Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 19, 2024, 01:23:20 am

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 772784
  • Total Topics: 66296
  • Online Today: 267
  • Online Ever: 5484
  • (June 18, 2021, 11:15:29 pm)
Users Online
Users: 1
Guests: 188
Total: 189

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Do I Have HIV?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Criminal transmission charges dropped  (Read 6242 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Almost2late

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,447
Criminal transmission charges dropped
« on: April 21, 2017, 09:40:40 am »
Finally some common sense in criminalizing hiv and interpretation of these laws.. although I believe he should of worn a condom, I'm happy the court wasn't blinded by stigma... Education was key.

Quote
Charges were dropped Thursday against a man accused of criminal transmission of the HIV virus.

The case against Jimmy Amutavi, a personal trainer from Wilmette, stemmed from claims from three women that he had unprotected sex with them without revealing he has the virus that causes AIDS, according to authorities.

If he'd been taken to trial and convicted, Amutavi, 45, could have faced seven years in prison for each of the three felony counts.

But during a pretrial hearing in Cook County's Skokie courthouse Thursday, prosecutors said they were dropping the charges against Amutavi. They did not outline the reasons for the reversal, but a spokesperson for Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx later released a statement: "After consulting with medical experts, we concluded that the evidence in this case was insufficient to prove the criminal charges."

Amutavi's lawyer said the state could not prove his client's intention was to transmit the virus.

Defense attorney Jon Erickson said Amutavi was taking medication to treat his HIV, a treatment that significantly reduces the chances of passing the virus to a sexual partner. Amutavi, his lawyer said, "did everything possible to prevent transmission" of the disease.

"The state in its wisdom … did the right thing," Erickson said. "Mr. Amutavi did not intend to infect anyone."

When Amutavi was charged last year, prosecutors alleged that he repeatedly had unprotected sex with the women, all former clients, and when confronted denied having the virus.

Whether the women actually were infected is unclear. A person can be found guilty of criminal transmission of HIV even if the sexual partner was not infected. The law only requires that the person "engages in sexual activity with another without the use of a condom knowing that he or she is infected with HIV" and that the person intended to transmit the virus.

Outside the courtroom on Thursday, Amutavi, the father of a young son, said, "I thank God that my name has been cleared."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-hiv-tranmission-charges-dropped-met-20170420-story.html

Offline Jim Allen

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 22,193
  • Threads: @jim16309
    • Social Media: Threads
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2017, 10:00:31 am »
Yeah, its a good step/outcome on the case.
Thanks for sharing this item.

From the sounds of it the "intent" part caused the struggle. How do you prove that he "intended" to infect when he took steps to prevent/reduce the risk of that happening. Shame not more details are not available. 

Anyhow , good but i would say a very lucky man, some other states and nations of course don't care about intent or not.

Jim
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 10:10:51 am by JimDublin »
HIV 101 - Everything you need to know
HIV 101
Read more about Testing here:
HIV Testing
Read about Treatment-as-Prevention (TasP) here:
HIV TasP
You can read about HIV prevention here:
HIV prevention
Read about PEP and PrEP here
PEP and PrEP

My Instagram
Threads

Offline CaveyUK

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 1,642
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2017, 02:09:59 pm »
I'm happy about this.

Personal view only - I think if someone has unprotected sex with someone who they later find out is has controlled HIV, and tests negative for the virus, then that should be a wake-up call for them to be more cautious in future. I'm sick of the legal enablement of stupidity, when other potential consequences of unprotected sex don't end up with lengthy prison terms being waved around.

People need to be responsible for their own health. Period.

Obviously, if someone knowingly has HIV and is not on stable treatment then it's a very different situation.

Should he have disclosed? Of course - but if not, he should have worn a condom at least. However, as he was taking steps to ensure he was undetectable and not pass the virus on, whatever legal recourse these women took should never in a million years have potentially led to a 21 year prison sentence.

Anyway, as I say I'm pleased that this case was handled via science rather than stigma. Hopefully things like this will slowly change criminalisation laws in some parts of the world.
HIV - Basics
HIV 101
You can read more about Transmission and Risks here:
HIV Transmission and Risks
You can read more about Testing here:
HIV Testing
You can read more about Treatment-as-Prevention (TasP) here:
HIV TasP
You can read more about HIV prevention here:
HIV prevention
You can read more about PEP and PrEP here:
PEP and PrEP

Offline Almost2late

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,447
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2017, 08:02:08 pm »

Should he have disclosed? Of course - but if not, he should have worn a condom at least.
 

And if he were wearing a condom, disclosure should be optional IMO.. this guy was obviously enjoying casual sex like many people do, so why should pozzies be obligated to disclose if they're on successful treatment AND using a condom?
The rest of the general hiv neg population doesn't have to disclose their private medical information every time they get layed..
Why can't hiv poz people have the same right if they're not putting anyone at risk?
Just more stigma imo.

Offline leatherman

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 8,583
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2017, 06:12:48 am »
People need to be responsible for their own health. Period.

Obviously, if someone knowingly has HIV and is not on stable treatment then it's a very different situation.
you say "obviously" but I don't think it's obvious at all. Just sticking to your previous statement though is really what should be the end game - people need to be responsible for their own health.

If someone knowingly has HIV and is not on stable statement, while they shouldn't have unprotected sex with other people, the responsibility of the other person for their own health doesn't magically disappear. They are still responsible and if they choose to have unprotected sex, the consequences lie on their own head. If a person has unprotected sex and gets pregnant, gets an STD, or gets HIV, the "fault" should lie on their own head for not protecting their own health.
leatherman (aka Michael)

We were standing all alone
You were leaning in to speak to me
Acting like a mover shaker
Dancing to Madonna then you kissed me
And I think about it all the time
- Darren Hayes, "Chained to You"

Offline CaveyUK

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 1,642
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2017, 01:39:59 pm »
you say "obviously" but I don't think it's obvious at all. Just sticking to your previous statement though is really what should be the end game - people need to be responsible for their own health.

If someone knowingly has HIV and is not on stable statement, while they shouldn't have unprotected sex with other people, the responsibility of the other person for their own health doesn't magically disappear. They are still responsible and if they choose to have unprotected sex, the consequences lie on their own head. If a person has unprotected sex and gets pregnant, gets an STD, or gets HIV, the "fault" should lie on their own head for not protecting their own health.

Of course I agree entirely. I was meaning from a perspective of 'intent', on the basis that someone who knows they have uncontrolled HIV and is aware of transmission-risk is likely to have darker intentions.

I fully agree that the end game is that people should be responsible for their own health at all times.
HIV - Basics
HIV 101
You can read more about Transmission and Risks here:
HIV Transmission and Risks
You can read more about Testing here:
HIV Testing
You can read more about Treatment-as-Prevention (TasP) here:
HIV TasP
You can read more about HIV prevention here:
HIV prevention
You can read more about PEP and PrEP here:
PEP and PrEP

Offline Almost2late

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,447
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2017, 01:54:06 am »
Found this article from the Hill that reflects much of my feelings on how it was wrong to criminalize non-disclosure years back and even more so now with what we know about treatment and stigma...

Quote
In 2009, Nick Rhoades was sentenced to 25 years in an Iowa prison and placed on a sex offender registry for not disclosing his HIV status to a sexual partner — despite the fact that he used a condom and that the amount of virus detectable in his blood was so low he could not possibly have transmitted HIV sexually. Although the partner did not test positive for HIV and was not in fact exposed to HIV, Rhoades was prosecuted and convicted under Iowa’s law criminalizing transmission of HIV as a class B felony.

Similar laws are on the books in more than 30 states, and impose draconian penalties on people living with HIV, even for activities that carry no risk whatsoever of transmission, fueling stigma and discrimination.  Such laws run counter to public health goals; you cannot be prosecuted if you do not know your HIV status, thus, they impose a disincentive to HIV testing.

Laws punishing people with HIV were initially enacted in states in 1990 when the federal Ryan White Care Act was passed, requiring that states criminalize intentional transmission of HIV in order to receive federal funding for HIV-related programs. However, due to lack of information about HIV transmission routes and HIV-related hysteria, many states went further than the legislative requirement – criminalizing not just transmission, but also failure to disclose HIV positive status as well as activities that cannot possibly transmit HIV, such as spitting and biting.

 

Today, it is well understood that HIV criminalization laws are based on outdated and inaccurate understandings of science and HIV transmission risks. Treatments have been developed that, when taken regularly, suppress the virus such that it is virtually impossible to transmit HIV sexually. We know that saliva does not transmit HIV, but spitting while HIV-positive remains a crime in 11 states.

Some have alleged that HIV criminalization laws are necessary to protect women and/or people of color, who are disproportionately impacted by the HIV epidemic. But data shows that criminalization laws especially hurt these vulnerable communities. A report from the Williams Institute on application of the HIV criminal law in California demonstrates evidence of severe racial and gender disparities in conviction rates related to HIV-positive status.

As in other aspects of the criminal justice system, black and Latino communities appear to be disproportionately targeted and convicted, representing 67 percent of those who came into contact with the law based on HIV-positive status, despite the fact that they comprise less than half of those living with HIV in California.

Women represented 43 percent of those who came into contact with the law, although they are only 13 percent of the California HIV-positive population. Importantly, the report also found that in 95 percent of instances where the laws were applied, no proof of exposure or transmission was even required for prosecution.

Just the threat of prosecution can contribute to coercion and control within the context of relationships; women living with HIV are more than twice as likely as the general population of women to experience intimate partner violence and some organizations have reported that threats of prosecution or even of having their HIV status revealed may prevent victims of domestic violence from leaving relationships with their abusers.

Laws criminalizing HIV increase shame, stigma, and isolation, making it harder for people living with HIV to access care. No evidence has ever been presented that these laws reduce new HIV infections; in fact they may present a deterrent to HIV testing and access to care for people living with HIV, since you can only be prosecuted if you know your HIV positive status.

Understanding these issues, experts and leaders have called for widespread reform of these laws. In 2010, the U.S. National HIV/AIDS Strategy called for a review of state HIV criminalization laws and statutes, and in 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice released a best practices guide to reform HIV criminal laws to align with current science.  Iowa modernized its laws in 2014, and Rhoades’s conviction was overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court. But his felony conviction will forever be part of his history. Colorado modernized several HIV criminal statutes in 2016.

To address this, a bipartisan bill was recently introduced in the House of Representatives, calling for the repeal of state laws criminalizing HIV non-disclosure and exposure. Sponsored by Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the Repeal Existing Policies that Encourage and Allow Legal HIV Discrimination Act of 2017 or REPEAL seeks to bring laws in line with current science and public health goals.

Of course, the ultimate goal of those on every side of this issue is the same: to reduce new HIV infections. But since the only way HIV is acquired is from another person already living with unsuppressed HIV, the best way to prevent new infections is to reduce every possible barrier to care and treatment, including institutionalized stigma in the form of HIV criminalization.

To achieve HIV prevention goals, states should repeal laws criminalizing HIV exposure, nondisclosure, and alleged transmission, and Congress should support the bipartisan effort to do just that.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/330286-to-prevent-new-infections-stop-criminalizing-people-living-with

I was surprised to see Florida Republican congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen taking part of this effort to repeal these horrific laws.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2017, 02:41:12 am by JimDublin »

Offline Jim Allen

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 22,193
  • Threads: @jim16309
    • Social Media: Threads
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2017, 02:08:18 am »
Tough topic.

My general stance is most disclosure and also transmission laws in the world are  out of date, and my general stance on sex is to agree to have sex in general and/or unprotected intercourse is simply accepting the possibility of being infected with a sexually transmitted infection.

However despite personal responsibility of the person agreeing to sex,  i have no problems with criminalizing of international exposure against STI's for people who know they have an infection and do not take at least take precautions to prevent forward transmission.

It might not be a popular opinion but oh well.

Jim
« Last Edit: April 25, 2017, 02:11:04 am by JimDublin »
HIV 101 - Everything you need to know
HIV 101
Read more about Testing here:
HIV Testing
Read about Treatment-as-Prevention (TasP) here:
HIV TasP
You can read about HIV prevention here:
HIV prevention
Read about PEP and PrEP here
PEP and PrEP

My Instagram
Threads

Offline Almost2late

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,447
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2017, 02:47:37 am »
Tough topic.

My general stance is most disclosure and also transmission laws in the world are  out of date, and my general stance on sex is to agree to have sex in general and/or unprotected intercourse is simply accepting the possibility of being infected with a sexually transmitted infection.

However despite personal responsibility of the person agreeing to sex,  i have no problems with criminalizing of international exposure against STI's for people who know they have an infection and do not take at least take precautions to prevent forward transmission.

It might not be a popular opinion but oh well.

Jim

I'm in a agreement with that as long as there is proof it was done "intentionally", sure hold them accountable. But if you think about it,  the disclosure law doesn't really help the transmission done intentionally.. that person isn't going to disclose his/her intent to infect.

Now if I were going to have sex with someone without protection, than I'd feel obligated to disclose bc I wouldn't be 100% sure I'm ud since my last vl test but I prefer using condoms and prefer not sharing my status.. Hiv doesn't need to be an issue when taking proper precautions.

Offline Jim Allen

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 22,193
  • Threads: @jim16309
    • Social Media: Threads
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2017, 03:08:25 am »
I'm in a agreement with that as long as there is proof it was done "intentionally", sure hold them accountable. But if you think about it,  the disclosure law doesn't really help the transmission done intentionally.. that person isn't going to disclose his/her intent to infect.

Now if I were going to have sex with someone without protection, than I'd feel obligated to disclose bc I wouldn't be 100% sure I'm ud since my last vl test but I prefer using condoms and prefer not sharing my status.. Hiv doesn't need to be an issue when taking proper precautions.

Disclosure laws or punishing not disclosure as a crime makes no sense to me, and thankfully its not part of all transmission laws. If disclosure is part of a particular sates or nations transmission law i am very much in favour of removing that part of the law.

That said not all nations have the same exposure law and some are pretty fair if i am honest so I do not however have a problem with cases being prosecuted of intentional exposure (transmission) with up-to-date laws in regards to STI's. Problem i have is often the laws are in lots of places are out of date. 

I'm more in flavor of having up-to-date laws, in a nutshell

Jim
HIV 101 - Everything you need to know
HIV 101
Read more about Testing here:
HIV Testing
Read about Treatment-as-Prevention (TasP) here:
HIV TasP
You can read about HIV prevention here:
HIV prevention
Read about PEP and PrEP here
PEP and PrEP

My Instagram
Threads

Offline CaveyUK

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 1,642
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2017, 02:56:02 pm »
Thought about this some more and ya know, I'm going to go a bit more extreme...if they just de-criminalised all of this, it would probably be the best idea.

Sure, if someone looks to infect someone intentionally then it's bad and they are pretty evil BUT aside from rape cases (which would be criminal by default), it generally takes two to tango and therefore whatever intentions exist, it is still the responsibility of the other person to look after their health.

If someone intentionally tried to make someone pregnant, then it would be bizarre to see that criminalised. People would generally say that it is as much the partner's responsibility to ensure she doesn't get pregnant as the males. And believe me, there have been enough stories of men lying about having the snip or poking holes in condoms etc.

The problem with criminalisation is it is usually one persons word against another. Especially when no transmission has occurred. 'He didn't disclose' cannot be proven one way or another. 'He must have sabotaged the condom' cannot really be proven. So it all comes down to the weight of the law being applied simply on the fact the person had HIV and had the temerity to have sex which is grossly unfair.

If there was a way of categorically confirming that the 'intent' was there, then fine. But this isn't a case of taking a knife to a fist fight. The other partner can in all situations ensure they are protected adequately. As I said before, the exception being rape.

For that reason, it is probably fairer to just get rid of all the criminalisation of HIV. A by-product of this may be that people will take a bit more accountability for their own safety as a result.

Let's not have ANY grey areas. If you have sex with anyone without adequate protection then you are at risk of STI's (including HIV) or Pregnancy. Should this happen it is not a crime, but just an unfortunate situation.

HIV - Basics
HIV 101
You can read more about Transmission and Risks here:
HIV Transmission and Risks
You can read more about Testing here:
HIV Testing
You can read more about Treatment-as-Prevention (TasP) here:
HIV TasP
You can read more about HIV prevention here:
HIV prevention
You can read more about PEP and PrEP here:
PEP and PrEP

Offline Jim Allen

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 22,193
  • Threads: @jim16309
    • Social Media: Threads
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2017, 03:31:34 pm »
Quote
Sure, if someone looks to infect someone intentionally then it's bad and they are pretty evil BUT aside from rape cases (which would be criminal by default), it generally takes two to tango and therefore whatever intentions exist, it is still the responsibility of the other person to look after their health. 

Quote
The problem with criminalisation is it is usually one persons word against another. Especially when no transmission has occurred. 'He didn't disclose' cannot be proven one way or another.

I agree with some of what you are saying but not all of it or not the same conclusion.  "disclose" laws and "exposure" laws or requirements/rules in law are just terrible ideas. As for he said she said, well that's with most cases & offences between people that is not unique to this subject.

On actual transmission cases maybe i am just simple but if you know you have a heath issue that is transmittable than taking reasonable precautions to prevent forward transmission as you from the two people involved or at really fun parties more than 2  ;D, know the risk is higher hence i feel it is not that unreasonable.

The most horrid part is places with out of date stuff like spitting and also severity of some laws is very unreasonable (Must say however spitting generally speaking is very disguising)

On the rape note, I agree, but just being default criminal is not enough, take another example the case a few years ago in Holland where they drugged the victims and injected them with HIV infected blood, 12 victims- Extreme but i do want cases like this prosecuted next or on top of being prosecuted for all other offences related to the same event. (handling drugs etc, etc)
 
My other thought is with a lack of infection or STI laws, we see some places/nations using assault/GBH laws instead, a work around. (Offences Against the Person). I'm not sure that the lack of law, so finding cases defaulting to this general law is a good or a healthy way forward.

But I will be stepping out of this topic though.

Jim
« Last Edit: April 25, 2017, 04:11:19 pm by JimDublin »
HIV 101 - Everything you need to know
HIV 101
Read more about Testing here:
HIV Testing
Read about Treatment-as-Prevention (TasP) here:
HIV TasP
You can read about HIV prevention here:
HIV prevention
Read about PEP and PrEP here
PEP and PrEP

My Instagram
Threads

Offline harleymc

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,523
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2017, 07:46:48 pm »
It's interesting that some of the comments talk  about 'unprotected sex' when talking about condomless sex.

If someone has a consistent undetectable viral load I would argue that is as protective as any condom.

When we buy into, no condom equals unprotected, we are buying into stigma and poor teaching moments.

Offline Ptrk3

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 2,792
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2017, 08:51:56 pm »
Well, harleymac, that assertion may be open to some fair debate (but I'm not going to get into that debate extensively here; i.e., I'm not going to get into an extensive "back and forth"). 

Sex with a condom is not "safe sex."  It is "safer sex."  There is no such thing as "safe sex."

Even with a (male) condom usage, women can and do become pregnant (very rare, but it does happen), for example, and it is likely that some very few unlucky people have contracted the HIV even with condom usage.  Condoms are neither perfect nor infallible.

Sex without a condom, even when both parties are "undetectable," can lead to other STD's/STI's, and it is not impossible that unprotected sex in the instance of one person being HIV positive but undetectable and the other being HIV negative can still transmit the HIV to the "negative" individual.  Sure, it may be unlikely, but it is not impossible.

So, logically, since it is not a certainty that sex with a condom equals "safe" sex, it  can not be concluded that somehow sex without a condom will somehow equal protected sex all, most, or any of the time (the implication of your final sentence).

In other words, I do not believe it is true that if someone buys into the statement that "no condom equals unprotected sex" means that "we" (or anyone, for that matter) are buying into stigma and poor teaching moments.

I believe that it is prudent that the HIV-negative partner of an "undetectable" HIV- positive person at least consider condom usage when engaging in certain higher risk sex activities (specifically, anal or vaginal sex).

Anyway, there's nothing in the record concerning this instant matter of the charges being dropped against this individual had anything to do with his "undetectable"
status (if that is the case), though it may have been part of the reason, I suppose.

It appears more likely that the dropping of the charges had everything to do with the difficulty of proving "intention," the plain language of the relevant Illinois law, in someone who may have been taking his antiretroviral medication and may have also had an "undetectable" viral load.

It does not mean that the prosecutors involved in this case have embraced the "certainty" that an HIV-positive person who is "undetectable" can under no circumstances transmit the HIV.
HIV 101 - Basics
HIV 101
You can read more about Transmission and Risks here:
HIV Transmission and Risks
You can read more about Testing here:
HIV Testing
You can read more about Treatment-as-Prevention (TasP) here:
HIV TasP
You can read more about HIV prevention here:
HIV prevention
You can read more about PEP and PrEP here
PEP and PrEP

Offline CaveyUK

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 1,642
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2017, 03:51:39 pm »
it is not impossible that unprotected sex in the instance of one person being HIV positive but undetectable and the other being HIV negative can still transmit the HIV to the "negative" individual.  Sure, it may be unlikely, but it is not impossible.

It has never happened, across a number of large scale studies, and this is with a cut-off of <200 VL which caters for regular 'blips'. With the mass view that 'U=U' and the push underway from the scientific community to drive that point home to reduce stigma, I think it is a bit dangerous to state what may be a personal view as fact.

The problem here is if a 'negative' individual takes an UD status as being fact without the knowledge it is so....so, outside monogamous relationships it would be a risk and condoms should be worn. Within a monogamous relationship, and with full knowledge of the actual status, then any risk is seen as negligible, essentially zero.

Suggesting infection under those circumstances is merely 'unlikely' is just plain wrong and gives the impression this is still a material risk.

Quote
I believe that it is prudent that the HIV-negative partner of an "undetectable" HIV- positive person at least consider condom usage when engaging in certain higher risk sex activities (specifically, anal or vaginal sex).

They are not 'higher risk' if the person is undetectable. You have put undetectable in quotes, which imply you are covering people who may be lying about their UD status which is correct, but as stated before if someone really IS undetectable, then the risk is negligible. Indeed, many doctors (including my own) have given their blessing to ditch condoms in this scenario. We certainly do not believe this is being reckless or even 'not prudent' - it is an informed choice, based on the scientific studies we are now aware of couples with advice from my doctor.

This all doesn't really apply to the case in question. I don't think anyone would disagree that he should have worn condoms (assuming he didn't in reality). I'm just keen that we don't inadvertently rewind the message the scientific community is providing around transmission risk.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 03:55:10 pm by CaveyUK »
HIV - Basics
HIV 101
You can read more about Transmission and Risks here:
HIV Transmission and Risks
You can read more about Testing here:
HIV Testing
You can read more about Treatment-as-Prevention (TasP) here:
HIV TasP
You can read more about HIV prevention here:
HIV prevention
You can read more about PEP and PrEP here:
PEP and PrEP

Offline CaveyUK

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 1,642
Re: Criminal transmission charges dropped
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2017, 04:09:24 pm »
As for he said she said, well that's with most cases & offences between people that is not unique to this subject.

True, but usually there has to be a weight of evidence to convict. In the cases we see, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Quote
On actual transmission cases maybe i am just simple but if you know you have a heath issue that is transmittable than taking reasonable precautions to prevent forward transmission as you from the two people involved or at really fun parties more than 2  ;D, know the risk is higher hence i feel it is not that unreasonable.

Not unreasonable at all, which is why the argument that getting undetectable is taking precautions. That said, is isn't unreasonable at all to suggest that outside a monogamous relationship condoms should also be added into mix. Partly due to potential repercussions and 'psychological' issues but most of all to avoid any other STI's or Pregnancy.

Quote
The most horrid part is places with out of date stuff like spitting and also severity of some laws is very unreasonable (Must say however spitting generally speaking is very disguising)

I don't think anyone sane would argue with that.

Quote
On the rape note, I agree, but just being default criminal is not enough, take another example the case a few years ago in Holland where they drugged the victims and injected them with HIV infected blood, 12 victims- Extreme but i do want cases like this prosecuted next or on top of being prosecuted for all other offences related to the same event. (handling drugs etc, etc)

Again, agree totally. The situation you outline would have nothing to do with consent or people protecting themselves. And clearly criminal.

Quote
My other thought is with a lack of infection or STI laws, we see some places/nations using assault/GBH laws instead, a work around. (Offences Against the Person). I'm not sure that the lack of law, so finding cases defaulting to this general law is a good or a healthy way forward.

Any law which indicates that consensual sex equates to assault/GBH is ridiculous for obvious reasons. This is why I think we should decriminalise HIV from these matters, or alternatively criminalise all other STI transmissions and unwanted pregnancy.

The more HIV is singled out as being a special case, worthy of throwing people in jail for decades over, the longer it will take to reduce it's stigma and the more people have a licence to disregard their own health in decisions they make.

I know the risks of smoking, or eating junk food. I have done these things through my life being absolutely aware of the potential risks. If I were to get a chronic condition (or worse) as a result of those choices, I would not be able to prosecute the people who sold me the cigarettes or the cheeseburgers. It would rightly be seen as a case of someone not taking care of their own health and avoiding these risks.

The same applies to 'unprotected' sex. There are lots of nasties out there, and it is absolutely everyones choice if they are exposed to them or not. If they are unlucky enough to catch one (or more) then it's unfortunate but there is no point blaming others for that choice. My sympathy levels extend moreso in certain situations than others, for sure, but there is still somewhere along the line a choice that has been made.

I know it's my personal view and doesn't fit with the tabloid view of the world, but I'm absolutely all for personal choice, but also all for people owning those choices.
HIV - Basics
HIV 101
You can read more about Transmission and Risks here:
HIV Transmission and Risks
You can read more about Testing here:
HIV Testing
You can read more about Treatment-as-Prevention (TasP) here:
HIV TasP
You can read more about HIV prevention here:
HIV prevention
You can read more about PEP and PrEP here:
PEP and PrEP

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2024 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.