To tell or not to tell: The HIV dilemma

[thickie]

There has been a relatively high-profile court case in Ontario involving an HIV-positive man who did not disclose his status to his sexual partners, and subsequently two ex-partners have died of AIDS-related cancers and seven women have tested HIV-positive.

He was found guilty.

Comments

[creidylad]

I'd go a step further, in my US litigious culture. I wouldn't mind seeing a mini-contract in writing before two people have sex (at least for the first time). One in which they both agree it is consesnsual and have disclosed any known sexually transmittable or other diseases they are each carrying, and promise future notification should their disease status change within six months.

I don't imagine this will ever in a million years come to pass.... But it amuses me to note that anyone who can't or won't sign probably should not be having sex with that particular partner, anyway. Ah, well...

I agree it amounts to murder, at LEAST manslaughter, but possibly worse. If this is private disclosure to a potential sex partner, I don't see why it should impinge on civil liberties.

[thickie]

I think the term on Law & Order is "depraved indifference to life". It's often something like murder-two or man-one. But that's my TV law/police expertise only, and nothing real.

The impingement on civil liberties is the discrimination/shunning of those with HIV/AIDS. The number in the article was 24% for HIV/AIDS infection in the gay community. (which seems VERY high, but it's not my number.) Disclosure is the first step to being shunned. The same way as gays/lesbians come out about their sexuality, it's coming out about your status that can cause discrimination.

[creidylad]

Well, look. I don't agree with a registry of those infected, or that these should be anything resembling public assertions. Just that someone engaging in the private and consensual act of engaging in sexual contact should warn them of their STDs, especially the major, incurable life-threatening one(s). In my mind, the rights of the person they are engaging in sexual contact with to give informed consent are paramount. I don't really see how we get from there to a shunning scenario any more than we do with private discloser of HPV or whatever. A few people in their gossip-circle may hear they are infected, but it's certainly no more damaging to the general population than the published statistics.

An example: if you're worried, say, that if you have sex with someone from your office and warn them you have HIV and then they tell people... you had the option all along not to try to have sex with someone from your office. The politics at stake were already dicey.

[thickie]

I agree with you completely.