Mandatory HIV (Human Immuno-deficiency Virus) Disclosure
Canadians are debating whether they should put people in jail who fail to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners. I argue this is unfair, discriminatory and counter productive.
~ Roedy (1948-02-04 age:69)
- At least be consistent. If you are going to prosecute for not revealing status, you should jail parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids. Also prosecute people who travel on busses with airborne diseases, or anyone else who actions endanger the health of others. Why just single out HIV ?
- Revealing HIV status can be dangerous. Ignorant people will attack you when you reveal your HIV+ status even if you have done nothing whatsoever to endanger them. They are afraid of water you poured, dishes you washed, getting a hug, getting a massage… They are even afraid to be in the same room. It is a bit much to make laws demanding people endanger themselves. Insisting on revealing will convince people not to get tested, bad news all round. We need some serious education to reduce the danger of revealing.
- The crazy thing is straight people have unprotected sex all the time, thinking they are immune. Young females are the fastest growing group getting infected. They figure if they have not got it so far, they must be safe. However, it is one strike and you are out. Having unprotected sex with strangers is the problem, not having protected sex with someone with HIV.
- People test negative and think they are safe. It can take 6 months for infection to show up on a test.
The best ways to prevent HIV are:
- safe sex
- limiting your partners
- taking Truvada prophylaxis.
The worst ways are:
- trusting your partner to warn you. The most dangerous people don’t know they are HIV+. They have the highest viral loads since they are not taking retrovirals. If you rely on your partners to warn you, almost certainly, you will have HIV+ within a year if you are sexually active.
- The ironic problem with a disclosure law, is it creates a false sense of security. People foolishly depend even more on disclosure, even though it almost completely ineffective.
- If you have been tested HIV+, there is a good chance you will be taking an antiretroviral cocktail. If all goes well, this will reduce your viral load to undetectable levels. In other words, it is quite unlikely you will pass on HIV. On the other hand, an untested person who is HIV+, will not be taking antiretrovirals. They will have a high viral load, and especially with the wild infectious strain. They are very likely to pass HIV.
- The practical assumption in the gay world is, if anyone has unprotected sex, they are already HIV+ or plan to soon be. Each person is responsible for his own health and safe sex practices. Relying on strangers is fool-hardy.
- I went to an HIV support group. I was the only one there in favour of disclosure. Keep that in mind if you are relying on strangers to warn you.
- Everything I have said applies primarily to one-time casual encounters. For marriages, and long term relationships, I think partners are under much greater obligation to disclose.
- In summary, punishing HIV+ people for failure to disclose has almost nothing to do with reducing the transmission of HIV. It is all about religious homophobia. It is a fig-leaf excuse to persecute homosexuals.
|Conservative Trash-the-Environment Bill C-38||The outrageous Omnibus bill that seeks to destroy Canada in at least a dozen ways. 2017-06-09|
|Anyone But Harper||Why I wanted the Conservatives defeated in the Canadian 2008 federal election and why I think a coalition should replace them now. 2017-07-01|
|Lowell Green||Lowell Green, right wing talk host puts out a fatwah on Roedy for composing a letter to a ghost. 2017-07-31|
|Canada||Quotes about Canada, mostly politics. 2017-09-18|
|Politics||Quotes about politics, war and government. 2017-09-24|
|Speakers’ Corner||Scripts of Roedy’s soap box TV public service announcements on Speakers' Corner on A-Channel (formerly the newVI) TV Station. 2017-01-02|
|BC Politics||In the Maritimes, politics is a disease, in Québec a religion, in Ontario a business, on the Prairies a protest and in British Columbia entertainment. 2017-09-01|
|Remembrance Day||Remembrance Day: cutting the crap 2017-08-29|
|Feedback||Read feedback from readers of the politics section. If you don’t want your message and my reply publicly posted, please let me know. 2017-09-25|
|Paul Martin||Paul Martin became Prime Minister of Canada in the first coup of a sitting Prime Minister in Canadian history. 2017-05-21|
|Quotations||Quotations on Canada and Canadian politics. 2017-09-18|
The Crime is Reckless Driving
Whenever a child is killed in an auto accident, the question of whether the driver will be charged comes up, with the presumption of probably yes. To me, the crime is reckless driving, not killing a child. Almost certainly killing the child was not intentional. Sometimes a boy dies because he darts out between parked cars and the driver was taking all reasonable precautions. Granted, reckless drivers sometimes kill a child, but most of the time they don’t, just from dumb luck, not any virtue on their part. I think the emphasis should be moved more to punishing reckless drivers and away from punishing drivers who kill a child. The recklessness should be the criterion, in other words the intention to disregard other people’s lives, not the outcome. The lifetime guilt of killing a child is a punishment in itself.
Punishing for an accident, seems to me like a strange religious superstition, as if Yahweh had marked the driver as cursed and thus deserved ' further suffering. Scientists have discovered a tiny region of the brain. If it is damaged, people judge situations totally from the outcomes, ignoring the intentions. Perhaps that is how this legal perspective got started. Perhaps it is because you can never be certain about intention.
Similarly, it seems to me that if a gunman shoots someone, whether the victim lives or dies, does not depend on the gunman so much as the skill of the physicians who try to repair the damage. The crime should be attempting to kill someone, not being competent in killing. The crime should be careless gun handling, not having a gun accident. This is more difficult to judge that the traffic accident since people sometimes shoot others without intent to kill.~ Roedy (1948-02-04 age:69)
This page is posted
Optional Replicator mirror
Your face IP:[184.108.40.206]
You are visitor number|