HIV/AIDS transmission - To prosecute or not to prosecute?

[hennypenny]

I do not agree with the morality of the person who knowingly risks other people's health, but I do think making new laws specifically about tranferring HIV is a very dangerous road to go down.

 

If new laws are to be passed to allow prosecution of people who pass on HIV, where do we stop. What about other dangerous illnesses?

 

What about the parent who takes their child out and about when they have german measles, thus resulting in a pregnant woman contracting the disease and her baby being born with problems?

 

Cat owners not ensuring their cats are wormed and thus a child catches toxoplasmosis and becomes blinded? The health worker who passes on hepatitis, etc, etc.

 

I think the only way to remain safe from the many different risks is to take responsibility for our own health and safety, ensure our children do not play in areas where cat faeces are likely to be, and never have unprotected sex unless both parties have a clean bill of health.

 

The fact that this is an incredibly difficult thing to ask of our young people is not lost to me, I have young adult children myself, and weep for how unfairly the world has changed for them.

[Twiglet]

, and never have unprotected sex unless both parties have a clean bill of health.

 

I fully agree that we all need to take responsibility for our own health. However, in many of the cases where this has gone to court, an individual has lied about said 'clean bill of health' knowing full well they were HIV positive, and have even gone so far as to get married. Would you honestly ask to see recent HIV test results for every partner you might have if you were young and (not promiscuous) having new relationships every year or so?

 

I once asked for an HIV test, purely to get a full clean bill of health. The nurse at my GPs surgery told me very curtly that they didn't do it and spoke to me like I'd been injecting Heroin into my eyeballs. While having an HIV test requires going to a specific clinic and having pre- and post- test counselling (even for a negative result), how many people are realistically going to go for a test when there are medical professionals who still regard it as a disease of drug addicts and those with deviant sexual practices, and treat you in such a fashion?

[sTaGeWaLkEr]

how many people are realistically going to go for a test when there are medical professionals who still regard it as a disease of drug addicts and those with deviant sexual practices, and treat you in such a fashion?

 

Thankfully, GUM don't. But like you say, I'm not so sure about GP's.

 

GP's are a bit behind the times I think when it comes to sexual stuff. That's why we have GUM. I would never have an HIV test at a GP surgery - probably because I'd feel judged.

[sTaGeWaLkEr]

I thought I'd post on this thread for no other reason than I think it's an interesting subject for debate - and it's not been posted on for ages.

[synthman]

I understand that more people now take responsibility for their own sexual health and practice safer sex, but as most of us will probably we aware, this isn't always the case. There are still a large number of people who continue to have unprotected sex, despite being aware of the potential risks.

 

The majority of the people that I know with HIV are responsible, considerate, genuine and honest individuals. Most were simply 'unlucky'. One is a fifty-something Grandmother who uses the forum. She had sex once in ten years and became infected. Not everything is as we imagine it to be.

 

Anyway, on with the reason for my post.

 

This is based on a real situation.

 

Mr 'X' is currently having unprotected sex with unsuspecting partners, even though he knows he is HIV positive. He doesn't tell his multiple sexual partners his status but insists on unprotected sex as 'he prefers it that way'

 

This is clearly unacceptable behaviour. I understand that the individual in question may be 'angry at the world' and want to lash out, but this is not the way to behave.

 

I was pleased to hear that only a few days ago someone has reported Mr 'X' for infecting them with the virus. I genuinely hope that this will result in legal action being taken against the individual concerned and that he will be held responsible for his actions.

 

(for legal reasons I won't be commenting on the specifics of the individual case)

 

Previously I understand that HIV positive people who have had unprotected sex whilst being fully aware of their status have subsequently been prosecuted. I believe the legal term penned was 'Biological Manslaughter'

 

There are many potential problems with HIV prosecutions, but in essence, should HIV+ve people who have unprotected sex be open to prosecution under the law, and if so, what would be a suitable sentence?

 

Are there any mitigating circumstances that would lessen the severity from a defence perspective?

 

Should we be allowed to do whatever we want sexually without fear of repercussions or do we all have a moral obligation to protect others?

 

As mentioned before, there are HIV+ve people on the forum, so please keep all replies sensible and courteous.

Is he a murder or what. what a selfish individual. God will judge.

[Jessica23]

I thought I'd post on this thread for no other reason than I think it's an interesting subject for debate - and it's not been posted on for ages.

 

What happened to Mr X?

[sTaGeWaLkEr]

What happened to Mr X?

 

Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, he's still around and up to his old tricks.

 

To my knowledge, nothing came of the original report as (fortunately) the person in that particular instance turned out to be HIV -neg.

 

Just makes my blood boil. If I knew I had a life changing condition that was transferable through sex, then I'd take every precaution possible to prevent someone else having to go through what I'd been through.

 

Then again, I'm not a selfish a-hole.

[Lotusflower]

Hi Stagey, ...Each of us has to be responsible for our own actions. In a way I almost feel sorry for Mr. X. His sense of, "Anger at the world," is very much fear based...as is most anger. I'm sorry for anyone who gets so terrified that they lose their humanity.

I'm not in any way condoning what he's doing...I just smell his fear.

Being responsible for our own actions ought to mean NOT having unprotected sex on any casual basis whatsoever...and that is perhaps the best lesson to be learned from this man.

Warmest regards my friend.

[KTHFB]

Personally, I think it's quite right to prosecute if I'm honest. Can they not prosecute him with intent to harm, even though he never infected said person?

 

It's a cruel, cruel disease and no-one deserves to get it, but willingly infecting people is just wrong in my opinion.

[olorin]

Grevious bodily harm would appear to be a suitable charge. You don't have to cause their death - the "mere" infection would consititute it and you could prosecute whilst they were still alive. You would have to prove mens rea of course like any other offence that is not strict liability.

 

If they cannot keep themselves under control then they get locked up and detained under the existing public welfare laws that allow of quarantine of people carrying typhoid etc - much of the legal framework is there as of the day.