HIV disclosure (1 Viewer)

[Lina3]

It's one thing to be unaware of it...but any decent person who knows they have HIV should tell a potential partner. It could ruin a life, no-one would want something like that on their conscience.

 

[funkshen]

It's one thing to be unaware of it...but any decent person who knows they have HIV should tell a potential partner. It could ruin a life, no-one would want something like that on their conscience.

decent people don't get HIV

 

[Riproot]

decent people don't get HIV

Wow...

 

[SylviaB]

racist scum

 

[funkshen]

i meant descent people

 

[Riproot]

check your privilege cis scum

 

[Lolsmith]

if you are unaware of your HIV status, such as if you are stage 1 or 2 and are therefore asymptomatic, or you have no reason to think you have contracted HIV (you had sex with someone who did not inform you, say) you cannot be held liable (criminal or civil) for transmitting the infection to another person. there's no guilty mind (intent to transmit, or wilful ignorance etc) and therefore no crime. in this regard no criminal or civil charges can be made, and as always, the onus of proof is always on the prosecution.

if you have a guilty mind, it's a different story. unfortunately there isn't much of a substantive base to go on regarding transmission of HIV - there has been only one criminal trial in NSW,(Kanengele-Yondjo v Regina (NSW, 2006) so as of yet you may or may not be guilty of murder or manslaughter through transmission.

Thanks for the clarification.

the law should not be amended to include any HIV-specific language. this is, in fact, the opposite of how the law has developed. all HIV-specific language and law has, over time, been amended, due it being highly discriminatory and stigmatising of the disease and its sufferers. an example of the discriminatory nature of such laws is evident in R vs Barry (QLD, 1989), where an HIV+ aboriginal man who smeared feces on a police officer's face was found guilty of the wilful exposure of another to a grievous bodily disease (a law pretty much made for HIV). i believe all states/territories have repealed willful exposure as a criminal offence and language specific to HIV. the crime is transmitting the infection and is covered under the general offence of grievous bodily harm (this is the international standard, endorsed by UNAIDS). while it is a tragic and unique disease, there is no reason for any special mention of HIV under law. the article linked by townie is misleading because in NSW, you must inform a sexual partner about having any STI, not just HIV.

I didn't say that the law should be amended to include specific mention of a specific disease, I said that if it was going to exist it should include a reference to deception by the offending party. You've covered that this is already implied.

You didn't read the article, did you hon'?

yes I did

 

[Riproot]

yes I did

Then why did you write that? lol

 

[Hagaren]

Yes, you've got to be kidding if you'd even consider otherwise.

As long as HIV is potentially life threatening, it's tantamount to attempted manslaughter.

 

[Hagaren]

I think that to a lesser extent you should be able to sue for damages relating to the knowing transfer of any STD.

 

[SylviaB]

Yes, you've got to be kidding if you'd even consider otherwise.

well that settles it then

 

[soloooooo]

Yes, you've got to be kidding if you'd even consider otherwise.

As long as HIV is potentially life threatening, it's tantamount to attempted manslaughter.

This.

 

[Arcadian Empire]

Have to? Nope.

Should you? Definitely. You'd be a pretty enormous scumbag if you didn't. This goes for all STD/I's though.

as if not

I would treat anyone not disclosing known STDs to a partner as actions occasioning bodily harm with intent (depending on severity).

They already have this in several US states (willful exposure or something like that), wherein, willful exposure of a person carrying an STD is a criminal offence.

btw you could sue for damages if someone gave you aids...

it's probably the easiest case to argue and perhaps a pretty decent pay day. Like honestly, it would take 5 secs to prove duty of care and negligence.