Author Topic: Woman jailed for giving lover HIV (Read 48059 times)

Ann · « **on:** June 19, 2006, 01:22:15 pm »

Woman jailed for giving lover HIV

Now, I'm all in favour of those of us living with hiv having our virus stop with us.

However.

I just watched the coverage of this story on the BBC six'o'clock news and I'm furious. The newsreader said that this case should send a strong message to people with hiv blah blah blah, that we must be very careful blah blah blah... but NOWHERE was there mention that people who don't have hiv - or don't know their status - must be careful and use condoms if they are not 100% sure of their status or their partner's status.

And they wonder why this pandemic just keeps growing and growing and growing. The person who make the decision to not use condoms and ends up hiv positive is portrayed as a poor hapless victim with no responsibility. It makes me so angry I could weep.

Not once did they urge people to use condoms. Nope. They only urged people who know that they are positive to disclose so the poor vulnerable neggies could decide whether they wanted to engage in sex. The attitude behind all this makes me sick. It really does. A perfect opportunity to remind people to use condoms - lost again. Damn it! In fact, the whole thing gives the impression not that condoms could prevent cases like this, no, it gives the impression that hiv positive people should not even be touched and certainly should not have relationships.

Damn it damn it damn it!

I just had to vent. Damn it! Stupid bastards!

Why can't they just say - use condoms - and leave all the judgemental crap alone! How are we EVER going to put an end to hiv???

A very pissed off Ann.

Lisa · « **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2006, 01:42:55 pm »

Geez Ann. I wish you stop being so darn shy, and just say what you really feel.

It is no better here. There was a similar newscast here recently. It can definately raise my blood pressure too.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2006, 01:54:04 pm »

This is precisely why I am opposed to these laws. They perpetuate the HIV=predator stigma and the "innocent victim" status of the poor uninformed.

Until and unless we hold both parties in a consensual act mutually accountable for their part in preventing HIV, we will never, ever see an end to this pandemic.

David_CA · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2006, 02:16:13 pm »

I agree, Ann. That's one argument, to me, against disclosing at all. Last fall, I told a guy I was negative. I thought I was. My last test indicated that I was. I wasn't; I was positive. If, instead of asking if I was poz, the guy had insisted on a condom, well.... It was one of my sluttier moments, but I don't know if he's still negative, as I don't know him. Relying on disclosure as a safe sex measure does as much a disservice to the 'poor vulnerable neggies' as doing absolutely nothing. Assume the potential partner is poz and act accordingly. Doing anything else is putting oneself at risk. Counting on disclosure is about like depending on the guy to pull out to avoid getting pregnant. People get all worked up, horny, drunk, in a situation where sex is a given... who honestly expects somebody to disclose anything? Disclosure in a relationship is a different thing, obviously, and I would expect a greater sense of honesty. I think often people take risk because they don't want to go to the trouble of avoiding them. Then, when they get caught, they want to blame somebody else. It seems like personal accountability is really lacking these days.

There are exceptions to this, obviously. A cheating partner, failure of a condom, etc are all different. But again, I count on my seat belt and air bag to help save me in the event of an accident when I drive. They are not an excuse to not use good judgement when driving. With all the BS judgement going on, the stigma will remain. It reminds me of how we (the general public) need to get back to basics. It's like the '80's again.

David

Trish · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2006, 03:24:50 pm »

Hmmm, this pisses me off too Ann. Just doesn't make sense.

So here we are...25 years later into AIDS and things are the same. Only difference, 25 years ago this was strictly a "gay man's" virus...and we all know that that has changed. Everyone is vulnerable to HIV/AIDS.

It has been said by many that it is difficult for women to transmit HIV to a man, than it is for a man to transmit to a woman. Well, seems to me that this thinking is archaic and must stop. It is time to deal with HIV/AIDS as it is with truthfulness. Anyone can be infected if they are not practicing safe sex. AIDS does not discriminate either way (man to man, man to woman, woman to man (as is the case here) and yes I'll even go so far as to include woman to woman) when status is not known and protection is not used -- there is a risk no matter how you slice it. Until AIDS is in full view, nothing will change. The public in general needs an informed and concise education. It's high time our government, along with other powers that be, get on the fucking ball and take this issue right out in the open through the media or whatever... How many more people are going to be infected before reality sets in?

We, as poz people, are aware of the risks and as such, most of us do our utmost NOT to infect others. This is the way it is... The woman here in this case, welllll… since she willingly had sex without disclosing her status she deserves punishment. Jail time, I don’t know. Seems over the top to me…Community service, absolutely. Personally, I believe it's wrong to do what she has done...a moral issue. I don't condone her actions, or rather, her inactions. I guess that’s why I find it important for me to do something (not quite sure what it is) to stop the stigma… yes, I too had sex back when I first knew my status without disclosing and I’m not proud of it. Had I not been so fucking stigmatized in the 1980’s, I wouldn’t have been reckless with others and myself. Had I known what I know today, I would have done things a bit differently for sure. I guess I’m kind of doing my community service these days by “coming out.”

What bothers me most about all of this is that after 25 years we are still in the same place. And it all has to do with STIGMA!! Everyone’s afraid to talk about HIV/AIDS and the facts. The facts: CONDOMS!!! THEY NEED TO BE USED IF HAVING SEX. AND PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THEIR STATUS. PERIOD! Most of us who do know our status are more precautiuos than those who don't know their staus. And I won't even talk about abstinence - it's nonsense.

Educating the public is the key to end the stigma and stop this pandemic. Talking about HIV openly, which I'm trying my best to do, is the only way to get to that goal. I don’t see any other way. I really don’t…

And I’m bothered by it all.

I just don’t get it… $:-\$

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2006, 04:14:15 pm »

Even HIv positive people do not get the right information about safer sex and transmission vectors. THAt scares me. I hope those infected with HIV will read our own LESSONS section on transmission. Please believe me, it's one of the most scientifically accurate and well researched things I have ever read.

I mean, if those of us with HIV don't learn the vectors for transmission, with our vested interest... then how can we expect the negative community, who comes to us for education, to get the right answers?

allopathicholistic · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2006, 04:18:50 pm »

Quote from: jkinatl2 on June 19, 2006, 04:14:15 pm

I hope those infected with HIV will read our own LESSONS section on transmission. Please believe me, it's one of the most scientifically accurate and well researched things I have ever read.

Thank you. I will do exactly that within the next 6 hours. jk, did anyone tell you your avatar reminds them of the matrix in the Brady Bunch opening segment? that's the way they all became the Brady Bunch

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2006, 04:23:25 pm »

hehe. I was thinkking about that. I'm smiling up at Greg I think.. though I had/have a huge crush on Peter.

heh heh. I said peter.

krakerjm · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2006, 04:48:47 pm »

Ann, I guess the news media in the UK is only interested in making the story provokative and ratingings; same here in the U S, worse most likely. Our world news is limited to what they want to exploit for ratings. No such thing as 'world' news here; and the local stories are just one station's view and never a follow up. Guess the news media doesn't want to get in truoble promoting safe sex or anything else except murder and maheim. They leave that to the billions spent on info messages no one pays any attention to...spend the money on research not useless warnings and annoucements for 30 seconds while I blink or am in the other room getting some snacks til my program resumes. If anyone in the media sticks their neck out in the U S and makes an editorial comment(like using condoms), they get bitch slapped or fired. DOn't get me started on the lack of free done of press and speech in the U S; Right wingers and corporations rule, not the people: $$$$$$$$$$! (FOR NOW ANYWAY

skeebo1969 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2006, 04:56:28 pm »

I don't know I read the article and I must say she is getting exactly what she deserves!! They should throw away the key!! She recklessly had sex, KNOWING!! I repeat, KNOWING!! She even admitted to telling a person to not to use protection when he brought the subject up.

I hate to be so honest, but she can burn in hell and she can be put there by all negative people...As a matter a fact I will help them!!

Do all people that infect someone know? No, of course not!! This woman here absolutely knew!! I have no pity for her and anyone like her who knowingly infects someone!! Or who puts someone at risk just for their own gratification.. Shame on her and others who think she's not wrong!!

Good job UK!!

Thomas

krakerjm · « **Reply #10 on:** June 19, 2006, 04:58:04 pm »

P.S public annoucements are as carefully scripted just as editorials(only at the end of news casts and pertains to nothing u might have just seen); it's like advertising, lies and deception for money. If it isn't the news media's job to infrom, then whose is it? One sentence about preventative measures might have reached someone that wasn't away during a commercial or public annoucement!!!!

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 19, 2006, 04:59:09 pm »

Thomas, we will have to agree to disagree on that one. Unless, of course, the woman's partner is charged with attempted suicide for not using condoms. Parity in legislation and all that.

krakerjm · « **Reply #12 on:** June 19, 2006, 05:11:51 pm »

I though this was more about the news media missing an opportunity to promote safe sex. BUT yes, anyone knowingly spreading this thnig needs to be shot immediately, or is that too harsh? On the other hand, I have told prospective partners I was poz and they said they didn't care, only liked it raw; of course I gave them a lecture and sent them on their way, BUT?!? That's a big frigin' BUT when there are so many nut cases that don't give a shit.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 19, 2006, 05:15:54 pm »

More to the point... how do you prove intent?

And what do you do after you have already ruined someone's life?

oops, sorry, someone lied about ya. Enjoy being a pariah.

allopathicholistic · « **Reply #14 on:** June 19, 2006, 05:28:57 pm »

Quote from: krakerjm on June 19, 2006, 05:11:51 pm

I have told prospective partners I was poz and they said they didn't care, only liked it raw; of course I gave them a lecture and sent them on their way, BUT?!? That's a big frigin' BUT when there are so many nut cases that don't give a shit.

hmmmmm, today i find myself nowhere near as nutty-slutty as before ... am i to be stoned for past nuttiness? i was sssoooo repressed (no booze/drugs/junk/cigs, working on wall street over 40 hours a week) that my escape was (was, was, WAS) reckless barebacking where guys never disclosed nor asked. it was a code of silence. but that era's over

skeebo1969 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 19, 2006, 05:52:14 pm »

Jon,

See I have one of those backwards point of views I have to admit. I mean me thinking that I am the one that needs to be responsible is ludicrous..

I hope I am not giving the impression that I am cavalier or anything....

David_CA · « **Reply #16 on:** June 19, 2006, 05:56:47 pm »

Quote from: jkinatl2 on June 19, 2006, 05:15:54 pm

More to the point... how do you prove intent?

And what do you do after you have already ruined someone's life?

oops, sorry, someone lied about ya. Enjoy being a pariah.

Exactly, JK. Also, I can see it getting to the point where somebody who didn't know they were HIV+ being prosecuted because they were negligent in getting tested. That woman was wrong to have lied; that's a given. People know smoking causes cancer (how many here smoke?) but still do it. Smoking's an addiction, so it's different? Not really. People have to be responsible for their own health and safety. There is no other option, unless we get some sort of warning mark on our foreheads or maybe sent off to an HIV/AIDS colony.

ademas · « **Reply #17 on:** June 19, 2006, 06:02:43 pm »

I fall somewhere in the middle on this.

I agree that proving intent is a sticking point, but if a positive person insists on having sex with negative partner, and not only chooses not to disclose, but then takes it a step further by insisting or encouraging that a condom not be used...well, that certainly rings like intent to me.

But where do you draw the line? I don't feel the need to disclose when some hot guy at the local bar leans in to give me a deep, wet kiss (like that happens everyday...). I've not disclosed before going down on someone, or before he goes down on me (although I don't let him stay there for very long.) I've not disclosed before rimming, but I don't allow him to do it. And if I get to that point of intercourse, I'm generally too concerned about disclosing to allow it to happen, or to proceed with the relationship at all.

(edited to add: intercourse doesn't happen without a condom, ever!)

Or I disclose from the very beginning.

In short, I tend to throw myself under the bus, sexually speaking. I will take the risks and not allow a partner to.

It's not the answer, but it's all I've come up with so far.

whizzer · « **Reply #18 on:** June 19, 2006, 07:26:12 pm »

I'm with Ann on this one.

I think cases such as this, meant to punish those with HIV for non-disclosure, have one big unhappy side effect. They inadvertantly encourage people to NOT get tested for HIV. As long as folks don't know their status, they can have all the sex of whatever type they prefer and unwittingly infect as many people as they want, with no consequences brought upon them by society.

I know several guys who will not get tested because they know once they do, and if they are found to be positive, then the party is over. To them, ignorance is bliss. So they happily have multiple sexual encounters, possibly spreading an undiagnosed and uncontrolled viremia, to all they come in sexual contact with.

I would argue that sex with someone HIV positive, on stable HAART, with an undetectible viral load, is far less risky than sex with someone unknowingly positive, either through non-testing or with a neg test but in the window period, with a high viral load, who is shedding virus like crazy from every bodily fluid possible. Now mind you, I'm not encouraging HIVers to have unsafe sex, or not to disclose, but to place all the burden on us for not spreading the virus is absurd, and counterproductive to slowing down this pandemic.

Studies have shown that once people are diagnosed with HIV, they, in almost all cases, change their behavior to avoid passing the virus along. We are not the enemy. Ignorance is. The few exceptions to this should be dealt with through education and community service, certainly not jail time.

Testing needs to be encouraged. As should personal responsibility. The message should be ...if you contract HIV through sexual contact, it is your fault, not the fault of your sexual contact. So get tested, not for others, but for your own health and well-being.

-Whizzer

Eldon · « **Reply #19 on:** June 19, 2006, 07:55:44 pm »

Ann,

Thanks to the news casts and political garbage, PREVENTION is all so being overlooked. The GAP that truly exists today needs to be filled in for this pandemic!

I'm sorry but...when an opportunity presents itself to BROADCAST to the WORLD, then IT SHOULD be taken to stress PREVENTION and not to hold a single person accountable.

It is so simple, 'Everyone put on a condom before you have sex whether you are HIV or not" There are people out there who will not even know that they are positive and they are speading it like wildfire because the never bothered to check themselves!

There should be a mandate for HIV testing, it will certianly reduce the numbers.

Just venting.

Eldon

There is hope and it is coming around the corner but from where? Good question.

Ann · « **Reply #20 on:** June 19, 2006, 08:03:54 pm »

Yes, the main jist of my rant was over the condom issue. I about hit the roof when the newsreader said that bit about "you positive people better be careful..." or we're gonna lock your ass up. (paraphrased, of course)

Yes, I agree we have a responsibility to make sure our virus stops with us. However, I also believe that EVERYONE has that responsibility. What pissed me off so much about the newscast was not so much that she was prosecuted, but rather than take the opportunity to cut down on the chance of cases like these even happening by promoting condoms, they simply shook their collective hiv negative fingers at us and said "naughty naughty, keep your virus to yourselves." It takes two to tango damn it!

As long as the media keep sending out these types of messages - that someone who becomes hiv positive is not responsible at all and their partner is a criminal - then we are never, ever going to stop this pandemic. We need to get people to understand that condom use is their responsibility and to agree to have unprotected intercourse is to consent to the possibility of being infected with a sexually transmitted disease. It really is as stark and simple as that.

I'm not even getting into the particulars of this specific case. I'm talking about the way it and others like it are being publicised and the disservice they are doing to us all. The six-o-clock news has a wide audience; what a perfect opportunity to get a real message across, one that will save lives, not criminalise a disease.

And on to another point...

There was a comment in the broadcast about this woman ("she had trouble accepting her status") that doesn't appear in the print version. (just as the quotes at the bottom of the article weren't broadcast) It sounds as though this woman was in serious denial over her status. Here in the UK, the medical care we receive is excellent - but counseling? transmission information? Huh? What's that? It's an area where we are being neglected to everyone's peril. Some areas deal with these aspects better than others. Here on the Rock, we have no case worker, there is no counselor who has even met an hiv positive person... when I was diagnosed I was told over and over again... "we don't know what to tell you..." Outrageous.

We are criminalising people who are victims in their own right. We are criminalising people who the system has let down over and over and over again. We are expecting people who become positive to suddenly become experts in transmission knowledge just by virtue of having the virus in our bodies, as if the viral particles that cross the blood/brain barrier whisper their secrets into our grey matter. There is no - or very little - checking in with people to find out where their heads are at. I blame the system for letting this woman slip through the cracks. There were obviously problems, why weren't they caught? It is this assumption that we suddenly become experts the moment we are diagnosed that is at the heart of it all.

This is a tragedy that could have been, should have been prevented. This is the tragedy of a six year old boy caught up in the middle of his mother being criminalised and stigmatized in the highest order. This is the tragedy of yet another preventable hiv infection. This is the tragedy of yet another hiv positive person falling through the social care cracks and many people paying the price.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Damn it damn it damn it!

The government who seem unwilling to spend cash on education and mental health care seem more than willing to prosecute where ignorance and illness has prevailed. Ignorance that they should be helping to prevent but instead are perpetuating in their State sanctioned media broadcast. Damn it damn it damn it all! When will they wake up?

Ann

newt · « **Reply #21 on:** June 19, 2006, 08:10:04 pm »

For you non UK people, the crime is "reckless" transmission which does not require proof of intent (that's "intentional" in UK law). Indeed, in one previous case (5 years inside) the defendant was not even proven to be HIV-positive, just "likely" to be on some South African doctor's say so (he pleaded guilty).

I've never met a straight bloke in London who (a) thought straight blokes (or women for that matter) got HIV (2) took much persuading, if any, not to use a condom (3) many people who don;t think it's the first person to have HIV in the situation who is at fault (cos they invented it, right?) ....

Formal complaints please to the BBC newsdesk.

- matt

Trish · « **Reply #22 on:** June 19, 2006, 08:32:30 pm »

Ann, I gotta hand it to you...

Thank you so much for expressing exactly what I have been trying to put forth.

Since reading this, I'm more frustrated and pissed off than ever before, but of course not at you Ann... for as you wrote,

"The government who seem unwilling to spend cash on education and mental health care seem more than willing to prosecute where ignorance and illness has prevailed. Ignorance that they should be helping to prevent but instead are perpetuating in their State sanctioned media broadcast. Damn it damn it damn it all! When will they wake up?"

This is what frustrates me and pisses me off!

Thank you for setting things right. I totally agree with you.

Trish

manchesteruk · « **Reply #23 on:** June 19, 2006, 08:41:47 pm »

I saw that on the news as well Ann. It would interesting to know if the possible mental state of this woman was taken into account and what emotional support was available to her after diagnosis before they decided to throw her into prison. Obviously i'm coming from a slightly bias point of view here being poz but I think this was a product of a poor support system. It seems to vary in different hospitals the one i'm at now is excellent but the hospital I diagnosed in was an absolute disgrace it still remains the only place i've ever come across any HIV related stigma.

Ann · « **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2006, 08:45:50 pm »

By the way, thank you all for your replies.

As Matt says, lodge a complaint with the BBC. I just did. Here's the link: www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

I meant to include a link to this thread... but forgot. Could one of you? I really need to get to bed...

And as I tried to post I was informed of this post:

Quote

I think this was a product of a poor support system. It seems to vary in different hospitals the one i'm at now is excellent but the hospital I diagnosed in was an absolute disgrace it still remains the only place i've ever come across any HIV related stigma.

Yes, that is the point of the second section of my rant. Some places really let us down where support and information come into it. As long as that is allowed to happen we will be seeing more of these cases.

Damn it damn it DAMN IT!

Ann

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 19, 2006, 10:53:39 pm »

Quote from: skeebo1969 on June 19, 2006, 05:52:14 pm

Jon,

See I have one of those backwards point of views I have to admit. I mean me thinking that I am the one that needs to be responsible is ludicrous..

I hope I am not giving the impression that I am cavalier or anything....

Yes, of course, Thomas. We all know I am the last person on earth to advocate personal responsibility.

In a consensual sex act, there is no "one" who needs to be responsible. its THAT thinking that spreads HIV. It is THAT thinking that stops people from getting tested. It's THAT thinking that I fight tooth and nail in the "FEARS" forum.

BOTH parties need to be responsible, and frankly, the negative partner (or the one who knows s/he is negative) has as much to lose as the positive one, just in a different way.

Except in cases of rape, child molestation, or mental disability, giving either partner a "pass" on adulthood is precisely why STDs, including HIV, get spread.

And the media LOVES to make a villian out of one party, a hero out of the other. I submit that such oversimplification is yet another disservice, yet another way to avoid any real discussion or education.

naked_chuck · « **Reply #26 on:** June 19, 2006, 11:35:47 pm »

While everyone's feathers are in a ruffle, this -- to me -- seems like a no-brainer and the perfect argument FOR disclosure.

Simple rule: If you are HIV+ and choose to have sex with ANYONE, you MUST disclose your status IF you are going to engage in any risky activity. YES, condoms should always be used! But we are human and that doesn't ALWAYS happen, does it? So let your partner(s) know!! Give them the CHOICE to play or split. What is the big deal? And are any of you REALLY going to tell me that if YOU were NEGATIVE, you wouldn't EXPECT having this information?? Give me a break!

It's about respect, for ourselves and our partners. And until the entire world and all of its leaders and populations are "comfy" with it all, those of us blamed for being immoral in the first place should be stepping up to the plate, acting like mature, respectful adults, and not pissing and moaning when someone gets "caught" fucking someone over -- literally and figuratively!! Grow up! Fuck your brains out, but have the decency to let a partner make up his/her mind whether or not to fuck you! Ignorance is bliss, folks! We've all been there. We know that sometimes, some people aren't terribly concerned with protecting themselves. Does that make it right to keep our mouths shut? Does it mean we are not responsible? Accountable? Spare me!

Being proactive and helping to change how this virus is spread IS our responsibility!! Period. WE'RE THE ONES LIVING WITH IT!! Sucks! But that's how it is. So how many more "neggies" have to become infected just so we can fuck our brains out without bothering to worry about them? When do we get sick of being blamed?

Sorry kids... THE BUCK STOPS WITH US!!!

Matty the Damned · « **Reply #27 on:** June 19, 2006, 11:42:55 pm »

Quote from: naked_chuck on June 19, 2006, 11:35:47 pm

While everyone's feathers are in a ruffle, this -- to me -- seems like a no-brainer and the perfect argument FOR disclosure.

Simple rule: If you are HIV+ and choose to have sex with ANYONE, you MUST disclose your status IF you are going to engage in any risky activity. YES, condoms should always be used! But we are human and that doesn't ALWAYS happen, does it? So let your partner(s) know!! Give them the CHOICE to play or split. What is the big deal? And are any of you REALLY going to tell me that if YOU were NEGATIVE, you wouldn't EXPECT having this information?? Give me a break!

It's about respect, for ourselves and our partners. And until the entire world and all of its leaders and populations are "comfy" with it all, those of us blamed for being immoral in the first place should be stepping up to the plate, acting like mature, respectful adults, and not pissing and moaning when someone gets "caught" fucking someone over -- literally and figuratively!! Grow up! Fuck your brains out, but have the decency to let a partner make up his/her mind whether or not to fuck you! Ignorance is bliss, folks! We've all been there. We know that sometimes, some people aren't terribly concerned with protecting themselves. Does that make it right to keep our mouths shut? Does it mean we are not responsible? Accountable? Spare me!

Being proactive and helping to change how this virus is spread IS our responsibility!! Period. WE'RE THE ONES LIVING WITH IT!! Sucks! But that's how it is. So how many more "neggies" have to become infected just so we can fuck our brains out without bothering to worry about them? When do we get sick of being blamed?

Sorry kids... THE BUCK STOPS WITH US!!!

The problem of course, is that things are never as straight forward as prescriptive responses such as Chuck's would have us believe. As Jonathan and others have pointed out, this attitude negates the responibilities that our sexual partners have to themselves.

The buck stops with each of us, positive or negative. Irrespective of draconian and unenforceable disclosure provisions, HIV negative people will be fine if they insist on using condoms whether they know their partners HIV status or not.

MtD
(Who is tired of being told he is responsible for the lives of neggies)

ademas · « **Reply #28 on:** June 19, 2006, 11:48:41 pm »

I don't know that statistics...hell, I don't even know if there are statistics...but I would guess that most cases of transmission are between people who have never tested, and aren't aware that they are HIV-positive.

(even if this is not the case, it is still the case for many...and doesn't that mean that each and every individual needs to be responsible for their own bodies and their own health--regardless of their status?)

whizzer · « **Reply #29 on:** June 19, 2006, 11:55:08 pm »

Sorry Chuck,

If everyone with HIV quit having sex right now, and forever, the pandemic would rage on. Unfortunately, HIV doesn't stop with those of us with the virus. For the most part, it's not those identified as positive that are the problem, it's those who are infected and don't know it. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is killing people.

Sky · « **Reply #30 on:** June 20, 2006, 03:02:06 am »

Maybe its been said before, but I've often wondered why testing isn't something that is required. Seems to me you can't stop it if people continue spreading it because they won't get tested.

Gilles · « **Reply #31 on:** June 20, 2006, 05:05:18 am »

This news got me thinking. I had recently had protected sex with a guy without disclosing my status....what would happen if he for some unfortunate reason got the virus...even though chances are very small. Would I in this case even though I have taken all the measures to make intercourse safe still be responsible for recklessly infected this guy. I have to stress that I have used condom and I havnt cummed in his mouth, but this attitude heard in news worries me a bit.

newt · « **Reply #32 on:** June 20, 2006, 06:02:54 am »

As far as UK law goes, National AIDS Trust (NAT) has a policy paper on this that's frequently (these days) updated. It says (for HIV-positive people seeking info):

" NAT's understanding of the current state of the law is:

You are only likely to be prosecuted for HIV transmission if:

your sexual partner does not know you have HIV
and you don't tell them
and you don't always use a condom for penetrative sex
and they become infected as a direct result
and they decide to make a complaint to the police.

If you use a condom and the condom slips or breaks, and you have not previously disclosed your status, you should tell your partner your HIV status at once and advise them to get PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis) immediately in order to prevent possible transmission.

Some are arguing from certain court judgements that HIV positive people are effectively required by the law to disclose their status to all sexual partners, whether or not they have safer sex. We do not think there is a realistic likelihood of the CPS taking forward a case where the defendant has clearly tried to avoid risk by using condoms consistently. "

- matt

penguin · « **Reply #33 on:** June 20, 2006, 07:17:03 am »

Friend and former colleague of mine (positive) sent me a text message this morning:
"Do you think there will be palm trees on our (leper colony) island?"

this makes me so sad, and angry in a way that I do not often feel. In the post office earlier, I overheard two women, looking at front page of inflammatory, reactionary Sun newspaper article...something along the lines of "at least the bitch got what she deserved...they ought to put 'em all away, the lot of them..."

it frustrates me that in one breath, our government/society says "this is a manageable disease, it's just like diabetes"(and hence, prevention messages/campaigns aren't all that important) and in the next, goes about locking people up for giving someone a "death sentence".

if there was a head shaking emoticon on here, i'd be using it about now.

Kate

Matty the Damned · « **Reply #34 on:** June 20, 2006, 07:28:35 am »

Kate,

You are absolutely spot on when you say:

it frustrates me that in one breath, our government/society says "this is a manageable disease, it's just like diabetes"(and hence, prevention messages/campaigns aren't all that important) and in the next, goes about locking people up for giving someone a "death sentence".

So much so I think it bears repeating in blue.

Regards,

MtD

Ann · « **Reply #35 on:** June 20, 2006, 10:52:34 am »

Kate, it bears repeating yet again;

it frustrates me that in one breath, our government/society says "this is a manageable disease, it's just like diabetes"(and hence, prevention messages/campaigns aren't all that important) and in the next, goes about locking people up for giving someone a "death sentence".

Thank you for your concise thoughts on this. I was too angry yesterday and not exactly posting coherently, but this is also part of what I was getting at last night. I've seen too many positive people brushed off when it comes to prevention messages as well - it's not just the mainstream public that isn't being educated. The mental health aspect is swept under the carpet too because after all, it's a "manageable disease".

So why don't we all just pull our socks up and become abstinent so the neggies can get on with their barebacking with impunity? Because that's the message they're sending out. Better yet... does that leper colony have palm trees?

Oh, and another aspect of all this that bugs the shit out of me... all of the UK prosecutions have involved heterosexual couples. (At least the highly publicised ones) What I want to know is, is this because gay men are accepting the responsibility for their own health/infection and not looking to press charges, or is it because cases that come up between gay men never see the light of a courtroom... because "they deserved" it? I have the sinking feeling it's the latter, and I can't tell you how much that pisses me off.

And no, it's not that I want to see prosecutions between men. It's because I'm mystified why there haven't been any. It's just too weird.

And just for the record... there are palm trees on the Rock.

(still pissed off and about to go up to the shops in town. If I overhear a similar conversation to the one Kate overheard... god help them.)

Ann

newt · « **Reply #36 on:** June 20, 2006, 11:08:13 am »

Not quite all straight...

English gay man pleads guilty to reckless HIV transmission

Trish · « **Reply #37 on:** June 20, 2006, 11:23:19 am »

Quote from: penguin on June 20, 2006, 07:17:03 am

it frustrates me that in one breath, our government/society says "this is a manageable disease, it's just like diabetes"(and hence, prevention messages/campaigns aren't all that important) and in the next, goes about locking people up for giving someone a "death sentence".

I am quoting Kate again, only in purple (my favorite color) -- I think it bears repeating again. Right on Kate and thanks for saying this. And yes, I'm shaking my head now too.

Ann, I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to post of a link from Lamda Legal regarding HIV transmission and criminalization statutes of same here in the U.S, and each State is different... I think you'll find it interesting. I haven't read through it all, but intend to do so... quickly perusing it, some states are quite tough, and I don't agree with it at all.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/resources.html?record=361

All of this bugs the crap out of me... I'm with Ann, I'm going shopping. More like window shopping, I can't afford to buy a damn thing.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #38 on:** June 20, 2006, 11:41:42 am »

What frightens me here is the number of people who are thrilled to sacrifice their security and liberty to support these laws. So long as HIv carries the stigma it does, it only takes an accusation of non-disclosure to ruin someone's life. That's apparently a sacrifice some are willing to make.

Look at the laws in the USA. In many states, it does not matter whether or not you wear a condom. If you fail to disclose, you are as "guilty" of assault as if you had unprotected sex.

As far as the gender/sexual orientation thing, I have seen these laws primarily applied to straight and gay men here in the USA, with a few notable (newsworthy) exceptions. And while I agree that morally, disclosure (and condom useage) is the responsible thing to do, I also tjink that the negative partner in a consensual, adult relationship either takes responsibility for his/her body, or they don't. And if they don't, then they take the risk of an STD, including HIV. It's that simple.

All these laws do is undermine condom use and devaluate HIV education. HIV negative people are not "innocents" that must be protected fom us. They are adults, who make and must live by adult decisions regarding the fluids which pass into and out of their bodies.

Personal responsibility must be applied to both parties, or it defeats the purpose of HIV education entirely. I am saddened that members of the HIV community buy into their own stigma, the reputation as predator, as evil.

Trish · « **Reply #39 on:** June 20, 2006, 11:48:58 am »

Quote from: jkinatl2 on June 20, 2006, 11:41:42 am

What frightens me here is the number of people who are thrilled to sacrifice their security and liberty to support these laws. So long as HIv carries the stigma it does, it only takes an accusation of non-disclosure to ruin someone's life. That's apparently a sacrifice some are willing to make.

Look at the laws in the USA. In many states, it does not matter whether or not you wear a condom. If you fail to disclose, you are as "guilty" of assault as if you had unprotected sex. ...

...Personal responsibility must be applied to both parties, or it defeats the purpose of HIV education entirely. I am saddened that members of the HIV community buy into their own stigma, the reputation as predator, as evil.

I agree Jonathan, especially with your last paragraph. HIV-pos people who do buy into their own stigma helps fuel the stigma thereby keeping it alive. Very sad...

And the failing to disclose part whether or not a condom is used.. holy fucking crap...this is fucking scary.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #40 on:** June 20, 2006, 11:55:09 am »

Here in GA, if I were to perform oral sex on a person without disclosing, I would be breaking the law (a felony) and would be kicked out of my section 8 housing (a felony conviction will do that) as well as disqualified for most of my programs.

For a sexual act which DOES NOT transmit HIV.

David_CA · « **Reply #41 on:** June 20, 2006, 12:11:43 pm »

Some of those States' laws are crazy. How about Michigan, where you are guilty of a felony if penetration with an object occurs... an HIV+ dildo maybe? Mississippi sounds like they're about ready to send us off to that island or just maybe lock us all up. I'm glad to see NC doesn't have anything listed, which is surprising since we were cursed with Jessie Helms for years! In Oklahoma, we can't get married, as we have to have a 'Dr's note' saying we're cured! It seems like these laws were written back in the early 80's. I wonder if any cases involving HIV have gone before the Supreme Court.

David

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #42 on:** June 20, 2006, 12:27:24 pm »

It has been my experience that those who support these laws seem generally ignorant of them. Maybe the link that Trish included will provide some necessary education.

penguin · « **Reply #43 on:** June 20, 2006, 12:43:55 pm »

controversial viewpoint, i know, but i just reckon that if you's big enough to be having sex, you's big enough to protect yourself...it's not rocket science, just latex. Don't know about everyone else, but this made me feel really wierd today - marginalised, isolated almost...haven't felt like that in a while, and i didn't like it one bit.

and thank you ann, matty and trish...blue and purple are two of my favourite colours. I think they always add gravity to the written word.

Kate(going to have a moment of quiet before packing for "the colony")

David_CA · « **Reply #44 on:** June 20, 2006, 01:18:54 pm »

I know it's been said before, but I think most HIV+ people don't want to infect anybody else. I really don't understand why there is no effort being made to make people responsible for their own health and safety. Why does what Kate says "...but i just reckon that if you's big enough to be having sex, you's big enough to protect yourself...it's not rocket science..." seem like such common sense to us but obviously not enough to the general public (HIV-)? I've been recently diagnosed HIV+, but don't remember hearing much about condoms in years. Most people I've had contact with don't use them regularly, and these are not some low-life, slutty people. If you ask most people, straight or gay, what's safe and what's not, most don't really know. Hell, I didn't really know; that's why I'm here now. If education can help prevent HIV transmission, and I believe it can, we need to concentrate on that. Actually, why do we need to to anything at all; we've already become infected. Those who are negative need to concentrate on that, but that would mean accepting responsibility.

On one hand we're just unfortunate to have a disease, but on the other hand we're monsters that shouldn't have sex or live like normal humans. People smoke knowing the consequences, but if one has sex, the responsibility for one's safety is the one who may disclose if they're poz if they happen to know their status. It's really disheartening to see folks with a health issue demonized when, as we all know, it's easy for HIV- people to remain HIV-.

David

Londonguy · « **Reply #45 on:** June 20, 2006, 01:34:31 pm »

I was talking to a couple of the staff at my clinic today and it seems like they are making sure all HIV positive people know about PEP, so that they can immediately inform the person they were having sex with if the condom broke or something. Obviously a response to these events that essentially place the burden on the person with HIV. I got the impression they were concerned about the way the law was heading and this was a measure to ensure that positive people had a 'get out' if they didn't inform of their status and then an accident happened.

Londonguy · « **Reply #46 on:** June 20, 2006, 02:27:24 pm »

Have a look at this thread :

http://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php?showtopic=130355&st=0

I'm doing my best to argue the case (as Veryjammy in that forum) but I feel like I'm losing the battle. I especially didn't like the way someone equated Hiv people who pass the disease on to murderers, muggers and rapists. I fear this is the way a lot of the general public will see it.

Joe K · « **Reply #47 on:** June 20, 2006, 02:53:18 pm »

Hey All,

Very interesting topic, but it's exploded and you are really discussing many issues at once. But I do see one issue that is not being adressed and that is how each of us is responsible for those we elect to govern in our stead. We abhor these foolish laws, ineffective prevention messages, treatment, etc., etc., etc., and yet the bozos who legislate this crap just stay in office.

It's about time that all poz people became informed about the universe in which the world has decided we must live. It's apparent that nobody is going to care what happens to us, but us.

For you younger members, it's about time you took to the streets to get what we need and to get these draconian laws off the books.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #48 on:** June 20, 2006, 03:02:29 pm »

I have absolutely no regard whatsoever for my HIV infected brothers and sisters who choose to remain politically neutral. They are killing themselves, and are certainly doing me no favors. The least we can do is stay informed, and vote.

I agree, Joe.

skeebo1969 · « **Reply #49 on:** June 21, 2006, 09:46:59 am »

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #50 on:** June 21, 2006, 09:51:26 am »

I get your rage, Tom. That comes through loud and clear.

What I don't get is your interpretation of the posts to mean that there is 100% responsibility on either party. There is not. Such a responsibility is shared.

Shared.

It appears that much of this anger is really directed at yourself, for your decision to forego condoms. I really hope you manage to get past that.

skeebo1969 · « **Reply #51 on:** June 21, 2006, 10:01:10 am »

No Jon that is where you are mistaken... that part is over! My anger comes from the fact that HIV does stop with us...those that know.

If I go out and knowingly infect someone why should I not be thrown in jail?

Please Jon... I ask this question not out of anger, but really want to know what you feel should be done if I knowingly infect someone.

Ann · « **Reply #52 on:** June 21, 2006, 10:29:55 am »

Tom,

Hiv stops with ALL OF US. That is the point here. It is a shared responsibility between both positive and negative people as well as the people who don't even know their status.

This is what got me so angry about the newscast. The TOTAL responsibility was laid at the feet of positive people and they yet again missed the opportunity to make it clear to people that condoms must be used when you are not 100% certain of either party's hiv status.

It takes two to tango and the use of condoms is both partner's responsibility. We are not getting that message out. The message being put out is that you should rely on your partner's disclosure and you have no responsibility to protect yourself and that you even have the right to prosecute if you didn't bother to exercise your right to protect yourself.

Quote

It was 100% on me....

No. To be blunt, it was 50% on you. Just as it was 50% on me when I did not insist on condoms.

To agree to have unprotected intercourse is to consent to the possibility of being infected with a sexually transmitted disease. It really is as stark and simple as that.

You might as well put a gun loaded with one bullet in someone's hand and say "go ahead, see if the bullet is in the firing chamber".

Sure, this woman was responsible for infecting her lover, but he was equally responsible for letting it happen.

Ann

Trish · « **Reply #53 on:** June 21, 2006, 12:16:52 pm »

Quote from: Ann on June 21, 2006, 10:29:55 am

Hiv stops with ALL OF US. That is the point here. It is a shared responsibility between both positive and negative people as well as the people who don't even know their status.

This is what got me so angry about the newscast. The TOTAL responsibility was laid at the feet of positive people and they yet again missed the opportunity to make it clear to people that condoms must be used when you are not 100% certain of either party's hiv status.

It takes two to tango and the use of condoms is both partner's responsibility. We are not getting that message out. The message being put out is that you should rely on your partner's disclosure and you have no responsibility to protect yourself and that you even have the right to prosecute if you didn't bother to exercise your right to protect yourself.

No. To be blunt, it was 50% on you. Just as it was 50% on me when I did not insist on condoms.

Sorry Tom, but I agree with Ann, and as such I had to quote her here. She's spot on.

Tom, you chose not to use a condom, so you are 50% responsible... and it is my firm belief that if there had been more messages put out there in the past that condoms are needed to protect oneself, I probably would have chosen to use one. Instead, it wasn't made a big deal and therefore I chose not to use a condom and was infected sometime in 1986, a time when not much was really known. Yes, 50% of my infection was because of my own ignorance and lack of knowldege. And that knowledge is still not out there completely after all these years... that is the saddest part of all. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER... and the chance to get that knowledge out there is always being lost, as is the case here. For shame.

Cliff · « **Reply #54 on:** June 21, 2006, 12:21:14 pm »

Quote from: skeebo1969 on June 21, 2006, 10:01:10 am

...but really want to know what you feel should be done if I knowingly infect someone.

I think what she did was wrong. The disagreement is whether or not this is a matter for the criminal courts. I personally don't think so. But I can see why some believe that such actions should be prosecuted, as I'm uncomfortable with the notion that there are (or should be) no repercussions for that kind of behaviour. But maybe there are repercussions. I'm sure it's not easy for her to live with her actions, knowing the pain she has caused a loved one. Or maybe this should be a civil matter. Actually I'm surprised this hasn't become a civil matter, especially in the US. Everything else has.

Ann · « **Reply #55 on:** June 21, 2006, 01:17:29 pm »

Actually, the biggest part of MY point is that until we stop laying all the blame on positive people and getting the message out that To agree to have unprotected intercourse is to consent to the possibility of being infected with a sexually transmitted disease, we are going to continue to have these cases brought before the court.

What initially pissed ME off so much about this whole thing was that instead of presenting the case as "woman jailed - EVERYONE must be using condoms", they presented it as "you positive preditors better watch your ass your you'll end up in jail".

Instead of people thinking "I better start using condoms" they think "hiv positive people should be locked up."

I hope I've made my self clear this time.

The only way we are really going to avoid these cases happening is to make sure people understand that it is their own responsibility to protect themselves against hiv infection.

Ultimately, that is the deal.

Use condoms and avoid hiv infection. Six simple words.

Ann

skeebo1969 · « **Reply #56 on:** June 21, 2006, 01:49:01 pm »

My responsibility does lie 50% with me, if not more, that much I agree on. If I tell someone that I am negative when i know I am positive...then in my opinion I deserve to be jailed.. Hell I could meet some woman, court her for a straight year... lets get real outlandish here... she could only want to give it up on our wedding night, I mean I could hide my status.... it can and has been done!
She has the utmost trust in me! I screw her silly on our wedding night and low and behold not only is she pregnant but she has another present growing inside her now. Should she bear responsibility? Trusting my slick ass? Would this scenario facilitate jail, in you opinion ?

Are there scenarios... that you all feel differently on.. or is it the same across the board?

Thomas

Ann · « **Reply #57 on:** June 21, 2006, 03:41:07 pm »

I'll try one more time.

Here's the thing Tom. If we were to concentrate on getting the message out that condoms must be used for anal or vaginal intercourse, every time, no exceptions, until such time as you are in a securely monogamous relationship WHERE BOTH PARTNERS HAVE TESTED NEGATIVE FOR ALL STIs TOGETHER before the condoms come off...

THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR ANYONE TO GO TO JAIL.

Except where there has been unprotected intercourse without consent, which of course is rape.

I'm not arguing whether or not it is right that this woman (or anyone else who has been convicted of similar offences) has been convicted and jailed.

What I am saying is that we have to start insisting that there is a vast improvement in hiv prevention messages.

I'm saying that the media must stop portraying us as predators - because that is exactly how we were ALL portrayed by this newscast. Remember, this is what my original post was about. It wasn't about the conviction itself, it was about how the NEWS of the conviction was conveyed and the message it sent out - and more to the point, the message it DID NOT send out. Namely, that people must use condoms until they have tested together with their partner. Until we get that through people's heads, we will continue to have "victims" of hiv positive people passing on their virus through consensual unprotected intercourse.

CONSENSUAL. That is the key word here.

Ann

David_CA · « **Reply #58 on:** June 21, 2006, 05:46:27 pm »

Quote from: skeebo1969 on June 21, 2006, 10:01:10 am

No Jon that is where you are mistaken... that part is over! My anger comes from the fact that HIV does stop with us...those that know.

If I go out and knowingly infect someone why should I not be thrown in jail?

Please Jon... I ask this question not out of anger, but really want to know what you feel should be done if I knowingly infect someone.

So Tom, using your logic, the couple of guys I may have infected when I didn't know I was HIV+ are just innocent bystanders instead of active participants? I told them I was negative because I was, according to my last HIV test. I was wrong. Who's responsible? Me or those individuals? Sure, that lady shouldn't have lied about her status; I don't think anybody is saying she is right. If negative folks never counted on or depended on disclosure, her (and my) partners wouldn't be poz, most likely. I care about myself and wear a seat belt. It's really irrelevant who's at fault when one is seriously hurt in an accident or infected with HIV. The point you're missing is that if you, me, and most of us had worn a condom, we wouldn't be HIV+ today. It's as simple as that. If a way to get negative people to wear a condom is to put most / all of the responsibility on them, I bet there would be a lot fewer infections. Responsibility for our own actions is what's missing here.

David

allopathicholistic · « **Reply #59 on:** June 21, 2006, 06:23:43 pm »

Quote from: Ann on June 21, 2006, 03:41:07 pm

people must use condoms until they have tested together with their partner.

I finally get it. Thank you. My eyes are tired I must admit

Sorry all, for flipping out earlier. I have guilt and other issues; I snapped when I read 'nut case' in krakerjm's post. Growing up I was told I wasn't sane - in a mean/harsh way

skeebo1969 · « **Reply #60 on:** June 21, 2006, 06:53:56 pm »

Bobik,

I am referring to someone like myself, who has been diagnosed and handed the results.

I am 50% responsible, more in my opinion, for having become infected myself.

I understand your points Ann, Jon, everyone.....

My whole issue falls with someone who knows they are positive... one who fully understands they are putting someone at risk....

I am fully aware that if one chooses not to use protection then they have to assume the risk....I KNOW THIS.

I don't know... Ann, I am not trying to start anything up. I am open to any and all opinions and feelings put forth... I really don't understand why I am the only one that feels this way. I say this with the utmost respect to all of you and I say so humbly... I see the passion you all have against this and wonder why is it my passion steers the other way? I mean I am positive too... I really feel someone like me who puts someone knowingly at risk deserves jail time.. I am sorry, definitely not trying to make enemies.. Maybe next year or the next I will feel differently.

Thomas

tendai · « **Reply #61 on:** June 22, 2006, 05:06:28 am »

i agree with Ann, we all have a responsibility to protect ourselves when we have sex with someone moreso with someone whose status we dont know. i can only side with jailing of people who know of their status and rape people

Jeffreyj · « **Reply #62 on:** June 22, 2006, 09:53:01 am »

It seems to me that this shows a basic lack in leadership when in comes to HIV/AIDS. Some one has to take charge with the media. There lacks a simple, consistant message. Some one at the NIH or the CDC perhaps (ID say the President but....) There needs to be an ad campaign to start showing that it is cool, and responsible, to wear a condom. Show people before "the moment" asking the very specific question: "Are you HIV POZ?" By doing that, it at least holds the partner accountable. Why not drill that message for a year. At least its SOMETHING. There is nothing now. Someone TAKE CHARGE. Until that day, I intend to tell everyone: ASK YOUR PARTNER THE QUESTION: ARE YOU HIV POZ? Hell at least its something!

kcmetroman · « **Reply #63 on:** June 22, 2006, 10:02:01 am »

Condom does not start with an A. That is too far down the alphabet for the current administration.

Ann · « **Reply #64 on:** June 22, 2006, 10:11:54 am »

Jeff,

I don't really think that's quite the message either. People lie and many people don't actually KNOW their hiv status. The man from whom I got my infection certainly didn't and if I had asked him, he would have said NO.

What needs to happen is not asking questions, unless the question is - "Shall we test together for hiv so we can stop using condoms?"

Once again the message needs to be -

You need to be using condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, every time, no exceptions until such time as you are in a securely monogamous relationship where you have both tested for ALL STIs together.

To agree to have unprotected intercourse is to consent to the possibility of being infected with a sexually transmitted disease, unless you know for certain though testing together.

Relying on truthful and accurate answers to questions about someone's sexual health is nothing more than playing roulette.

Ann

David_CA · « **Reply #65 on:** June 22, 2006, 10:27:16 am »

Laws, prosecution, prision sentences, and questions won't prevent HIV infection. Condom use will. How much simpler can it be?

David

Moffie65 · « **Reply #66 on:** June 22, 2006, 10:28:44 am »

A STIFF PENIS HAS NO CONSCIENCE, AND A HUNGRY VAGINA HAS NO RELIEF!!!
Obviously Ann has it right in the original post and her idea of pleading with BBC to get a brain is one we can help with. I also advocate for the same thing here in the U.S. as this type of thing is so common here in the U.S. that I am getting very tired of it. In the end, we are evolving into a place where nobody is responsible for themselves, and that is very sad.

In Love and Awe.

Ann · « **Reply #67 on:** June 22, 2006, 10:37:20 am »

Speaking of the BBC Tim, I haven't heard back from them, even though I made it clear that I wanted a response both in my email to them and also by ticking the box for a response.

Looks like I'm going to have to kick some BBC ass.

Did anyone else follow the link I provided to the BBC complaints department, and if you did, have you had a response?

I mentioned in my letter that I am living with hiv. Perhaps they are afraid to reply for fear of a computer virus? Sorry, bad joke I suppose.

Ann

Trish · « **Reply #68 on:** June 22, 2006, 11:51:01 am »

Hey Ann,

Just wanted to let you know that I have submitted a complaint just this morning. I meant to do it sooner, but hey, I get lazy sometimes... fact of the matter, I was too enraged the other day to do so. I needed to let my anger subside some before responding. I didn't want to shoot my mouth off. I think I did a good job -- no curse words. Wow, imagine that... something very hard for me to do when I'm angry. Just wanted to let you know that I did follow through and should I receive a response from the BBC, I will let you know ASAP. I also wrote that I was HIV-pos, hopefully that doesn't mean they will ignore us. We shall see...

Be well Ann, and let's try not to let this upset us too very much, even though it already has. I feel your frustration, anger and sadness Ann, I really freaking do...

Regards to you on the Rock!!

Love,

Trish

Trish · « **Reply #69 on:** June 22, 2006, 03:17:53 pm »

Hi Ann and everyone,

Since this topic has been bugging me to no end, I've been doing searches on Stigma and such...

I am inserting a link to an article I came across which deals with this very incident. It is from AVERT.org which is in the U.K. It relates to everything that Ann has been trying so feverishly to get across here, as well as myself. Ann, this one's for you dear. Happy reading...

http://www.avert.org/ukaidsnews.htm

In admiration & solidarity,

Trish

Jeffreyj · « **Reply #70 on:** June 23, 2006, 09:47:31 am »

Ann, I was not suggesting that my comments were supposed to be "THE MESSAGE" I totally agree with your thinking(sorry if you didn't realize that) I was just trying to add some thoughts to ADD to the debate. Sorry if you took that the wrong way. I agree, totally . I understand your frustration and anger. My thoughts were just meant for us all to realize the dialogue needs to be more prevalent. the gay community really needs to step it up. That was my point.

carousel · « **Reply #71 on:** June 23, 2006, 10:04:40 am »

Ann · « **Reply #72 on:** June 23, 2006, 11:48:38 am »

Jeff,

I wasn't angry, far from it. As I mentioned to you in a PM, I was actually glad that you brought the "ask" aspect up, because it was a chance for me to discuss why that isn't a good strategy to rely on. We see far too many people in the other side of the forum who come to us after having unprotected intercourse and often they say "I asked..." and we have to point out that people don't often know their status themselves and sometimes people lie as well. I'm sorry if you had the impression that I was upset with you. I wasn't. And you're right, we ALL need to start being able to discuss these things.

Carousel,

I wish I knew the answer. The form that I went through on their website (the one I linked to above) has a box to tick if you want a response. I ticked that and I also mentioned in my email that I would like a response - but I've still heard absolutely nothing. In fact, the silence is rather deafening. If I still haven't heard by Monday, I'm going to write again and I will probably also write via snail mail. Might even ring the so-and-so's up as well. The BBC can really be arrogant sometimes.

Have you sent a complaint about this? If you have, let me know if you hear back. That goes for any of you... thanks.

Ann

carousel · « **Reply #73 on:** June 23, 2006, 12:05:33 pm »

Trish · « **Reply #74 on:** June 28, 2006, 08:40:26 am »

Hi Ann and everyone,

I received this response from the BBC (cut & pasted from the email)...

***************************************************************

Dear Ms. Steen,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding a BBC News website article
concerning Sarah Jane Porter.

I appreciate that you feel the BBC should have questioned the ruling
made by the courts and used this case as an opportunity to promote the
use of condoms.

With regards to the sentence, the BBC cannot take a stance or hold an
opinion on any public issue; indeed it is specifically prohibited from
expressing a view of its own on any issue with the exception of those
specifically related to broadcasting. To do so would be contrary to the
Corporation's Charter.

With regards to the importance of the use of condoms, the BBC actively
encourages the practice of safe sex and are currently running a 'Bare
All' summer campaign which provides free condoms and information. You
can find more information at the following website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/bareall/hiv.shtml

Please be assured that I have fully registered your comments on our
daily log. This internal document is made available to the news web team
and senior BBC management.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us with the
strength of your concerns.

Regards

Paul Kettle
BBC Information
______________________________________
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - World Wide Wonderland

************************************************************

At least they answered.

All the best,

Trish

treypaul · « **Reply #75 on:** July 19, 2006, 11:48:42 am »

Everybody on here has good points. Its great that we debate this subject. But its, as they say, preaching to the choir. The debate needs to happen 'out there'. When we hear these stories on the news, we should contact them and tell them how we feel. Else its another chance lost to educate the media.

That said, I believe in disclosure. I also believe everyone is responsibe for taking care of themselves. But the fact is some people are just too unimformed, or too stupid, or too whatever to play it safe. They shouldn't have to suffer this disease for a moment of ignorance. After all, nobody wore seatbelts until it became the law. It would be nice it it was illegal to have sex without a condom with a stranger, and some other cases. That would be an invasion of privacy however.

Where I live, in Texas, the conservative gevernment here believes that making legislation to criminalize the HIV positive person having sex makes it look like to the public that they are actually doing something about AIDS, without having to spend any money on prevention.

I teach don't share needles, don't fuck without a condom. Nuff said.

aphaun · « **Reply #76 on:** July 22, 2006, 11:52:15 pm »

Ann,
On one hand you (rightly) complain that the educational message is not getting out.
On the other, you say the responsibility is 50/50.
Make up your mind.
Don’t forget the cohorts of uninformed adolescents who weren’t properly taught about sex let alone HIV.
I agree with Thomas.
The metaphor I imagine is telling someone to go for a walk through a minefield.
Aphaun

aphaun · « **Reply #77 on:** July 22, 2006, 11:57:36 pm »

I'll go one step further.

Young people are not being properly taught about love—let alone sex and HIV.

aphaun

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #78 on:** July 23, 2006, 12:01:20 am »

Quote

On one hand you (rightly) complain that the educational message is not getting out.
On the other, you say the responsibility is 50/50.
Make up your mind.

Welcome to the forum, by the way!

I honestly don't see a dichotomy in education plus personal responsibility.

Quote

Don’t forget the cohorts of uninformed adolescents who weren’t properly taught about sex let alone HIV.

Its never too late to initiate safer sex education and prevention. Adolescent or adult, any sexually active person has the responsibility to protect him/herself. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse, not when the stakes are this high.

Quote

The metaphor I imagine is telling someone to go for a walk through a minefield.

An apt metaphor. When someone is informed of the risks, and choose to walk through that minefield, then they are assuming the risks involved. If people are not informed, it does not make the minefield go away.

Sex is an adult choice, with accompanying adult responsibilities and adult risks.

aphaun · « **Reply #79 on:** July 23, 2006, 12:08:52 am »

I see the metaphor requires enhanced description.

The person inviting the other to walk in it knows what's underfoot.

aphaun

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #80 on:** July 23, 2006, 12:14:17 am »

Quote

The person inviting the other to walk in it knows what's underfoot.

So ... taking your metaphor into the realm of sexuality, it's therefore the sexual aggressor's responsibility to make certain his/her partner is informed of all STDs, their transmission and prevention? In a world where we presume informed consent, it seems logical that each person is responsible for his/her sexual health.

And when all is said and done, finger-pointing and incarceration will not restore someone's HIV status. The resources that go into prosecuting cases like this would fund a great deal of education and prevention programs - based on negotiated risk, risk reduction, condom use, and personal responsibility.

Are you a person infected/affected with/by HIV? It would be great if you'd post some introduction

.

aphaun · « **Reply #81 on:** July 23, 2006, 12:21:16 am »

Hello,

Yes, I'm LTS—1984.
Been through the meat grinder.
In good health now.

aphaun

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #82 on:** July 23, 2006, 12:25:21 am »

Again, welcome

aphaun · « **Reply #83 on:** July 23, 2006, 12:28:08 am »

Thank you.

skeebo1969 · « **Reply #84 on:** July 23, 2006, 11:06:32 pm »

Awwww you two are so sweet.... I think I am going to go cry!

Forums Index

Welcome

Author Topic: Woman jailed for giving lover HIV (Read 48059 times)

tendai