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

[boyfriday]

If you know you're HIV positive then you shouldn't have unprotected sex. End of.

 

..agreed stagey, and by the same token if you don't know the health status of the person you're sleeping with you're partly responsible for the infection(s) you might contract.

[Suffragette1]

..agreed stagey, and by the same token if you don't know the health status of the person you're sleeping with you're partly responsible for the infection(s) you might contract.

 

But wilfully putting someone else at risk is far worse. I agree, we should all take responsibility for our own sexual health, however, people also lie and many men are not the biggest fans of wearing condoms either.

[boyfriday]

But wilfully putting someone else at risk is far worse. I agree, we should all take responsibility for our own sexual health, however, people also lie and many men are not the biggest fans of wearing condoms either.

 

I agree Suffy, it is worse, which is why I believe the 'victim' is partly, rather than equally responsible, but having said that, we've all had the safe sex message drummed into us, so whatever our personal preferences are, the rational thing to do would be to assume that everyone we encounter is carting an STI around with them, after all if these infections were visible we would be circumspect about engaging sexually with sufferers.

[foxforcefive]

But wilfully putting someone else at risk is far worse. I agree, we should all take responsibility for our own sexual health, however, people also lie and many men are not the biggest fans of wearing condoms either.

 

Exactly, are we supposed to chaperone every sexual partner to the clap clinic to hear the results first hand, or do we trust them when they say they've been and are in the clear?

[HeadingNorth]

If she were fully aware of her HIV status, how can she possibly deny deliberately infecting anyone, unless she were in such a state of denial about her condition?

 

 

She claims to have been told by a doctor that the chance of her infecting a partner was as close to zero as makes no difference.

 

If by chance she is telling the truth, then the doctor who told her that, should be struck off.

[Suffragette1]

She claims to have been told by a doctor that the chance of her infecting a partner was as close to zero as makes no difference.

 

If by chance she is telling the truth, then the doctor who told her that, should be struck off.

 

She must be lying and using that as her 'defence' because a) the doctor is wrong and b) no doctor can ever give those kind of certainties.

[HeadingNorth]

She must be lying and using that as her 'defence' because a) the doctor is wrong and b) no doctor can ever give those kind of certainties.

 

That's certainly what I would think.

[Suffragette1]

Exactly, are we supposed to chaperone every sexual partner to the clap clinic to hear the results first hand, or do we trust them when they say they've been and are in the clear?

 

Indeed, which is why we all need to take responsibility, I certainly would if I were single and/or embarking on a new sexual relationship.

 

Apparently, HIV infection rates in the over 50s has almost doubled. I suspect that this is down to the fact that contraception no longer becomes an issue for women in that age group, therefore, there is less incentive to use protection and that people have not only been lulled into a false sense of security but assume that only the younger generation are at risk.

[boyfriday]

She claims to have been told by a doctor that the chance of her infecting a partner was as close to zero as makes no difference.

 

If by chance she is telling the truth, then the doctor who told her that, should be struck off.

 

It is well established though that the incidence of transmission from female to male during vaginal intercourse is lower than male to female.

 

This is old research that may have been superseded, but it's an interesting read:

 

Heterosexual Transmission

 

Announcing the results of the nation's largest study of heterosexual transmission of HIV, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, found there was a very low rate of infection among heterosexual couples with one HIV positive partner.

 

Scientists now believe female-to-male transmission is rare. Women were about eight times more likely than men to become infected by their HIV positive partners. The probability of HIV-positive women infecting their male partners with the virus was found to be significantly low.

 

http://www.thebody.com/content/art446.html

 

 

..and this from wiki:

 

Sexual

The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations. Complacency about HIV plays a key role in HIV risk.[3][4] Sexual transmission can occur when infected sexual secretions of one partner come into contact with the genital, oral, or rectal mucous membranes of another. In high-income countries, the risk of female-to-male transmission is 0.04% per act and male-to-female transmission is 0.08% per act. For various reasons, these rates are 4 to 10 times higher in low-income countries.[35] The rate for receptive anal intercourse is much higher, 1.7% per act.[35]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Sexual

[HeadingNorth]

It is well established though that the incidence of transmission from female to male during vaginal intercourse is lower than male to female.

 

 

I can accept that, but I'm pretty sure a man would want to know that his prospective partner had a known, low risk of transmitting her HIV to him, rather than a known zero risk, or no reason to believe she was a carrier.