Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Intentional Transmission of HIV: OK in CA!
I cannot believe that I live in a state like this.
Governor Brown and his lackeys have determined that intentionally transmitting HIV is only a misdemeanor. Transmission of a life-altering, and eventually life-ending, disease has now been demoted to an afterthought.
Additionally, those who knowingly donate infected blood will also fall under the new reduced penalties.
They are right. This isn’t a gay or straight issue. This is a public health issue. When you have people who use their communicable illness as a weapon, you have people who also fall under criminal law. By removing this penalty, it also removed the aggravated portion of assault for people who are sexually assaulted. It necessarily reduces the stigma associated with other blood-borne illnesses.
This is a slippery slope toward decriminalizing other intentional transmission of communicable diseases.
Does this mean that a man who doesn’t tell his girlfriend that he has Hepatitis B cannot be prosecuted when he passes it on, simply because it won’t end her life immediately?
Even more frightening, does this limit prosecution in the future of crimes against patients when healthcare workers have been spat at and have been stabbed by their patients’ used needles? Will this weaken current legislation to protect the public?
The answer is a resounding yes. In California, the urge to protect the minorities has irrevocably injured the majority.
It might be time to support CalExit.
Published in Law
You are right. It is because intent does not change consequences.
With AIDS, nobody. But then again, a patient whose HIV infection has progressed to AIDS probably isn’t going to be looking for sex since they’ll be spending most of the rest of their (short) lives in a hospital fighting off horrible infections.
I presume you meant “who would knowingly have sex with someone who is HIV positive?” And the answer is: more than you’d think. From what I gather, being open about being HIV-positive will turn away most potential partners, especially casual ones (at least in the SF gay community), but there are quite a few who are willing to do so in the context of a strong relationship.
While it’s perhaps flown under the radar (gaydar?) of most of us, the advances in HIV prophylaxis are amazing. An HIV-positive man taking HAART (i.e. HIV drugs) has an incredibly low risk of transmitting the disease. An HIV-negative man taking PrEP (i.e. HIV drugs) has an incredibly low risk of becoming infected. Combine these two methods, add condoms (and a few other preventative measures) and the risk that the HIV-negative man will die of AIDS becomes much lower than the risk that he’ll die in the Uber ride to his HIV-positive boyfriend’s apartment.
This is actually a valid argument. It’s already difficult enough for people who think they might have gotten HIV to get tested – who wants to hear that news?
It’s also fair to say that most people who “knowingly” gave their partners HIV did not do so maliciously. It’s much more likely that they were too embarrassed/scared to admit it – especially since word spreads fast in small communities.
Still, even if this isn’t a black-and-white issue, one side of the argument clearly outweighs the other. There’s a huge contradiction in the logic of the supporters of this law: on the one hand, “HIV is no big deal anymore”. On the other hand “admitting you’re HIV positive is a huge deal”. Well, it can’t be both. Despite the advances, HIV is still an incurable disease that is fatal if not properly treated (and sometimes even then).
You mean HIV, someone with AIDS isn’t likely doing much of anything. Anyway condom and undetectable viral load? Sure I would.
Similar logic is kind of when I realized the stigma bit is real. There are a lot of other daily activities that are far more harmful and more likely to lead to death and injury then the scenario you laid out. Having diabetes can and typically has a far greater impact on ones life then HIV.
So in regard to this change in legislation I don’t think its helpful. Spreading HIV is still bad, but having HIV ought not to be consider a personal failing. But I simply don’t see how this change helps with the latter.
I think it’s the HIVe mind.