HIV-

[Leafless]

Here we go again with another round of HIV media sexual assault stories that most people are aware of.

The whole point in this matter is the intentional spread of HIV and should it be considered a crime.

Or is it intentional as anyone in that positon could argue -things just got out of control and we just happened to have sex or come up with a string of similar excuses.

Driving down the road separated by a single white line as the only defense to avoid a head on collission yet millions of people assume that risk every day and as a result some do die with many times charges layed but seldom viewed 'as intentional'.

The only sure way to avoid the possibility of this type of tradegy is 'don't drive period'.

There are many job related risk or recreational risk that can result in injury or death with no intentional blame or responsibility attached to anyone.

It seems many women throw all common sense out the window when it comes to procuring a perpective husband or 'I know for sure this relationship is the one for me' or 'this guy has the bucks or looks or whatever that I want'.

Women have a direct responsibility to insure the protection of their health in which the same responsibility is applied to males who also must be aware of the transmission of infectious diseases and of course other important concerns but not related to this topic.

If your not sure about the health or lifestyles of your partner -don't have sex-period.

What's your take on this issue?

[kimmy]

I think you're terribly misguided. To borrow your "highway" analogy... anybody who drives on the highway has assumed some degree of risk... but you bet your ass that we're going to punish somebody who intentionally drives in a manner that puts others at risk.

Somebody who decides to drive has taken on some degree of risk, so that should make it ok for somebody else on the road to swerve into oncoming traffic to play "chicken"? Is that what you're saying?

No way.

Travis Smith and that other guy deserve what's coming. They ought to be put in prison until their disease kills them. My only regret is that the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for paying for their expensive medicine.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

I have to agree with kimmy. Man or woman-if they have unprotected sex with someone while knowing they are carrying a lethal virus...they must be punished. Preferably removed from the general populace as well, if they have no ability to cease or exhibit responsibility.

It would be a sad day if everybody simply had to assume the worst about everyone, because everyone else took the attitude "It's your own fault". Surely there is some responsibility for everyone to use common sense. There should also br respponsibility for those that commit acts knowing that they will be harming others, especially with communicating a fatal disease.

[Leafless]

fleabag

You wrote- " Man or woman if they have unprotected sex with someone while knowing they are carring a lethal virus...they must be punished. Preferably removed from the general populace as well, if they have no idea if they have the ability to cease or exhibit responsibility."

This is moral issue and the emphasis is on carrier ...'be a good person and don't have unprotected sex' is what society says, which in my view eliminates any responsibility on the carriers part and strictly makes it a matter of personal judgement as there is no legal mechanism preventing a person with HIV to invect 1-1000 people or more.

Why is the carrier of such a lethal disease be allowed to walk the streets of cities throughout the country and in fact be allowed to kill someone by having unprotected sex.

The emphasis should be on society after detirmining an individual has HIV there should be NO other recourse than to legally institutonalize people with HIV.

Would society allow a deranged person with a gun to walk the streets and say 'just don't shoot anyone' or there is a good possibility you will be punished or will be punished.

In the case of killer sexual diseases to-day the onus is on the individual to make certain his or her partner is risk free and the word intentional is a word I think is improperly used in these types of cases as the seriousness of this disease is to easily readily dismissed by authorties and could be seen by anyone who chooses as trivial Iam really free to do what I want.

The sad 'after the fact' ramafacations of the spread of HIV possibly infecting a large number of people is the systems fault initially by allowing HIV carriers to walk the streets.

So I actually agree with you in the reverse sense that it is the carrier that should be removed from the general populace.

[Melanie_]

Would society allow a deranged person with a gun to walk the streets and say 'just don't shoot anyone' or there is a good possibility you will be punished or will be punished.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know, it seems there are a few deranged people wandering around this board...

Are you really advocating locking up everyone who has HIV?

[Tawasakm]

This is moral issue and the emphasis is on carrier ...'be a good person and don't have unprotected sex' is what society says, which in my view eliminates any responsibility on the carriers part and strictly makes it a matter of personal judgement as there is no legal mechanism preventing a person with HIV to invect 1-1000 people or more.

How is putting an emphasis on protected sex eliminating any responsibility to a carrier? This doesn't make sense. Asking people to reduce and hopefully eliminate the risk of transmission is asking people to become responsible. If a carrier became infected through a lack of personal responsibility then he is surely ignoring the message - not being irresponsible because of it...

Why is the carrier of such a lethal disease be allowed to walk the streets of cities throughout the country and in fact be allowed to kill someone by having unprotected sex.

I walk around my city with hand which may be clenched into fists attached to my arms. I can beat someone to death using my fists. Or making use of my handy opposable thumbs I could grip a long stick and, through the principle of leverage, apply even more force - perhaps even causing splatter. Of course I don't think I should be removed from the streets because of this. My hands are not inherently lethal but only potentially which depends on my own decisions on how to use them and other factors. Somebody who has HIV is not inherently lethal but only potentially - again through decision making and some other factors. In my view it is ridiculous to use a 'loaded gun' argument here.

The sad 'after the fact' ramafacations of the spread of HIV possibly infecting a large number of people is the systems fault initially by allowing HIV carriers to walk the streets.

Are you serious or are you trolling I ask myself.

[Leafless]

Melanie_

You wrote- " Are you really advocating locking up everyone who as HIV."

I am advocating 'institutionalize' them the same way they have for SARS carriers or AVIAN flu carriers as HIV is deadly with no cure and there are other ways this disease can be spread without having sex.

If in fact IF they can not do this because of the large numbers then the system has FAILED and our federal government in our civilized country must assume reponsibility for not taking the proper steps to halt this killer disease.

[Leafless]

Tawasakm

"How is putting emphasis on protected sex putting eliminating any responsibilty to the carrier."

It does not put any responsibility on the carrier that's the federal governments job and that's where it failed to protect Canadians from what can be seen as a killer epidemic where there is NO CURE. There are 40-million cases world wide.

Of course it puts emphasis on protected sex as how else can someone defend themselves against possible death especially when knowing there are HIV people all over.

HIV is not like walking around with your fist clenched for whatever or even like a serial killer who leaves in many cases ample evidence to locate this person and who is eventually caught if not immediately.

A HIV carrier can go on for years without detection who can in fact infect and kill thousands of people including members of the medical profession, dentist etc.

The point of the matter is in this issue we know who the 'killers' are after they are initially diagnosed - and this is when action should be taken- not after the fact or after many facts and even then in many cases the penality does not fit the crime.

[PocketRocket]

I think locking away all HIV-positive people is a bit much.

However, if an HIV-carrier is, with full knowledge of his/her disease, having unprotected sex, then that person should be charged as though he/she were attacking someone with a deadly weapon.

[Leafless]

PocketRocket

Institionalize in a hospital or similar not a prison.

The point of this post is to show how the system FAILED to protect the population against HIV.

HIV again is a killer disease and cannot be compared to 'assault with a deadly weapon'.

If that is the case every time someone coughs in the direction of your face could be considered a form of assault.

In effect what the system does with HIV is ALLOWS the spread of that disease period.

[FTA Lawyer]

Leafless,

Have you got an incredibly high fever or something?

To start with, the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly stated that knowingly exposing others to HIV through unprotected sex is in fact within the legal definition of aggravated sexual assault.

So, those who break this law face being removed from society for significant periods of time...one might say, the system is adequately acting to protect the population from this harmful act.

Your suggestion is that upon being diagnosed with HIV all such persons should be institutionalized...you say "not in jail" as though it really matters when your liberty has just been completely extinguished?!?!?

HIV does not spread as a result of a person merely having it. In fact, its methods of transmission would suggest that comparatively speaking we should let HIV patients run wild while we lock up those with influenza, malaria, and a list of other afflictions.

Your analysis is unintelligent and frankly suited to the early 1980's where the idea of "putting all the faggots on an island and nuking it" actually had a certain following.

I haven't missed that what you are saying is we can stop the criminal exposure to HIV before it happens...by simply locking everyone with HIV away. I suppose it is a laudable goal, in a very warped way.

Of course, we could also completely end spousal abuse by immediately institutionalizing every person who had just said "I do" (because of course we now know who the culprits are, even before the beatings start)...but that is equally absurd.

FTA Lawyer

[Leafless]

Lawyer

You wrote- " Within the legal definition of aggravated assault"

Aggravated assault causing possibly death.

I know what you are saying but at the same time could be viewed as ludicrous.

Sexual assault with a 'disease' does not sit well in my mind concerning the definiton of 'aggravated assault'.

All Iam saying is that federal authorities failed to protect the general public from the transmission of a killer disease and could of done more to stop this spread by banning certain sexual practices mainly common to many homosexuals.- I know it is not only the homosexual population that spreads HIV but they significantly contribute to it.

Ambulance crews and health care workers now protect themselves with gloves and mask especially when exposed to body fluids and we all know why.

I will not pursue this post any futher due to lack of interest and denial of the obvious dangers. This post was not designed as an attack on any particular group but simply outlying important HIV concerns.

[PocketRocket]

LEAFLESS: How many people with HIV use a condom EVERY TIME they have sex???

Should these carefully considerate people be locked away for something that is not their fault, and that they are very careful about keeping to themselves???

How many of them simply don't have sex anymore???

Should they also be locked away, again, for an uncommitted crime???

Sorry, but for the ridiculously small percentage of HIV victims who actually do have unprotected sex, it would be ludicrous, not to mention needlessly draconian, to lock up ALL of these poor people who are already on a life-sentence of sorts.

Now if you were to advocate putting a tattoo on their privates, something like "HIV+", well, this I wouldn't protest TOO loudly.

But locking away people who have a disease which can ONLY be communicated by having sex, is way over the top.

[Leafless]

PocketRocket

You wrote- " But locking people away who have a disease which can only be communicated by having sex is way over the top.

Really?

I thought HIV can be contracted not only by sex but by saliva to blood and blood to blood and depending on conditons that includes many different scenario's.

In effect also this as destroyed priviously realtively safe heterosexual sex in which heterosexuals must now take the same precautions as homosexuals and suffer the same consequences as homosexuals if contracted as a result of officials sweeping this 'killer disease under the rug.'

Your term 'locked up' does not reflect the reality of the situation.

If you refer to be confined to a treatment center locked up ---then fine , we understand each other.

[PocketRocket]

If you refer to be confined to a treatment center locked up ---then fine , we understand each other.

The key word is "confined".

That means "locked up".

Can't go when you want or where you want.

Treatment center or prison.

A rose by any other name.....

Before pursuing such an end, why not look into the numbers, ie; what percentage of HIV+ people are having unprotected sex???

If that's not available, how many cases are there regarding this issue vs how many HIV+ people there are????

[daeha]

sex is what we do on earth along with eating sleeping and other things,that said if i knew i had aids and had sex with anyone i would be passing on a deadly disease with the full knowledge that i could be killing that person,that to me goes further than the criteria for murder,and as some idiot suggested we all abstain in case we get it,what claptrap!,i can see every boy and girl insisting on a medical examination seconds before sex,anyone who knowingly infects another with a life threatening disease should be treated worse than a murderer,his or her life should be terminated bugger the expense of keeping them in a place they would possibly enjoy,killem, peter bradshaw,liverpool,

[szkw1]

,anyone who knowingly infects another with a life threatening disease should be treated worse than a murderer,his or her life should be terminated bugger the expense of keeping them in a place they would possibly enjoy,killem, peter bradshaw,liverpool,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a little harsh. I say they should go to jail but if they are infected with full blown AIDS they will not have a great life anyway.

[Virgil]

I'd call it murder as well, providing the person recieving HIV is unaware of it. I'll never agree with jail, it's like trying to teach someone something by hitting them on the head, but it's definitely murder and so should be subject to the normal punishment of murder depending on the state or country.

[tml12]

Here we go again with another round of HIV media sexual assault stories that most people are aware of.

The whole point in this matter is the intentional spread of HIV and should it be considered a crime.

Or is it intentional as anyone in that positon could argue -things just got out of control and we just happened to have sex or come up with a string of similar excuses.

Driving down the road separated by a single white line as the only defense to avoid a head on collission yet millions of people assume that risk every day and as a result some do die with many times charges layed but seldom viewed 'as intentional'.

The only sure way to avoid the possibility of this type of tradegy is 'don't drive period'.

There are many job related risk or recreational risk that can result in injury or death with no intentional blame or responsibility attached to anyone.

It seems many women throw all common sense out the window when it comes to procuring a perpective husband or 'I know for sure this relationship is the one for me' or 'this guy has the bucks or looks or whatever that I want'.

Women have a direct responsibility to insure the protection of their health in which the same responsibility is applied to males who also must be aware of the transmission of infectious diseases and of course other important concerns but not related to this topic.

If your not sure about the health or lifestyles of your partner -don't have sex-period.

What's your take on this issue?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LEAFLESS WROTE--"If your not sure about the health or lifestyles of your partner -don't have sex-period."

AGREED AGREED AGREED. And if you screw around and you KNOW you have HIV you should go to jail for LIFE.

[August1991]

Here's a twist to this discussion:

A woman who had unprotected sex with a soldier without telling him that she is HIV positive has been sentenced to house arrest for a year.

CBC

Murphy, who suffered mood disorders was found to have a brain lesion caused by the HIV infection as revealed by a CAT scan during the trial. The problem since was brought under control with antibiotics, but caused the judge to review the possibility that Murphy's behavior could have been a result of her disease.

Some web site

House arrest for a year.

This guy, on the other hand, is being treated differently:

An Ontario judge has cleared the way for an HIV-positive man to stand trial on first-degree murder charges in the case of two women who died of complications from the virus.

....

Aziga is believed to be the first HIV-positive person in Canada to be charged with murder after allegedly having unprotected sex and passing on the virus.

CBC

----

In the first case, with Murphy, the "victim" does not have HIV. In the second case, with Aziga, two women died of AIDS.

This is akin to merely driving drunk compared with killing someone while driving drunk. In the first case, there is no damage but in the second, there is.

There is another issue at stake here: if Murphy had said nothing, would it have been possible to know what had happened? We know about Aziga because the women contracted HIV.