not every act of unprotected sex results in seroconversion.
B) with current standards of care, HIV is no longer nearly the same disease that it was twelve years ago.
C) what, exactly, determines "unprotected sex" varies from location to location, often from judge to judge. To some, spitting is attempted murder. Others include kissing. To others, insertive oral sex or cunnilingus is considered a threat.
Until/unless the legal system establishes a science-based standard by which to judge these indiscretions, I will ALWAYS be against the criminalization of HIV. Particularly when seroconversion does not occur.
Since we cannot even find that science-based playing field on these very forums, I doubt seriosuly that the legal system will succeed.
In consensual sex, seroconversion is a shared responsibility. And I have yet to see any case reports or evidence to sway my opinion on that regard.
If there are ramifications for the non-disclosing positive person, even in the absence of infection, then there should be similar ramifications for a negative person who puts him/herself, and tangentially, his/her community at risk. After all, if these "victims" never get tested, they never have to lie, right?
-
To some, spitting is attempted murder.
Actually since we are getting off topic now, spitting on someone is simple assault whether pos or not and you can be thrown in the slammer for doing so. If you don't believe me google Larry Johnson.
-
Assuming you do not die, if you slice your own throat you will be determined to be a threat to yourself, and placed in at least a 72 hour observation in a mental health facility. There are ramifications for self-destructive behavior.
Also, equating unprotected sex with slicing comeone's throat was inaccurate in 2000. In 2008, it is an overstatement beyond the pale.
A) not every act of unprotected sex results in seroconversion.
B) with current standards of care, HIV is no longer nearly the same disease that it was twelve years ago.
C) what, exactly, determines "unprotected sex" varies from location to location, often from judge to judge. To some, spitting is attempted murder. Others include kissing. To others, insertive oral sex or cunnilingus is considered a threat.
Until/unless the legal system establishes a science-based standard by which to judge these indiscretions, I will ALWAYS be against the criminalization of HIV. Particularly when seroconversion does not occur.
Since we cannot even find that science-based playing field on these very forums, I doubt seriosuly that the legal system will succeed.
In consensual sex, seroconversion is a shared responsibility. And I have yet to see any case reports or evidence to sway my opinion on that regard.
If there are ramifications for the non-disclosing positive person, even in the absence of infection, then there should be similar ramifications for a negative person who puts him/herself, and tangentially, his/her community at risk. After all, if these "victims" never get tested, they never have to lie, right?
Quit switching the topic. He failed to disclosed before having UNPROTECTED sex. He plead GUILTY. He was found GUILTY.
-
People were Quarantined during the TB epidemic in the 1940's and 50's until the disease was contained. In the late 70's and early 1980's if the government Quarantined people with the GAY CANCER as it was known at the time... they could have found out How it was being spread from one person to another ... Nothing is wrong with quarantining people with a disease when their looking for all factions of how, why, when etc... but, our Government sat back because it was effecting a certain (homosexual men) part of an unwanted population... Now its too late and now they know what causes hiv... etc...
on the sugect this DJ (23) was warned and given a probation period by the court... he broke his probation... so he should be sentenced in prison... period!
-
Actually since we are getting off topic now, spitting on someone is simple assault whether pos or not and you can be thrown in the slammer for doing so. If you don't believe me google Larry Johnson.
I was actually not getting off topic, as the details of the unprotected sex were not made public. We can ASSUME unprotected anal sex took place, but this was nto made clear.
As for the spitting, I was directly referencing this:
http://www.poz.com/articles/spitting_hiv_sentence_1_14582.shtml
Which was covered on these forums in an Off-Topic thread.
-
People were Quarantined during the TB epidemic in the 1940's and 50's until the disease was contained. In the late 70's and early 1980's if the government Quarantined people with the GAY CANCER as it was known at the time...
The absurdity of your argument is only compounded by your logic. For one they didn't even know what caused HIV in the late 70's and early 80's. Without a blood test I guess you're suggesting they should have rounded up every homo (including you) without even knowing what they were rounding them up for. Why (to use your terminology) would they have locked people up for cancer, gay or otherwise? Even way back when in the 70's people understood cancer wasn't a communicable disease. You do realize in order to implement your quarantine it would have been necessary to test the entire population, and seal the borders before throwing away the key.
-
1985 was the year in testing for aids... and no I would not have been infected... and was not at this time. 1991... was the gift I recieved from my ex... Check out the history of the epidemic... this disease could have and should have been contained and controlled by the CDC (government) and it would have been so if it was afecting the whole population at a time... I was not a FAG in 1985...so there ya go...
-
1985 was the year in testing for aids... and no I would not have been infected... and was not at this time. 1991... was the gift I recieved from my ex... Check out the history of the epidemic... this disease could have and should have been contained and controlled by the CDC (government) and it would have been so if it was afecting the whole population at a time... I was not a FAG in 1985...so there ya go...
Ludicrous does not even come close to describing your thinking, and 1991 was a very dark year for FAGS worldwide. How sad for you.
-
C) what, exactly, determines "unprotected sex" varies from location to location, often from judge to judge. To some, spitting is attempted murder. Others include kissing. To others, insertive oral sex or cunnilingus is considered a threat.
Until/unless the legal system establishes a science-based standard by which to judge these indiscretions, I will ALWAYS be against the criminalization of HIV. Particularly when seroconversion does not occur.
Since we cannot even find that science-based playing field on these very forums, I doubt seriously that the legal system will succeed.
Exactly!
In some locations, being HIV+ and giving a blow job is considered putting an individual at risk. In other places, HIV+ folks cannot have sex protected or not, disclosure or no disclosure. Some states do not allow HIV+ people to marry. Imagine trying to enforce laws regarding murder and there not being a real definition of it. Say the definition is sometimes that premeditated murder took place. Another time, a driver runs a red light and is hit and killed by a truck. And then an individual is charged with attempted murder after punching another during an argument. These examples are exactly the varying degrees of definitions used to determine whether an individual exposed another to HIV.
-
1985 was the year in testing for aids... and no I would not have been infected... and was not at this time. 1991... was the gift I recieved from my ex... Check out the history of the epidemic... this disease could have and should have been contained and controlled by the CDC (government) and it would have been so if it was afecting the whole population at a time... I was not a FAG in 1985...so there ya go...
You know what? I've had enough of your bullshit. If no one else is going to, I'm reporting you for this offensive load of crap....but I imagine I'll just be one more voice in the choir.
-
Report on... this was my opinion... Ive never seen so many people who are offended to someone elses views... there are too many nasty people on this site... I made my point you do not have to agree and its the end of story.
-
Dixieman
Did you know in the mid-1980s, about 10,000 hemophiliacs were infected with HIV, and many of these passed the virus on to their wives/lovers who could then infect their children, about 5,000 people with hemophilia and HIV have died...would you have had them "ROUNDED" up and quarantined them also.
Thousands were infected when they were todlers and weren't actually diagnosed until they were young men, and many after they had become secxually active...and don't you dare tell me they must have all come from the gay community.
Rounding up and quarentining Gay men would not have stopped this pandemic..your posts regarding this is just pure rubbish.
Maybe it's just me but I find the word FAG insulting...just saying.
Jan
-
Report on... this was my opinion... Ive never seen so many people who are offended to someone elses views... there are too many nasty people on this site... I made my point you do not have to agree and its the end of story.
Now here's my opinion. You want to hold everyone else (including your boyfriend) accountable, but not yourself. Obviously, being the AIDS historian that you are, you were aware of HIV transmission and you didn't practice safe sex. You took it up the pooper and now you're popping pills with the rest of us fairies. It's hard to call others out on their behavior when you did the same damn thing when YOU knew better.
-
Exactly!
In some locations, being HIV+ and giving a blow job is considered putting an individual at risk. In other places, HIV+ folks cannot have sex protected or not, disclosure or no disclosure. Some states do not allow HIV+ people to marry. Imagine trying to enforce laws regarding murder and there not being a real definition of it. Say the definition is sometimes that premeditated murder took place. Another time, a driver runs a red light and is hit and killed by a truck. And then an individual is charged with attempted murder after punching another during an argument. These examples are exactly the varying degrees of definitions used to determine whether an individual exposed another to HIV.
There is not one state that prevents and HIV positive person from marrying in the US. geesh.
-
can seem the easier and less complicated option.
it might be easier and less complicated; but it's not morally and, in some locales, not legally, right.
of course, I believe that both parties should be protective/responsible of their own health and well being; but when you are a carrier of this disease, knowingly exposing someone to this terminal disease just for your own sexual gratification without warning them sounds like a pretty immoral act in my book.
For one they didn't even know what caused HIV in the late 70's and early 80's.
as to quarantine, there is a time and place for a gov't to take that kind of action to protect the public. Back in the 80s when this idea was being taken semi-seriously, the transmission modes of this disease were not understood, so quarantine seemed like a viable option. If a true plague ever breaks out, we'll be happy that our gov't has the option to impose a quarantine - to not only protect the rest of the population; but hopefully to determine the exact transmission modes and affect a cure or vaccine.
Imagine if you will as an example, if next month an outbreak of ebola happened in "insert city name here". There would be a quarantine of that city; but not a nationwide, seal the borders, test everyone kind of situation. Now think back to when dozens of AIDS patients laid dying in hospitals in the mid to late 80s. (there's a thread around here recently, with a good look back at that time) Quarantining (since these "outbreaks" were in larger cities and not spread throughout the country) really wasn't that far-fetched of an idea to have had, seeing what was happening. For a while, it sure did look like a plague. Sometimes I do have to wonder how many of us would be here if something more had been done to "contain" the inital outbreaks; but the clash of an uncaring public ("it's just fags and addicts dying from it") with people who believed their lifestyle was being taken away ("you can't close the bath houses"), along with a sprinking of civil rights (anonymous testing) only led to spreading the disease further into the public.
B) with current standards of care, HIV is no longer nearly the same disease that it was twelve years ago.
the only reason that I have injected any of my thots into this discussion is because the underlying thought of this point. Although I will admit up front that AIDS is a more treatable disease today than it was just a decade ago, to insinuate that it is not still a terminal disease, and that people are not putting other people's lives in jeopardy by exposing them to this disease, is just plain wrong.
If you don't believe it's still a terminal illness, let's ask my partner. Oh that's right, we can't. Though always healthy as a horse, he suddenly became sick this past Feb, got a cancer and AIDS diagnosis in early Mar, and died on May 1st. Don't be tricked into thinking this is only a "chronic manageable" disease that someone might be spreading by having unprotected sex. Without a timely diagnosis and treatment, HIV is still a killer.
When I suggested the OP use this incident to take up one-to-one activism and education, it was because of my own sense of the danger of "catching" this illness. (and the OP seemed to have the same worries as he wondered what to tell who to help prevent the spread of this disease) I only have to use my own story of being positive to show the dangers of this disease. Remember Randy? He died of AIDS. Remember Jim? He's dead from it too. Remember the two times I nearly died from AIDS when I was in the hospital with PCP? Do you want this kind of life? Well, then get tested, and protect yourself. And if you have it, for heaven's sake, don't pass it to anyone else!
-
Leatherman thanks... thats what I was trying to state... Quarantining at that time was a Viable option but, since it took hold of a group of people (homosexual men) the government did not care...
oh Dachsun... I had 4 hiv test with my partner given by a friend who was a doctor... at that time... we asked if we were Monogamous would it be ok not to use condoms... he the doctor said if we were monogamous there was no need to use condoms because we were both HIV-... well I did not trick around but, my partner did and he brought this DISEASE home to me... so I KICKED HIS ASS OUT... so theres your answer... What a nasty person you are... and I reported this to the monitor also... I have my own opinions and I can call myself a Fag if I want... annie
-
Don't be tricked into thinking this is only a "chronic manageable" disease that someone might be spreading by having unprotected sex
I certainly hope that this was not directed at me. The most cursury glimpse at my posting history and blogging states that I find this disease far more dangerous than the "chronic, manageable" paradigm.
Particularly since, in August, I posted an entire blog from my hospital bed, struggling with PCP.
However, and those of us who have endured great loss are loathe to admit it, those diagnosed today, and early in the infection, stand a great chance of NEVER developing AIDS. That's the reality of the treatments, and the burden we LTS folks have to bear, often alone.
Today's HIV is not at all the same as the disease as we experienced it in the 1980's and 1990's.
For those who refuse to be tested and are not diagnosed until irreperable damage or life-threatening OI's manifest, it is often terminal. This is why education and prevention needs to include an emphasis on testing, knowing your status, and getting treatment early. The notion that one can "tell" another person's status, either through a conversation online or appearance, needs to be disproven.
Denial is deadly.
-
Leatherman thanks... thats what I was trying to state... Quarantining at that time was a Viable option but, since it took hold of a group of people (homosexual men) the government did not care...
oh Dachsun... I had 4 hiv test with my partner given by a friend who was a doctor... at that time... we asked if we were Monogamous would it be ok not to use condoms... he the doctor said if we were monogamous there was no need to use condoms because we were both HIV-... well I did not trick around but, my partner did and he brought this DISEASE home to me... so I KICKED HIS ASS OUT... so theres your answer... What a nasty person you are... and I reported this to the monitor also... I have my own opinions and I can call myself a Fag if I want... annie
whatever...but i'd certainly recommend you watch your little attitude when addressing the moderators of this site. just sayin'.
and gee....you "weren't a FAG in 1985". gosh - 1991 was certainly a marker year for you....you got infected with AIDS and "the gay" all at once, eh?
-
If you are HIV positive there is no responsible reason for one not to disclose their status if they are going to have sex, protected or not.
Huh? If I slap on a condom you still think I need to put on a public parade of my Prezista capsules? What's the point? Now, if it's the 3rd date or something I can see the point, but you're living on a strange planet if you think everyone does this for a one night stand. Really Rod, please have a sense of reality.
-
I'm surprised none of the Moderators have picked this up
++
-
Huh? If I slap on a condom you still think I need to put on a public parade of my Prezista capsules? What's the point? Now, if it's the 3rd date or something I can see the point, but you're living on a strange planet if you think everyone does this for a one night stand. Really Rod, please have a sense of reality.
What is the difference between date one and date three? Date one is a trick and you don't care if the condom fails and they contract HIV? There is no difference between date one or three. They have the right to know.
-
Maybe it's just me but I find the word FAG insulting...just saying.
Jan
there are too many nasty people on this site...
-
What is the difference between date one and date three? Date one is a trick and you don't care if the condom fails and they contract HIV? There is no difference between date one or three. They have the right to know.
I've never had a condom fail, and I've had a LOT of sex.
I don't tell my dates that I'm a nasty queen either, but I guess they have "a right to know".
-
indeedy indeedy, many post during my journey home...
People may remember this:
'Summers severely attacked his victim after the positive man told him that he was HIV positive. The men had met on Manchester's gay scene and gone to the HIV-positive man's flat for sex. When told about the HIV, Summers attacked him, "leaving his victim unconscious in his blood-spattered flat before taking property and driving off in his car." The HIV-positive man "suffered bleeding to his brain as a result of the beating and has been left with permanent disabilities..."' Okay he told him after (protected or unprotected) sex but what if he told him before? Given Summers' record, I doubt the outcome would be much different.
There are other less dramatic cases where disclosure has been before sex.
As one wise man said: "Do I risk getting beaten up by disclosing? Or do I risk getting criminally prosecuted if I just stay quiet?"
This also applies to women, eg a woman who got an unexpected HIV+ test as part of her pre-natal screening. Tis possible her husband, a very moral sounding religious man, was the source, but we'll never know, cos she was thrown out after a violent row when she told him - as she suspected she might be - some 2 to 3 weeks after her positive test. Other kids now in care. << somewhat shortened true story
Reason 1: safety of self or others
And: there's this kid, not quite 16, but definitely having/thinking about sex, who's mum is HIV+ and so's the kid, but mum hasn't told her kid, so she can't disclose. << this is a case study from a conference
Reason 2; you don't know
2 reasons it's not wrong not to disclose.
In NZ the law has decided using condoms removes the obligation to disclose, because the risk of harm is minimised.
So perhaps 3 reasons << I know this is debatable is some people's book but Hobbit land is not N Carolina eh?
Disclosure is a process and in itself, does not prevent risk of infection.
On the specific DJ case, he plea bargained, so who the fuck knows what really happened, whether he disclosed, used condoms or what? Or indeed whether his partners cared, understood the risk, accepted it, were stoned etc etc. Newspapers are dangerous. plus they put his charge sheet, part of his med records, face, address and house on TV. Under strap lines like PUBLIC HEALTH RISK.
People need to shape up, the criminal laws are the new frontline of activism. They don't stop HIV transmission. They just herd us into a reservation away from "normal" people. if we don't wanna be non-persons in 5 years time we need to get on the case. Just cos it's the law don't mean it's right. Before you know it we'll have to sit on the back of the bus.
To the quarantine advocates, you should be ashamed really.
- matt
-
I usually just moderate the research and treatment forum, but none of the other moderators are available and we've received a number of reports on this thread. As my southern grandmother always said, "Y'all simmer down now! Ya hear?!"
There are a number of potentially flame-like, or at least "hot" ideas and statements being thrown around (the word "Fag," the notion of quarantines for HIV, transmission laws and the ethics of disclosure) and it would be great if people could take a deep breath and think about what they're posting.
First of all, the word "Fag" is an epithet, whether we like it or not. Some are sensitive about it's use, while others are less so. Regardless, please refrain from using the word here, if at all possible.
Secondly, quarantines are used for infectious diseases that are very easy to transmit. There are a LOT of diseases far more infectious than HIV that do not result in a quarantine, TB comes to mind. Ethicists, scientists and lawmakers are supposed to carefully balance civil liberties with the potential for societal harm and ease of disease transmission when considering a quarantine. Please try to be as reasoned and careful in your postings
There are some very bright and compassionate individuals who fall on both sides of the debate over the criminalization of HIV transmission and when a person should disclose their HIV status. It is an emotionally charged issue for good reason. While there have been very, very few individuals who have behaved in a cavalier and cruel fashion around their HIV (i.e. going so far as to lie about one's HIV status and having unprotected anal or vaginal sex with a person who is HIV-negative) there have been people who've fallen victim to such individuals. It is predominantly these kinds of cases that are pointed to by proponents of laws criminalizing failure to disclose. Unfortunately, such laws are sometimes taken out of context and used in extreme ways to penalize sexuality and homosexuality. Rather than descending into attacks on one another, please try to keep the conversation focused on the issues and try to remember that reasonable people can reasonably disagree about this issue.
Sincerely,
David
-
So perhaps 3 reasons << I know this is debatable is some people's book but Hobbit land is not N Carolina eh?
Yeah, that seems the basic theme going on in this thread, sadly.
-
'Summers severely attacked his victim after the positive man told him that he was HIV positive... Okay he told him after (protected or unprotected) sex but what if he told him before? Given Summers' record, I doubt the outcome would be much different.
I think it may have made a difference. I know I would be more upset if someone told me they had herpes after we had sex than before. Put yourself in someone else's shoes. Wouldn't you want to know if someone had a sexually transmitted disease before you had sex with them?
Reason 2; you don't know
You can't very well disclose something you are unaware of.
In NZ the law has decided using condoms removes the obligation to disclose, because the risk of harm is minimised.
So perhaps 3 reasons << I know this is debatable is some people's book but Hobbit land is not N Carolina eh?
The case we are discussing is about failure to disclose and having unprotected sex. Although it would be best if every HIV+ person disclosed before having sex I think there are situations where disclosing is not necessary. However, when you are HIV+ and you know you are HIV+ you have an obligation not to spread the virus by having unprotected sex with people who are negative or who don't know their status.
-
There is not one state that prevents and HIV positive person from marrying in the US. geesh.
Rodney, please tell me you'll admit when you're wrong:
Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-519 Felony
It is a felony for any person, after becoming infected with a venereal disease and before being pronounced cured by a physician in writing, to marry any other person or to expose any other person by the act of copulation or sexual intercourse to such venereal disease or to liability to contract the venereal disease. (“Venereal disease” is defined to include diseases which may be transmitted from one person to another through or by means of sexual intercourse and found and declared by medical science or accredited schools of medicine to be infectious or contagious, § 1-517.)
-
Was the DJ about to get married?
-
Rodney, please tell me you'll admit when you're wrong:
Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-519 Felony
It is a felony for any person, after becoming infected with a venereal disease and before being pronounced cured by a physician in writing, to marry any other person or to expose any other person by the act of copulation or sexual intercourse to such venereal disease or to liability to contract the venereal disease. (“Venereal disease” is defined to include diseases which may be transmitted from one person to another through or by means of sexual intercourse and found and declared by medical science or accredited schools of medicine to be infectious or contagious, § 1-517.)
David how did you get that little squiggly thing before 1-517? I don't see it on my keyboard
-
Venereal disease” is defined to include diseases which may be transmitted from one person to another through or by means of sexual intercourse and found and declared by medical science or accredited schools of medicine to be infectious or contagious. HIV is not only transmitted via sexual intercourse. It's transmitted by IV drug abusers that share works. Mother to child. Occupational exposures. So that law has it's own loop holes.
-
Was the DJ about to get married?
Maybe in another state. So far, here in NC, he'd just be shackin' up.
-
Maybe in another state. So far, here in NC, he'd just be shackin' up.
He was having unprotected sex without disclosure of his status. Plus violating his probation.
-
He was having unprotected sex without disclosure of his status. Plus violating his probation.
Um... I was joking with Tom. ::)
-
I think it may have made a difference.
How much difference? The difference between just roughing him up a bit, brain damage and a wheelchair after being left for dead, llike the guy Summers hit on, or, like my neighbour, nearly losing his left eye.
Plus the other guy, the one who gave the 23 year old an STI, possibly just by going down on him, where's he in the courtroom? Clearly, he was not up for discussing his sexual history before sex. Maybe he's one of the closet case married men who post on craiglist and the like. Or maybe he was a regular fuckbuddy who's also HIV+. No-one knows. We just have the charge as put forward by N Carolina, which, as he's on probation for having "unprotected sex" (does that include oral? yes, guess so) is a dead cert gulity plea.
-
Yes, gotta love N Carolina:
North Carolina man gets nine months for HIV exposure
"In late July or early August, the victim said she learned from a friend of Johnson's that he was HIV-positive. When she confronted him, he admitted it.
"The woman said that when she asked Johnson why he didn't tell her, Johnson replied, "I really love you and I didn't want to lose you."
"The woman said she continued having sex with Johnson after learning of his condition, but it was protected sex.
"The relationship ended in November, when Johnson was arrested following a domestic altercation with the victim. The woman did not contract the virus." (Free-Lance Star, march 2008)
Gotcha!
HIV exposure laws are really dumb.
- matt
-
Yes, gotta love N Carolina:
North Carolina man gets nine months for HIV exposure
"In late July or early August, the victim said she learned from a friend of Johnson's that he was HIV-positive. When she confronted him, he admitted it.
"The woman said that when she asked Johnson why he didn't tell her, Johnson replied, "I really love you and I didn't want to lose you."
"The woman said she continued having sex with Johnson after learning of his condition, but it was protected sex.
"The relationship ended in November, when Johnson was arrested following a domestic altercation with the victim. The woman did not contract the virus." (Free-Lance Star, march 2008)
Gotcha!
HIV exposure laws are really dumb.
- matt
NC uses Public Health Care Laws not state statutes when it comes to infectious diseases.
-
Hi All,
Just in general I want to join in support of David's levelheaded and cautionary words here. Every single time this subject has come up it has provoked very strong to incendiary exchanges. It's a powerhouse subject that in one way or another has touched everyone of our lives.
We've had a raft of reports to the moderators on this thread by those who have been disturbed by some of the remarks. I don't want to see anyone get a time out over this.
Please think before posting about whether what you want to say is actually advancing the conversation or whether it's potentially just another lighted match in a gasoline can.
Thanks for your cooperation.
-
NC uses Public Health Care Laws not state statutes when it comes to infectious diseases.
NC then parades the HIV+ pariah on the nightly television news, including pictures of the victim and close ups of his arrest warrant showing all relevant personal information.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3388423/
-
Oh, I thought some of you might enjoy this link -- though perhaps it's been brought up previously and I just missed it:
http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/
About this blog
This blog focuses on prosecutions for sexual exposure to, or transmission of, HIV around the world.
Like UNAIDS and many other experts in this area, I am opposed to such prosecutions unless it can be proved beyond any doubt that transmission actually occurred and that it was intentional. Such cases will be extremely rare when sex has been consensual.
If anyone knows of cases not reported here, or has material they would like to share, please contact me.
To add further information or insight into any of the cases here please comment on the story. Please note, I will not publish comments that I consider to be offensive, libellous or potentially prejudicial to the case.
-
NC then parades the HIV+ pariah on the nightly television news, including pictures of the victim and close ups of his arrest warrant showing all relevant personal information.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3388423/
That is absolutely disgusting. I now know PRECISELY an address for this man....as does anyone else who has seen this link the world over. There is no excuse for displaying the information the way they did.
PS: I sent them a nasty letter.
-
That is absolutely disgusting. I now know PRECISELY an address for this man....as does anyone else who has seen this link the world over. There is no excuse for displaying the information the way they did.
PS: I sent them a nasty letter.
Anyone that wanted a copy of the court records that was shown can pay and get a copy of them and on them, their phone numbers and address will not be redacted. So anyone can get his address. Anyone can pay and get copies of anyone’s trial transcripts as long as they are not minors.
-
Anyone that wanted a copy of the court records that was shown can pay and get a copy of them and on them, their phone numbers and address will not be redacted. So anyone can get his address. Anyone can pay and get copies of anyone’s trial transcripts as long as they are not minors.
Oh yeah, Rod. No difference at all there between having to pay and secure own's own copy and broadcasting them world wide to anyone and everyone with a computer or a television set. No difference at all.
You really take the cake.
-
Rod, please halt these disingenuous postings.
Best regards,
Philicia Legendaria, IV
-
That news station definitely was out of bounds for flashing his address for the world to see. While I don't agree with his actions, of which this very article that Philly posted stated he fully admits to both not disclosing and not using condoms, the news station definitely abused their power of the Freedom of Information Act on this one.
I actually wonder if his very lawyer is doing her job correctly and or even cares..
Privacy Act of 1974 states:
No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains
I doubt seriously he signed off to have his address posted on TV.
Edited to add: I wonder if he has a case now....
-
I love the fact that the story involves having the court closed while filming the procedings to have the court closed.
-
I certainly hope that this was not directed at me. ... Particularly since, in August, I posted an entire blog from my hospital bed, struggling with PCP.
What a small world it is sometimes ;D In 1998, I got my own domain (named after my old pet store "It's Reigning Pets") and started my blog (http://reigningpages.comleatherman) as I was recovering from my first bout of PCP. By posting pix and stories from my life, it kept my family in NC informed that I wasn't dying up here in Ohio. ;) Little did I know it when I started it that I'd go on to post about another hospitalization (I had a laptop with me in the hospital that time; but I was so close to almost dying, I didn't have the strength to do much blogging until I got back home ;) ), a ton of meds and crappy side effects over the years, and now 14 yrs. later, the death of another partner.
Today's HIV is not at all the same as the disease as we experienced it in the 1980's and 1990's.
I agree whole-heartedly with you, that it's early detection AND treatment that enables this illness to now be viewed as more "chronic and manageable". But it is the SAME disease. Only the treatment has changed. When/if a person passes this infection on to someone else, they are still passing on the same terminal disease that it's always been. If a timely diagnosis isn't made, or treatment isn't started in time, or if there isn't access to the meds, or if access to meds is lost (by losing insurance, gov't social program cuts, etc), then the infected person is doomed.
For me, that's the crux of this issue. Knowing you're positive and having unprotected sex, you risk passing along a terminal illness (most people are counseled on that aspect of this when diagnosed) - and all for nothing more than one person's sexual satisfaction. Not disclosing (giving the other person a chance to "opt out" of the risky encounter) seems to only add culpabliity.
This guy in NC, after already having gone to court, where I'm assuming transmission modes and the consequences of someone becoming infected were discussed by the lawyers, has continued his confessed dangerous behaviour without regard to those he may be infecting with a terminal disease. As Queen mentioned, I'm surprised that attempted murder wasn't a charge; though it does sound like NC is trying to do something to stop a potential "typhoid mary".
-
Oh yeah, Rod. No difference at all there between having to pay and secure own's own copy and broadcasting them world wide to anyone and everyone with a computer or a television set. No difference at all.
You really take the cake.
You blaming me? I just told you where the information can be obtained. It's Public Records..
-
Rod, please halt these disingenuous postings.
Best regards,
Philicia Legendaria, IV
Excuse me, Disingenuous postings? Go to your Clerk of courts and see if you can't get a copy of someone's trial. Look up the Public Records Act., each state has one.
-
You blaming me? I just told you where the information can be obtained. It's Public Records..
I'm blaming you for trying to excuse away this world-wide broadcasting of this guy's personal information. It is a far cry from paying and procuring this information personallly than it is to plaster it world-wide for anyone and everyone to see. I am well aware that information like this can be obtained...that is NOT the same thing as spreading it the world over - and you damn well know it.
-
the only reason that I have injected any of my thots into this discussion is because the underlying thought of this point. Although I will admit up front that AIDS is a more treatable disease today than it was just a decade ago, to insinuate that it is not still a terminal disease, and that people are not putting other people's lives in jeopardy by exposing them to this disease, is just plain wrong.
If you don't believe it's still a terminal illness, let's ask my partner. Oh that's right, we can't. Though always healthy as a horse, he suddenly became sick this past Feb, got a cancer and AIDS diagnosis in early Mar, and died on May 1st. Don't be tricked into thinking this is only a "chronic manageable" disease that someone might be spreading by having unprotected sex. Without a timely diagnosis and treatment, HIV is still a killer.
When I suggested the OP use this incident to take up one-to-one activism and education, it was because of my own sense of the danger of "catching" this illness. (and the OP seemed to have the same worries as he wondered what to tell who to help prevent the spread of this disease) I only have to use my own story of being positive to show the dangers of this disease. Remember Randy? He died of AIDS. Remember Jim? He's dead from it too. Remember the two times I nearly died from AIDS when I was in the hospital with PCP? Do you want this kind of life? Well, then get tested, and protect yourself. And if you have it, for heaven's sake, don't pass it to anyone else!
Which, pardon me for asking, but it does beg the question: How exactly did HIV and AIDS just kinda "sneak up" on old Jim there? I mean - here you were...with one partner aready in the ground from this. Did it never occur to Jim to, ya know...GET AN HIV TEST? Not once? Did it not occur to you to perhaps push the issue, given your previous loss? If this was explained somewhere in that mammoth thread and I missed it, I apologize. I didn't see it. But if we're so intent on painting this DJ kid here as such a "typhoid Mary", and for quarantines as a not-so-bad idea, I just couldn't help that it did come to mind above when reading all this...just how did AIDS sneak up on someone like Jim? If I was in that situation, I would have made routine testing mandatory out of common sense.
-
I'm blaming you for trying to excuse away this world-wide broadcasting of this guy's personal information. It is a far cry from paying and procuring this information personallly than it is to plaster it world-wide for anyone and everyone to see. I am well aware that information like this can be obtained...that is NOT the same thing as spreading it the world over - and you damn well know it.
I didn't make an excuse for anyone. I just told you that it was public information. You know we wouldn't have been having this conversation if the guy would have disclosed before having unprotected sex. Not once but twice.
-
Which, pardon me for asking, but it does beg the question: How exactly did HIV and AIDS just kinda "sneak up" on old Jim there? I mean - here you were...with one partner already in the ground from this. Did it never occur to Jim to, ya know...GET AN HIV TEST? Not once? Did it not occur to you to perhaps push the issue, given your previous loss? If this was explained somewhere in that mammoth thread and I missed it, I apologize. I didn't see it. But if we're so intent on painting this DJ kid here as such a "typhoid Mary", and for quarantines as a not-so-bad idea, I just couldn't help that it did come to mind above when reading all this...just how did AIDS sneak up on someone like Jim? If I was in that situation, I would have made routine testing mandatory out of common sense.
Damn Tim that's pretty cold and callous of you. I think if the DJ had any common sense after his first bout with the law he would have used some common sense himself, whether we agree with it or not. Have you ever given an ounce of thought that not everyone is going to agree with your stance here? Does it make them a bad person for not doing so?
Pretty darn adamant that those with HIV have no responsibility in the matter aren't you? I agree that it is a two way street, but either way you look at it people like you and I have made the same mistake that others will likely follow. Yes we take responsibility for our own infection, but does that mean that we now turn a blind eye if someone does not care if they infect others?
Do you care if you infect someone? You don't have to answer that because personally I think you are a good guy and do care, unlike this fantastic DJ. You can hate me for my opinion on the matter, I'll listen to yours with an open mind... however I may not agree with you.
-
I think your dreads are wound a little too tight, skeebo.
I don't think you want to dig at me too much about the notion of doing things without thinking though the effect it has on others, now do you? No, I don't so.
I made a perfectly valid question, IMO. If something like quarantining people seems totally reasonable for some people on here, would not getting a routine HIV test every now and then (especially when in a relationship with someone wh had already lost a partner to that very thing) also not be a reasonable step to take?
-
.
I don't think you want to dig at me too much about the notion of doing things without thinking though the effect it has on others, now do you? No, I don't so.
Feel free my friend I am all ears, but before you do make sure you have your facts straight. I have a very strong feeling I know what you are getting at and on that subject I have never given my side of the story..
So have at it Timbo! ;D
-
Keep it civil, guys. Just because we're a few posts past warnings left by two moderators - David and Andy - doesn't make them irrelevant. Stop taking pot shots at each other and stay on topic or this thread is going to be locked and a few people given time outs.
This is the LAST time a warning will appear in this thread. Watch your fingers guys and think before you post.
Ann
-
I really do wonder about the guy wh0o gave the DJ an STi, what he's thinking etc. Will he go to a clinic? What's he been up to? etc (but as the authorities go, clearly not so much of a public heath hazard)
I agree with Tim, I would shag the DJ, I seen a pic, he looks kinda hot
-
Have there been specific warnings to particular people, or just a generalized "keep it civil" thing? This is one problem I sometimes have on this board -- if there are warnings they need to be particular, and probably in addition to a moderator post in the thread a PM should be sent as well.
At any rate, I have no clue who has been warned and for what infraction. If that was just a general statement, Ann, disregard this question :)
-
I agree with Tim, I would shag the DJ, I seen a pic, he looks kinda hot[/font]
$10 he plays wall to wall Deborah Cox remixes
-
$10 he plays wall to wall Deborah Cox remixes
With his kit off?
-
$10 he plays wall to wall Deborah Cox remixes
With his kit off?
Unless you include a glass stem.
-
Have there been specific warnings to particular people, or just a generalized "keep it civil" thing? This is one problem I sometimes have on this board -- if there are warnings they need to be particular, and probably in addition to a moderator post in the thread a PM should be sent as well.
At any rate, I have no clue who has been warned and for what infraction. If that was just a general statement, Ann, disregard this question :)
Fair comment, Philly.
It was pretty much meant as a general warning, although it was the tit-for-tat antics of Thunter, Rod and Skeebo which prompted me to issue a final warning. I thought it was pretty obvious who was edging over the line.
But you're right, in future I'll be more specific as to whether I'm being general or ... um ... specific.
Ann
edited to add... Sometimes PMs are sent as well. It all depends on the situation and the severity of the problem. ;)
-
Which, pardon me for asking, but it does beg the question: How exactly did HIV and AIDS just kinda "sneak up" on old Jim there?
Though it has nothing to do with some guy in NC knowingly spreading HIV, and though I was a little put-off by the tone of your questions about a guy that has barely been ashes sitting in an urn in my living room for the last 5 months, if everyone will allow a hijack, here's the scoop.
I spent years and years as only Jim's friend, for two reasons. The most pressing reason was that I did not want to die on him (and I've been sick enough off and on through the years for this to have been a possibility) and leave him as grief-stricken as I was losing Randy. Less pressing, but equally important, was that I did not want to pass this disease on to him. Between the years from Jim's last long-term partner (of 10 yrs) to when we moved our relationship from platonic to sexual, Jim was tested several times and the results were always negative. During those years, I also learned more about safe sex, and though I was never entirely comfortable, I placed my trust that condoms would keep us as a sero-discordant couple.
Looking back now, I see how we (Jim and I) failed though. We spent too much of our time worried about my health. I struggled to recover from pneumonia twice in two years; I struggled with crappy side effects from nearly every med I've taken; I've only averaged 167 tcells over the last 15 yrs; and it took ten long-ass years to finally reach undetectable.
Though his father died of a heart attack at 42 and his mom died of cancer at 56, Jim was always healthy as a horse. No colds, no flu, only a case of appendicitis that required an operation. Why, the guy never even have a single cavity!! So it looked like he was more like his grandmother, who lived to 87 with hardly any health problems. But obviously, we should have been as concerned about Jim's health as my own. Instead, since we were both in our 40s and used to running our own lives (we lived in our separate homes until just 2 yrs ago), I guess what I did was what many have suggested here - I left caring for Jim's health up to Jim. A grave error on my part, if you'll pardon the dark pun.
Since you've brought it up, I'll hash out the problem of Jim's infection here. Did he get infected after his last negative test and before we had sex? Possible, but Jim nearly always had safe sex, so I don't know either way for sure. Did I infect him? Based on what I've read about condom performance, it's unlikely; but unfortunately there isn't a 100% guarantee there. In most of my posts, I've tried to refrain from going down this path, as I didn't want to get embroiled into a discussion of whether he was infected even though we used condoms. Regardless of differing opinions, I still have to consider that as a possibility.
One of the things I discussed with my doctor, when we were trapped in the hospital all weekend during a blizzard back in March after having just gotten Jim's diagnoses, was why neither he (my doctor) nor I had suggested that Jim be retested during our years together. Though my doctor's partner was handling Jim's case, my doctor had seen Jim many times, as Jim had accompanied me to my doctor appts for nearly 4 yrs. All I can say now, since nothing in the past can be changed, is that all three of us were fools.
Yes, I fooled myself into complacency about HIV by outliving Randy by 14 yrs, by surviving PCP, by staying alive on newer meds. I should have never forgotten how close to death I came. I should have never grown accustomed to regaining some of my health. I should have never had the chance to believe my death wasn't inevitable and imminent. I should have never been lucky enough to fall in love again and think a "normal" life might be possible. I should have stayed miserable, sick, and alone; and perhaps Jim would still be alive today. Now for the rest of my life, I'll be wondering whether the condoms didn't protect us, and beating myself up for not pressing Jim to be tested.
Damn Tim that's pretty cold and callous of you.
Don't worry about me. thunter asked a valid question, even if it had nothing to do with this topic and was posed in a rude manner. As Jim's death was quite sudden (73 days from the inital symptoms till his death, with 60 of those days spent in the hospital and 9 at home with hospice), and as he passed away only 175 days ago, it's all still fresh for me and not like those comments ripped the scab back off of a healed wound. As I recently mentioned to my mom as we planned for my visit home at Christmas, it's all still going to be bad for a while. The first holidays without Jim are coming up, and then as we move into 2009, I'll get to relive those 60 days through March (including my 47th bday on the 14th) and April when Jim was tortured in the hospital (not only did the two rounds of chemo not work; but Jim suffered severe "hospital psychosis" (from being moved through a dozen rooms during those 2 months) and was starved to death for 4 days before being sent home one weekend (which ended with the ambulance returning him to the hospital)). I've got too many tragic, sad memories to deal with, and cry about, to let someone jerk my chain with an inconsiderate question.
If this was explained somewhere in that mammoth thread and I missed it, I apologize. I didn't see it.
LOL I think I've probably apologized enough times already (in other threads) for my long posts. Sorry, but I think that short quips and tiny answers aren't always a proper way to "discuss" an issue. Like others have mentioned in various threads, I have found some members here are quick to pounce with venomous responses. So sometimes I feel obligated to lay out my train of thought for reaching an opinion that I've decided to voice. I hope that rather than pick out one line to harp on, they'll be able to see my logic and actually discuss where their thoughts differ.
But if we're so intent on painting this DJ kid here as such a "typhoid Mary", and for quarantines as a not-so-bad idea, I just couldn't help that it did come to mind above when reading all this...just how did AIDS sneak up on someone like Jim?
I thought "typhoid Mary" might have raised some hackles; but I thought it was an apt description. This guy is known positive and knowingly having unprotected sex. If the stats hold true, then he's also been infecting people - who could then be "unknowingly" continuing to spread the disease even further.
As I mentioned about harping about one line, I tried to lay out how and why a quarantine could be appropriate in the event of an epidemic. Whether a quarantine is right or wrong, and whatever any of us thinks about it, I am certain that a situation could occur where a gov't or a local populace might demand such a drastic action. They tried during the initial years of the HIV outbreak in America, so I can imagine (and did explain this already) a scenario in which a quarantine might be implemented and could work to contain an epidemic. I was not saying that a quarantine should have been used against HIV; but I thought it was disingenuous of some posts to speak as if quarantines were never a viable option. I mean even hospitals have implemented small-scale quarantine conditions (not as one post postulated as an "entire population, seal the borders" kind of action) on some of their patients for their health or the health of others. So I side with the medical professionals that sometimes a quarantine is a viable public health safety option and not rule them, out of hand, as rubbish.
But you're right, in future I'll be more specific as to whether I'm being general or ... um ... specific.
I am sorry if the bulk of this post is a hijack; but I did try to respond to some issues that were raised about my more on-topic posts earlier in the thread. I still don't understand how Jim acquiring AIDS or my failure to have Jim test during our years together has anything to do with the topic of the gay DJ in NC spreading HIV (though in a 6-degrees of separation sort of way, I do have HIV and I do come from NC LOL); but inquiring minds wondered and if you ever read either of my big threads here (spinning wheels, treading water) or my personal site, then you know I'm never one to shy away from telling an honest tale of my life - no matter how many tangents I have to take to get back to the point of my stories. ROFL
The gist of what I've gathered from this thread and others about the similar base issue is that some people think that they are their brother's keepers and feel obligated to not spread, and to stop the spread of, a very deadly disease. Others seem to not care and live in a world where it's every man for himself. To me it actually sounds like some here think it's okay for this known positive guy to be having unprotected sex; that getting his sexual satisfaction is more important than passing a deadly disease to others. If this is a discussion about who's responsible, of course I think both parties bear responsibility (though I'll leave my thoughts about the percentage of responsibility of each partner for a more appropriate thread). However, I thought we were discussing a person who knows his status, and has already even been punished by the government, and yet obviously is continuing to spread an infectious disease - a disease that I don't think should be taken lightly (as I thought insinuated by the post that claimed HIV was a different disease now, hence my references to meds, myself, Randy and Jim)
I don't believe criminalizing sexual conduct is the correct solution for this problem as it presents it's own problems, as have been pointed out in this thread (responsibility of each partner, whether seroconversion occurs, the definition of unprotected sex, whether the threat of punishment will discourage testing); but what is the solution then when a hiv+ person knowingly, repeatedly has unprotected sex exposing a segment of the population to a known deadly disease? Surely no one here thinks that it's okay for him to continue this behavior, right?
the other dude who was finding guys on craigslist and deliberately infecting them disgusted me. but i kinda feel bad for this dj dude. like, yeah, he should have used a condom but some times people slip. ... i mean, shouldnt there be some intent?
and speaking of "behavior", what about these examples from this thread. Aren't both men equally morally, if not legally, wrong? One guy's intent is to infect others. The DJ's intent was in getting his rocks off, even though he knew he could possibly be infecting others. Both exhibit a serious disregard for the health and safety of their fellow man.
I didn't mean to be quite this long-winded, so I really am sorry for such a "mammoth" posts, folks. :D I hope you'll excuse the hijack since I did try to add back to the original topic.
-
Mike,
Thank you for responding to what I agree was a rather rude, insensitive, hijack of a question with dignity and grace. There are lessons for all of us in your tragic experience.
And thank you for trying to bring us back to the original subject in your answer.
Now, can we ALL get back to the original subject, or do we need to lock this one down?
Ann
-
Mike, my thanks also for your thoughtful response. I hope in the coming months (and years) the pain of your loss will ease.
Sending big hugs and friendly comfort.
-
Mike,
Just wanted to thank you for sharing your story about Jim. Like Andy alluded to, I hope in time the pain of your loss may ease.
Thank you
-
Mike
I also am impressed with your honesty and courage. You are above lashing out at people on this board, even when rudely attacked yourself. That is truly refreshing no matter how "epic" your post tend to be:)
Getting back on topic - I think the DJ is cute too but agree with Philly that I am sure it is wall to wall Britney Spears at his bar in between hits on the pipe. That would perhaps explain his inabilities to "wrap it up". Or maybe he is just dumb?
Pete
-
Well from watching that news report on whether or not he should have a closed hearing, aside from noticing how cute he was, he did rather impress me as a deer in headlights when looking into the camera. Does that make him an innocent Bambi or some out of touch crack whore, I dunno. The lights appeared to be on but nobody was home looking out the windows.
I've noticed that no matter how long a post is around here. People will always latch onto that one sentence or phrase that rubs them the wrong way and take off running with it, ignoring the bigger picture at hand. One can only hope that they find it in themselves to step back from their emotions from time to time to see it.
For the topic at hand, I believe the guy was wrong in doing what he did. I also believe that the guy who gave him the new STD was wrong in what he did and should be facing some charges of his own. Tit for tat here. This is liken to the belief that it's only one individual's fault when adultery charges are brought up against one person. There was someone else involved in this act and that person should be held accountable as well. (Yeah I watched Boston Legal this week when Denny & Allan were brought up on Adultery Charges but the woman involved was not. Hilarious but poignant.)
-
Rude, insensitive me stands by his line of questioning.
Thanks, Mike.
-
Mikie, Thank you for sharing your personal life experiences with everyone. I'm sorry for your loss... sincerely, John
-
Rude, insensitive me stands by his line of questioning.
Thanks, Mike.
Tim, you come back with more of the same rude, disrepectful attitude despite numerous warnings issued in this thread. You are this close to being given a time out. Post in this thread again and you will be. Don't forget it will be TO#2 for you.
Please tone down your recent attitude in other threads as well.
And please do consider yourself officially warned.
Ann
-
Rude, insensitive me stands by his line of questioning.
Thanks, Mike.
no problem ;) even if your questions were off-topic for this thread. :D
I hope you took some time to read my stories in the Spinning Wheels (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=19412) and Treading Water (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=21329) threads about the hell Jim and I went through during this past Feb - June. Thankfully, after I lost the car (it was repo-ed), lost the house, and had to sell off Jim's belongings, I did get another place for me and the dogs to live. Now, if I could only figure out whether life is still worth living, force myself to deal with the puking, and get back onto my meds so I don't end up dead myself, things would be super.
and, trying to bring you back to the topic (once again), I still stand by my line of questioning
what is the solution then when a hiv+ person knowingly, repeatedly has unprotected sex exposing a segment of the population to a known deadly disease? Surely no one here thinks that it's okay for him to continue this behavior, right?
any ideas on what to do when anyone (e.g the DJ in the case) continues to knowingly go around spreading HIV? I don't want to tell you what to write; but something a litte more constructive that saying you'd like to screw the guy would help move this discussion along. ;)
All I would like to say is that I would totally shag that DJ myself.
anybody else got any ideas? Plenty of people seem to think criminalizing this behavior to not be the right action to take, so what should be done then? Nothing and let him continue infecting people? Personally, I don't know what should be done. At least the law (in NC, where this situation occurred) has taken some sort of action in trying to stop him from knowingly spreading HIV.
mikie
(who really can write shorter posts when he doesn't have as much to say LOL)
-
Good question Mike...
Even the back country judge seems to be trying to cut the guy some slack. Putting him on probation and house arrest has definitely failed. I think while many of us are in agreement that education on HIV, modes of transmission, etc. has failed we also have to remember that the negative population is the majority in this world. They act and base their/our laws out of fear and yes sometimes ignorance. It's their fear and ignorance that might just bring this whole quarantining us into reality because of people like this DJ who's motive seems to only get his rocks off.
I definitely am one who hopes it never comes to that...
-
anybody else got any ideas? Plenty of people seem to think criminalizing this behavior to not be the right action to take, so what should be done then? Nothing and let him continue infecting people?
I have an idea. He could be placed on an outpatient mental health commitment. Given his behavior he would certainly meet criteria. Basically he would have to go to therapy and if he didn't go law enforcement would pick him up and escort him to a mental health center for evaluation. It would keep him out of the legal system, and the media, and help him work out his issues about HIV and the consequences of his current behavior.
-
I have an idea. He could be placed on an outpatient mental health commitment. Given his behavior he would certainly meet criteria. Basically he would have to go to therapy and if he didn't go law enforcement would pick him up and escort him to a mental health center for evaluation. It would keep him out of the legal system, and the media, and help him work out his issues about HIV and the consequences of his current behavior.
And an excellent idea it is too! Maybe you should present it to some lawmakers as a bill. Anyone can write a bill right?
-
I don't know about Raleigh but in Greensboro we have a new mental health court. I think it would have been a better avenue had the DJ lived in this county.
http://www.news-record.com/node/17964 (http://www.news-record.com/node/17964)
-
I would leave all here who are Obama (supporters) with this thought. It is a quote from him at one of his rally's...
"It is that, I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. That makes this country work."
That is all I want to add to this thread.
-
Why is that directed to Obama supporters? Couldn't everyone get something from that message?
As for me, I am my DJ's dealer...
-
I would leave all here who are Obama (supporters) with this thought. It is a quote from him at one of his rally's...
"It is that, I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. That makes this country work."
That is all I want to add to this thread.
McCain supporters, party on!
-
I really didn't want to go here but... :-\
The point I was attempting to make is that I believe a significant number of responders on this thread are supportive of Obama. And, it is acceptable to reason that to support him is to take what he said to heart and go out of your way if necessary and be your brother’s keeper. Even at cost to yourself.
I myself have said for some time that we have a moral obligation to be our brother and sister’s keeper. While it is true that when it comes to sex and STI transmission that both partners shoulder equal responsibility, it becomes too slippery a slope to absolve oneself of his or her own obligation to disclose simply to facilitate the act of getting laid which I would argue is not a necessity. Do I hold people with HIV to a higher standard? No, I do not. Nor do I hold them to any less. I'm also HIV positive and I was aware of the risk of unprotected sex and to some extent, knowingly allowed myself to be infected through my own negligence. I never actively sought HIV positive partners but I knew that by my actions I would likely become infected. I've also been forthright with all of my partners both pre and post diagnosis as to what I knew my status to be at the time. Further, pre-diagnosis, I informed my partner(s) what the possibilities were of me being infected but not having tested positive. As well, I shared what activities I had engaged in to place me at risk. I went out of my way when I had to. Still, I harbor guilt that I may have infected someone else even though they had full knowledge and accepted the risk.
As to the issue of quarantine; never was it nor could it ever be an acceptable solution for this kind of disease. Even at the GRID stage, it was presumed that it was blood borne and not airborne. Rational, intelligent, knowledgeable individuals knew it was possible to protect one self. After all, it was not expanding dramatically. Ergo, to quarantine would usurp basic human rights and freedoms for no justifiable reason. Something which is 100% counter to what we stand for as a nation and as citizens of this nation. To suggest otherwise is to attempt to remove yourself from the responsibility of your own actions. We are talking about adults in a consensual relationship. You have a right to say no. Conversely, you also have a right to request protection, heterosexual, homosexual, married or single. You also have a right to pursue legal action should the other party violate the spirit of the agreement that you chose to enter into.
In the context of this particular case, Mr. Weaver by his prior negligent activity AND subsequent court case and the resultant verdict, relinquished his right to exercise his freedom of non-disclosure. He could no longer claim ignorance and he violated the HIV infection regulations set for him. He still shows no remorse, nor responsibility for his behavior which in this instance is clearly criminal. We must hold him accountable as it is the right thing to do in order that others rights are not violated or until such time as we believe him capable of making a rational decision in the best interests of his partner(s). It is what you buy into when you are born and further if you expect to live in a society of law and order.
Lastly, what the news media did here was wrong and we must also hold them accountable.
Edited for punctuation.
-
He's guilty for failure to disclose.
Wouldn't it be simpler to revive and adapt (different shapes and colours according to viremia, CD4, resistances, current therapy...) this old, well-tested system?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/German_concentration_camp_chart_of_prisoner_markings.jpg/434px-German_concentration_camp_chart_of_prisoner_markings.jpg)
-
The government should have quarantined people in the begining back when this disease started spreading in the early 1980's
Don't worry: It's never too late for a (chemical) quarantine. Why are they going to treat anybody immediately (http://www.natap.org/2008/HIV/103108_01.htm)? To help us? They couldn't care less! Their aim is to protect the negatives ("Swiss statement")!!!
-
Leit,
Your previous response to RapidRod is an ad hominem fallacy. Additionally, unless I've missed something, we are not talking about Switzerland or it's response(s) here. We are speaking to the policies of the United States. We may want to open up the discussion further to include Switzerland as well but please stay on topic. For me, this is a serious topic for discussion and should not be treated lightly.
-
Your previous response to RapidRod is an ad hominem fallacy.
I don't love the Stockholm syndrome, sorry.
Additionally, unless I've missed something, we are not talking about Switzerland or it's response(s) here. We are speaking to the policies of the United States. We may want to open up the discussion further to include Switzerland as well but please stay on topic.
The "Swiss statement" has little to do with Switzerland! It's a scientific statement which tells that "undetectable equals uninfectious" (http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/4E9D555B-18FB-4D56-B912-2C28AFCCD36B.asp).
this is a serious topic for discussion and should not be treated lightly.
LIGHTLY??? In a bitterly sarcastic way, if anything!
-
On the other hand, since the truth of the charge in this case is proved by an argument from authority, ie rests on an uncontested charge brought by the public health people, perhaps an emotional response is valuable.
There is a great sense for me that HIV-positive people are marked men (and women) in a way that HIV-negative people are not in terms of policing of their sexual behaviour. Question: does this feeling promote secrecy and bloody-mindedness or openess and change?
The Swiss position is instructive.
If you agree with the reading of the science in the now infamous "Swiss statement", the risk of transmission from anal/vaginal sex with effective treatment alone is (in population terms) marginal and comparable to no treatment + using condoms.
Disclosure under these circumstances doesn't add anything from public health point of view. On a 1-to-1 basis it may in terms of where you come down on its importance in the context of acceptance or perception of small risks of transmission.
The Swiss law now seems to say you must disclose if you do or may possibly pose some kind of sexual health risk to your partner every time you have sex. Tested, untested, married, unmarried, condoms, no condoms, whatever you do, penetrative or not, each time. Otherwise you may be guilty of a crime. It remains to be clarified if this obligation entails an obligation to request disclosure. Since the Swiss courts are pretty active on HIV prosecutions I expect we will have this clarified pretty soon.
Before people come back with a strong statement on the relative protective merit of condoms v treatment they might like to read this short report:
Transmission under HAART - Lancet study rather supports "Swiss Statement" than challenging it!
http://www.infekt.ch/switch/printarticle.php?artID=1567
or if time is short, just give the 2nd graph a once over
- matt
-
I don't love the Stockholm syndrome, sorry.
Ad hominem again. Maybe you should take a class in logic or at least wiki the term.
The "Swiss statement" has little to do with Switzerland! It's a scientific statement which tells that "undetectable equals uninfectious" (http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/4E9D555B-18FB-4D56-B912-2C28AFCCD36B.asp).
No, the Swiss statement has a lot to do with Switzerland since we are speaking in regards to law,...
"They conclude by stating that the Commission thinks that unprotected sex between a positive person on antiretroviral treatment and without an STI, and an HIV-negative person, does not comply with the criteria for an “attempt at propagation of a dangerous disease” according to section 231 of the Swiss penal code nor for “an attempt to engender grievous bodily harm” according to section122, 123 or 125."
I would have thought that since you pointed to it you read it first. My mistake. (Now THAT'S sarcasm!) I don't take the issue lightly. Nor will I accept invalid premises or rhetoric as good argument on behalf of faulty reasoning.
LIGHTLY??? In a bitterly sarcastic way, if anything!
-
They conclude by stating that the Commission thinks that unprotected sex between a positive person on antiretroviral treatment and without an STI, and an HIV-negative person, does not comply with the criteria for an “attempt at propagation of a dangerous disease”
Sadly, the lawyers didn't buy it, hence my elaboration of the ridiculous ad infinitum of disclosure that Swiss law seems to entail now. The "Swiss statement" was designed to mitigate the frequent Swiss prosecutions, and perhaps bring some measure of peace of mind to people in sero-different relationships on risk to the HIV-negative person, and risk of having their loved on ripped from their beds and into prison. Courts seems to have taken the opposite view.
I find it disingenuous to try and limit this discussion to the US (1) because different states have different laws (2) globally, criminalisation is a big and present issue, witness much discussion at the 17th International AIDS Conference, preceding conference on prevention, UNGASS and the like (3) the question of feeling like a pariah now your HIV-positive is common and without jurisdiction, and discussions like this no doubt reinforce the self-hatred and shame that newly diagnosed, or even longtime diagnosed, people often feel (4) I am in England.
I really wonder what people new to these forums think when reading this thread. I really wonder what response people would get if they posted here about their risk taking in search of advice/support, perhaps advice/support on how to be better/less risky in future.
Logic demonstrates consistency, and in the end, in these cases, does not tell you what to do or which judgement to make. These are pragmatic, principled and human issues. There is no logical solution to the public heath issue this case raises, except perhaps (and somewhat taking logic as having an applied aspect) to put everyone on treatment on diagnosis, which, modelling suggests, would kill the epidemic in 25-20 years. However, this conflicts with, erm, issues of practicality, principle and civil rights.
Logic does not show the fear etc in the headline "Gay DJ put on house arrest for 2nd HIV charge".
Liet's emotional response seems to me completely valid and on-topic, and at least needs acknowledgement. Logic can be cruel and is rarely, when you dig deep, value-free or without a framework of value-driven norms (I refer to my previous comment on "marked").
I am really enjoying this thread now the steam has gone out of my head. I have learned a lot from people, including theose I obviously disagree with.
I am not enjoying thinking about my +ve friend who I have left at his 40th with his great friends, me I think being the only one who he has told he has HIV in the few years since his diagnosis.
- matt
Edited for spelling
-
I'm sorry but everyone today should realize that if you have unprotected sex, you run the risk of getting something. It takes two (at least) to practice safe sex.
Buyer Beware: know what you're getting into.
-
Swiss statement and criminalisation in Switzerland:
The statement was motivated to achieve several aims: two primary ones:
1) Reflect the epidemiology of transmission in sero-discordant HETERO couples with one partner treated and medically followed.
2) Have the Swiss medical establishment take a stand against wanton prosecution for HIV transmission. So, doctors talking to lawmakers and judges through science.
The law and legal decisions saying one can be POTENTIALLY criminally liable for transmission in so many different scenarios has good points and bad points.
A good effect would be more dialogue about sex practices, history, and risk between partners before they screw!
We know the downsides....
By the way, the idea that it is so easy in Switzerland to prosecute someone for criminal transmission is not true. Doctors, lawyers, social workers, AIDS NGO legal services, police, and public opinion are not universally behind bringing such cases.
-
They put him on house arrest for unprotected sex, which could be considered as attempted murder, but there was a guy in texas, that just got 25 years for spitting in a police officers face, this world is crazy..,
-
I would leave all here who are Obama (supporters) with this thought. It is a quote from him at one of his rally's...
"It is that, I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. That makes this country work."
That is all I want to add to this thread.
Nice words but that's all they are, words. If we truly were our brother's keeper and sister's keeper and if that what 'makes this country work' (and you can apply this to just about any country), there would be no poverty, no wars, no people without health cover etc.
Reality is that it is a dog eat dog world with every man for himself, more so in some places in others. It's greed and power that makes most of our countries 'work', not empty platitudes.
Look out for number one, protect yourself if you want to be protected. Alternatively, do what you want and live with the consequences.
If unprotected sex is akin to attempted murder than so is going to work with the flu, which kills thousands each year.
-
People need to shape up, the criminal laws are the new frontline of activism. They don't stop HIV transmission. They just herd us into a reservation away from "normal" people. if we don't wanna be non-persons in 5 years time we need to get on the case. Just cos it's the law don't mean it's right. Before you know it we'll have to sit on the back of the bus.- matt
Indonesia, well a certain region within the country, is set to begin tagging some people living with HIV.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/11/24/aids.tagging.indonesia.ap/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/11/24/aids.tagging.indonesia.ap/index.html)
-
Erm, now we have Man jailed for passing on hepatitis B
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5183279.ece
As usual reporting not accurate, eg knowingly gave a woman potentially life-threatening hepatitis B (as knowingly = intended to harm, it's always knowingly/intentional in the press even though the charge was for reckless ie non-intentional transmission, hmmm).
See also: http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/cheltenham/cheltenhamnews/Turkish-waiter-pleads-guilt-biological-GBH/article-482795-detail/article.html
They got drunk n had sex without condoms on the spur of the moment, tis said, like that's a really sensible thing to do.
- matt
-
Erm, now we have Man jailed for passing on hepatitis B
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5183279.ece
As usual reporting not accurate, eg knowingly gave a woman potentially life-threatening hepatitis B (as knowingly = intended to harm, it's always knowingly/intentional in the press even though the charge was for reckless ie non-intentional transmission, hmmm).
See also: http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/cheltenham/cheltenhamnews/Turkish-waiter-pleads-guilt-biological-GBH/article-482795-detail/article.html
They got drunk n had sex without condoms on the spur of the moment, tis said, like that's a really sensible thing to do.
- matt
Thanks Newt. The first link you shared says the prosecution used DNA evidence. Like his hair on her clothing? ? or like a blood test? ??? The news story doesn't provide details. :-\ And the second link talks about GBH - what is that exactly? (I've heard of GHB here in the USA)
-
GBH= Grevious Bodily Harm. Committing an assault on someone. GHB is a drug.
-
GBH= Grevious Bodily Harm. Committing an assault on someone. GHB is a drug.
To confuse matters even more, the drug GHB is often referred to in Aus as GBH as it causes grievous bodily harm. ;D
-
the prosecution used DNA evidence
Both parties had hep b not too dissimilar genetically. IE phylogenetic analysis shows this.
Previous (HIV) case law and expert opinion shows that this is not enough on its own to prove transmission in a criminal case. IE another person could have been an intermediary, or, in the case of hep B, it could be caught by non-intimate (non-sexual, household) contact.
If the guy hadn't pleaded guilty this would prob have been thrown out in court.
- matt
-
GHB does not impress. Color me underwhelmed.
-
...in the case of hep B, it could be caught by non-intimate (non-sexual, household) contact.
If the guy hadn't pleaded guilty this would prob have been thrown out in court.
You know, I wondered about that when I first read about this case. This poor guy really had some crap legal advice. I can't help but think that if he wasn't a Turkish immigrant, this case never would have got as far as a courtroom. It seems to me that a disproportionate number of immigrants are being charged with these types of crimes. Pisses me off no end.
Ann