Criminalization of HIV

[Sugar]

For people who knowingly acknowledge that they are HIV positive but fail to disclose their HIV to their partners / or lie about their status , should they be charge for causing harm?

[Ren Ying Ying]

For people who knowingly acknowledge that they are HIV positive but fail to disclose their HIV to their partners / or lie about their status , should they be charge for causing harm?

Depends. Are they using protection?

[Sugar]

The case is complicated ..but I am leaning towards NOT disclosing anything at all.

Its not the use or no use of safe sex, but it is the negligence to inform your partner that you are HIV positive.

[Guo Xiang]

Definitely should disclose if the relationship is sexual. If not should be charged because that is akin to murder. >_>

[patricia n]

agree with gx. i knew of a case where a guy was hiv+ and did not disclose it to anyone and slept with everyone in his community.

[Trien Chieu]

Agree with Guo Xiang and patricia.

[Banh Mi]

If we quaranteen people with contagious diseases with no known cure, we oughta keep a close look eye on those with the sexual variant.

[Sourplum]

@ Sugar: I don't know about the laws in America, but in Australia if someone is HIV+ and they knowingly infect another person with the virus, they can be face harsh prosecution with charges like murder or manslaughter and neglience.

This is why it is important to have safe sex and also go for HIV testing at least once every few months.

[jadebunny9]

I don't know if it should become a crime, but it sure isn't ethical. You could really get someone killed.

[Sourplum]

@ Jadebunny: And that is where the question of the elements of crime comes into play. According for something to be considered a crime, we have to consider:

was the partner diagnosed with HIV and how long ago was their last intimate encounter with the carrier?
did the HIV Carrier have the intention to infect?
was the HIV status of the carrier known to their partner(s)? (this is the most important factor when it comes to judgment)

For example: If two people have a sexual relationship with each other and the HIV carrier did not tell their partner they have the virus and they DO transmit it, this should (and is?) be considered criminal.

On the other hand, if the condition of the carrier was known to their partner(s) then no legal action can, or should be taken against the carrier because all parties involved were aware of the condition.

I'd imagine, that if the first scenario I mentioned above was the case, and the infected partner decided to take legal action against the carrier, the prosecution might have a hard time proving that the carrier did not inform the infected partner of their condition, if they choose to deny the allegations - it's one person's word against another's UNLESS, the carrier was having more than one sexual partner and said partners agreed to testify against the carrier.

[Trien Chieu]

This is why it is important to have safe sex and also go for HIV testing at least once every few months.

Safer sex and HIV testing is better than nothing but ABSTINENCE is by far the best option. Nothing was, is, and will ever be as safe as abstinence.

[Banh Mi]

Dying is safer than abstinance, just a thought.

[Sugar]

@ Jadebunny: And that is where the question of the elements of crime comes into play. According for something to be considered a crime, we have to consider:

was the partner diagnosed with HIV and how long ago was their last intimate encounter with the carrier?
did the HIV Carrier have the intention to infect?
was the HIV status of the carrier known to their partner(s)? (this is the most important factor when it comes to judgment)

For example: If two people have a sexual relationship with each other and the HIV carrier did not tell their partner they have the virus and they DO transmit it, this should (and is?) be considered criminal.

On the other hand, if the condition of the carrier was known to their partner(s) then no legal action can, or should be taken against the carrier because all parties involved were aware of the condition.

I'd imagine, that if the first scenario I mentioned above was the case, and the infected partner decided to take legal action against the carrier, the prosecution might have a hard time proving that the carrier did not inform the infected partner of their condition, if they choose to deny the allegations - it's one person's word against another's UNLESS, the carrier was having more than one sexual partner and said partners agreed to testify against the carrier.

Now the question comes because we know how the US never like to discriminate anyone, why criminalized just HIV patients? How about those who carry hepatitis? STD's?

[Ren Ying Ying]

Just because at the moment, HIV is singled out as the only STD that can be criminalized in the States, it doesn't mean that HIV should get excused.

Instead, the debate should be whether or not people should get criminalized for purposely spreading STDs such as HepB & HPV. Though, these two at least have the excuse of having available "vaccinations".

The other STDs (Clamydia, Gonorrhea, etc) arn't as life-endagering or have high cure rates.

Still, the bottom line being that HIV shouldn't be let off the hook just because you don't want to "discriminate". You should be looking to make the other STDs join the attention given to HIV instead.

[Sourplum]

@ Sugar: HIV is a life-threatening virus. I don't think carriers of HIV are being discriminated against. Obviously, if you knowingly give someone HIV, you're giving them a death sentence on no conditions.

Now, what IS discrimination is that gay people cannot donate blood because of the automatic assumption that they have contracted HIV/Aids from their same sex partner. A ridiculous, homophobic argument. Plenty of heterosexual people also carry HIV, but that's just ignorance at its best.

[Suzaku]

Which state criminalized HIV?

I think it is discrimination if you make laws that target specifically HIV patients. Its a different matter if the HIV patient knowingly and maliciously spread it to multiple partners. ie. spreading the disease for the sake of spreading it. But if you're two consenting adults - how hard is it to use a condom?

As to HIV being a death sentence; life, in itself, is a terminal disease.

[Ren Ying Ying]

Which state criminalized HIV?

I think it is discrimination if you make laws that target specifically HIV patients. Its a different matter if the HIV patient knowingly and maliciously spread it to multiple partners. ie. spreading the disease for the sake of spreading it. But if you're two consenting adults - how hard is it to use a condom?

As to HIV being a death sentence; life, in itself, is a terminal disease.

the "criminalization of HIV" refers knowingly spreading HIV w/o letting the partner(s) know beforehand--in other words, there isn't necessarily true "consent" from the other side.

Discrimination? Perhaps. But a crime against another person is still a crime.

[Suzaku]

the "criminalization of HIV" refers knowingly spreading HIV w/o letting the partner(s) know beforehand--in other words, there isn't necessarily true "consent" from the other side.

Discrimination? Perhaps. But a crime against another person is still a crime.

I was referring to "consent" as consent to the sexual activity. AIDS and HIV is a prevalent disease and one that has received a lot of press. If an adult consents to sexual acts with another person (especially without protection), I will say that he or she has assumed the risk of possibly of contracting disease.

Extreme example, but if you decide to engage in skydiving and is injured - you're assumed the risk because you engage in a dangerous activity.

In some parts of the world "discrimination" is a crime too.

[Ren Ying Ying]

I was referring to "consent" as consent to the sexual activity. AIDS and HIV is a prevalent disease and one that has received a lot of press. If an adult consents to sexual acts with another person (especially without protection), I will say that he or she has assumed the risk of possibly of contracting disease.

"Consent" refers to "Informed Consent" regardless of what activity you are participating in--in this case, "sexual activity". The partner has the right to know whether or not the person has HIV and it is rather unreasonable to ask people to question their partner about HIV every single time they engage in sex. It is the responsibility of the infected person to inform his/her partner. There is no ethical excuse not to disclose the information if the infected person engages in unprotected sexual activities unless it is to knowingly infect the other person. Of course, legally, the difficult part would be to prove whether or not the infected person actually informed the partner.

"Discrimination" is a very non-discriminate word. Some forms of discrimination is without a reasonable or logical basis (ie. on race, sex, etc). But "discrimination" itself does exist and is actually needed for much of the world to function. That is why we even bother to keep records on people. Why ex-convicts have more difficulty finding jobs. Why smokers have to pay higher health insurance. Etc.

[Suzaku]

"Consent" refers to "Informed Consent" regardless of what activity you are participating in--in this case, "sexual activity". The partner has the right to know whether or not the person has HIV and it is rather unreasonable to ask people to question their partner about HIV every single time they engage in sex. It is the responsibility of the infected person to inform his/her partner. There is no ethical excuse not to disclose the information if the infected person engages in unprotected sexual activities unless it is to knowingly infect the other person. Of course, legally, the difficult part would be to prove whether or not the infected person actually informed the partner.

"Discrimination" is a very non-discriminate word. Some forms of discrimination is without a reasonable or logical basis (ie. on race, sex, etc). But "discrimination" itself does exist and is actually needed for much of the world to function. That is why we even bother to keep records on people. Why ex-convicts have more difficulty finding jobs. Why smokers have to pay higher health insurance. Etc.

There is "informed consent" if a person knows that there is a risk of contracting STD, HIV, and other disease when they engage in unprotected sex. I agree that there is no ethical excuse to not let your sexual partner know about your condition. But what is unethical does not make it criminal.

In any types of transaction, both parties should have have some duty to investigate. Why should the burden fall solely on the shoulder of the party that has HIV, and the other party can decide to keep his/her head in the sand. You could have asked, cased the place, or used a condom. The law should protect a person from harm, but I don't agree that it should protect one that willingly engages in reckless activity - unprotected sex.

As to discrimination, I think there is a difference between what is being discriminated against and who is doing the discrimination. As to the examples you cited the party doing the discrimination is a private company, the insurance carrier or the employer. But when you make a law that criminalize HIV, the government is doing the discrimination. For example, if I decide that I will never allow Asians on my property because I hate Asians - that is fine because that is my house, my property. But it is different when the government decides to make a law and restrict Asians from entering public parks.

In short, I find it reprehensible that there is a law, if there is one, that will criminalize a HIV-patient. Cause at the heart, you are discriminating against someone that is a victim of HIV for engaging in consensual sex.