sTaGeWaLkEr Posted August 17, 2010 Author Share Posted August 17, 2010 ..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. Except that one could be deemed irresponsible - while the other is vindictive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 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. Totally agree, I wouldn't be jumping for joy over liaison with a woman who was HIV+, even if the risk was minute, but I can see how her defence might develop along the lines of her misconstruing that risk and the information that was given to her on diagnosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I am astounded people take chances with a fatal disease. Its like playing Russian Roulette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTHFB Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Sorry? You apologise to someone if you accidentially spill a drink on them - not when you knowingly give them a terminal illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sTaGeWaLkEr Posted August 17, 2010 Author Share Posted August 17, 2010 I am astounded people take chances with a fatal disease. Its like playing Russian Roulette. It must be noted that due to the advent of antiretroviral medication, HIV is not the automatic death sentence that it once was - however it is still a life changing condition - and one that can be avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I am astounded people take chances with a fatal disease. Merely being born exposes you to the risk of fatal diseases. The only to avoid taking chances with them, is to shoot yourself at birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Except that one could be deemed irresponsible - while the other is vindictive. ..I can imagine being extremely angry if I was one of the infected parties, but vindictive implies that she set out deliberately to infect people with this virus, which might not be the case. I don't want to appear to be defending this woman, I'm not, but thus far it would appear she's been extremely reckless and not fully considered the potential consequences of her actions, rather than set out to infect as many men as she can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Totally agree, I wouldn't be jumping for joy over liaison with a woman who was HIV+, even if the risk was minute, but I can see how her defence might develop along the lines of her misconstruing that risk and the information that was given to her on diagnosis. Nonsense, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Any health professional, worth their salt, would caution against unprotected sex and advise that whilst chances of transmission of the virus may be negligible it is still a risk, therefore, precautions should be taken at all times, especially if she has sex whilst menstruating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Nonsense, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Any health professional, worth their salt, would caution against unprotected sex and advise that whilst chances of transmission of the virus may be negligible it is still a risk, therefore, precautions should be taken at all times, especially if she has sex whilst menstruating. I don't doubt it Suff, I was merely speculating on the arguments her defence might use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I don't doubt it Suff, I was merely speculating on the arguments her defence might use. Sorry, I misread it as her defence as in her personal justification, rather than the defence strategy employed by her Defence Counsel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.