news@CS.UCLA.EDU (Mr. News) (09/09/90)
In article <38625@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!rburns@uunet.UU.NET writes: > Does anyone have any figures on what percentage of > people who are now getting AIDS from sexual encounters > are in fact getting the disease from people who know > they are HIV+ vs. those who don't know they are HIV+? With apologies if this was not your intent - BUT everytime I've ever heard this brought up it has been (sooner or later) in the context of "blame" morally or legally. It is as if people think that someone else is supposed to be responsible for their own well being. As the safer sex information put out by many of our local agencies points out "It's your body, and your responsibility to protect it." Personally I think someone who is HIV+ ought to tell sex partners before anything is done, but that's a personal call. I can't see anything but trouble in the direction of trying to make that a "should". More information and education can surely be done so that people will know what precautions to take - no argument that more needs to be done. But it strikes me as somewhat counter productive at best (and oppressive at worst) to get into trying to prove (whether for a study or in court) who said what to whom "between the sheets". -- Bob Culmer - Dallas | "Hearts will never be practical until Somewhere over the rainbow | they can be made unbreakable." - Wizard ..in the Land of OZ | "But I still want one." - Tin Man {mic,void,egsner}!ozdaltx!bob
li40163@prism.gatech.edu (M. AXFORD) (09/26/90)
I've just become involved in AIDS training here at Tech. We had
two days of training, including by the people from the state of
Georgia's Department of Human Resources (DHR, the local variant of
the Public Health Service). One of the things we learned is that
in Georgia one can be prosecuted for reckless conduct if one
has unsafe sex knowing one is HIV+. If convicted there is a jail
term and fine.
Sure, one should take responsibility for one's self. But I
do think people who behave this way should be prosecuted. It
totally horrifies me that there are people who care so little
they are willing to risk causing someone else's death.
I have known at least one case of this kind of behavior. A
friend of mine's ex gave him the virus and after they broke up
my friend knew he was having unprotected sex with others.
--
M. AXFORD
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!li40163
Internet: li40163@prism.gatech.eduSECBH%CUNYVM.BITNET@oac.ucla.edu (09/26/90)
li40163@prism.gatech.edu (M. AXFORD) writes: > Sure, one should take responsibility for one's self. But I >do think people who behave this way should be prosecuted. It >totally horrifies me that there are people who care so little >they are willing to risk causing someone else's death. I find it equally horrifying that in the midst of a deadly plague in which sexual transmission is the primary route of infection that anyone cares so little about him/herself that he/she is willing to have unsafe sex. Isn't this carelessness to the point of suicide? > I have known at least one case of this kind of behavior. A >friend of mine's ex gave him the virus and after they broke up >my friend knew he was having unprotected sex with others. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I rest my case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Carroll "It really boils down to this: that all life is <SECBH@CUNYVM> interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny." Martin Luther King, Jr.
bob@ozdaltx.UUCP (Bob Culmer) (09/27/90)
In article <39321@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, li40163@prism.gatech.edu (M. AXFORD) writes: > > in Georgia one can be prosecuted for reckless conduct if one > has unsafe sex knowing one is HIV+. If convicted there is a jail > term and fine. > Sure, one should take responsibility for one's self. But I > do think people who behave this way should be prosecuted. It > totally horrifies me that there are people who care so little > they are willing to risk causing someone else's death. While I agree that such behavior is horrifying, I'm perhaps as horrified about the kind of thinking that says this is not your own responsibility. Even more, to define this as a crime where the evidence upon which someone is to be convicted is necessarily so vague bothers me a lot. What basis will the prosecution use for proving that a person "knowingly" inflected someone? A swearing match in which the most engaging personality is believed? Perhaps the conofidentiality of all medical records of everyone you've ever slept with should be abolished in an effort to determine if they had ever been tested? And don't you think that such would only encourage people NOT to know their own status and get treatment? If I had every symptom of the AIDS definition but hadn't been tested how would you prove *I* knew I had it to be a knowing infector? It is one thing to subscribe to a personal moral belief about this act and quite another to attempt to codify that as law, while protecting the rights of all participants. Despite wide spread misconception people do not have a right to a "risk free" world where they have no responsibility for their own well being. -- Bob Culmer - Dallas | "Hearts will never be practical until Somewhere over the rainbow | they can be made unbreakable." - Wizard ...in the Land of OZ | "But I still want one." - Tin Man {mic,void,egsner}!ozdaltx!bob
li40163@prism.gatech.edu (M. AXFORD) (10/02/90)
You did not read the first words of my post. Yes I do believe that
people should be responsible for their own behavior. That is, in part,
my point -- someone who knowingly spreads AIDS is certainly not
acting responsibly! No, it doesn't excuse those people who have
sex with someone without using safe sex -- but there are still a lot
of people who are not well educated about that subject or sadly
believe themselves invulnerable to terminal illnesses because they
are young.
Prosecutions would have to have some grounds of evidence as in
any other legal case. In the case I mentioned, my friend whose ex
was having unsafe sex, my friend of course knew his ex-lover had
AIDS because that is how he got the disease and he went through
a lot of his lover's medical tests with him. After they broke up,
he saw the ex with a new lover and said, "By the way, do you know
he has AIDS?" The expression on the new lover's face told him
all he needed to know.
Would you advocate no legal punishment for a drunk driver who
killed someone?
I am in favor of deep-sixing laws that are based on one
particular view of morality. I would like to see prostitution
and drugs legalized (in part to concentrate more on education
than expensive wars). I would like to see marriages between
members of the same sex or plural marriages become legal.
But I support laws that punish for violating the rights of
another. Drink all you want, but if you drink and drive
accept the responsibility that you may get punished. Make love
all you want, but both accept the responsibility to prevent
bad things happening and that if you are careless or knowingly
hurt someone else, then you may get sick or you may be punished
by law.
Responsibility should be on the part of all parties.
--
M. AXFORD
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!li40163
Internet: li40163@prism.gatech.edumarco@ozdaltx.UUCP (Steve Giammarco) (10/03/90)
In article <39321@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, li40163@prism.gatech.edu (M. AXFORD) writes: > > the Public Health Service). One of the things we learned is that > in Georgia one can be prosecuted for reckless conduct if one > has unsafe sex knowing one is HIV+. If convicted there is a jail > term and fine. > Sure, one should take responsibility for one's self. But I > do think people who behave this way should be prosecuted. It > totally horrifies me that there are people who care so little > they are willing to risk causing someone else's death. > I have known at least one case of this kind of behavior. A > friend of mine's ex gave him the virus and after they broke up > my friend knew he was having unprotected sex with others. I assume no one tied your friend down forcibly (yes... as in "rape") to consent to sexual activity that would put your friend at high risk for contracting HIV. Situations where someone is forced/drugged/etc. into such activity surely have satisfied most state's legal conditions to warrant said breach a crime, IMHO. If your friend consented to having unsafe sex with *anybody* (including an ex-lover, wife, dog, whatever) then he has no one else to blame for his situation other than himself. Again, this is IMHO. Steve Giammarco 5330 Peterson Ln #1211 Dallas TX 75240 214.788.0976 AIDS Resource Center 4012 Cedar Springs Rd Dallas TX 75219 214.521.5124 X.400(C:USA A:Western Union N:Steve Giammarco D:ELN-62847823) Easylink:62847823 {mic,void,egsner}!ozdaltx!marco
bob@ozdaltx.UUCP (Bob Culmer) (10/03/90)
In article <39582@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, li40163@prism.gatech.edu (M. AXFORD) writes: > > You did not read the first words of my post. Yes I do believe that > people should be responsible for their own behavior. That is, in part, > my point -- someone who knowingly spreads AIDS is certainly not > acting responsibly! On the contrary, I did read them - and still come away with the impression that you go too far in suggesting that this sort of responsible behavior be legislated. > but there are still a lot > of people who are not well educated about that subject or sadly > believe themselves invulnerable to terminal illnesses because they > are young. While more can always be done in education, I'm very skeptical that there are any people above a small fraction, that haven't heard of AIDS. So, don't they have a responsibility to check it out? Wouldn't you agree that is the responsible thing to do? Should that be a crime as well? I think the law needs to deal with violations of rights, not the promotion of good and responsible things. Yes, let's get more explicit educational materials. As for the infantile belief in their own invulnerability - no one has ever figured out how to disabuse young people of this notion before it's time. It strikes me that this is primarily an educational problem, not a criminal one. > Prosecutions would have to have some grounds of evidence as in > any other legal case. Yes, it was the exact nature of that proof, how and where it could come from and the very real and practical effects it would have on people's behavior that horrified me the most. > Would you advocate no legal punishment for a drunk driver who > killed someone? The two examples are not parallel. A drunk driver runs into me, while I'm minding my own business. If someone could infect me with HIV while walking down the street, with no participation on my part you would have some sort of basis for this kind of law. > But I support laws that punish for violating the rights of > another. You have a right to a risk free life? A right to risk free sex? I use a simple test - if, through no act of your own, another harms your person or property - your rights have been violated. It covers the majority of cases like this pretty well. You have to be involved in some act to be at risk. I had to reconstruct this sentence - but I believe it said: > Responsibility should be on the part of both people. As a guide for personal conduct that's fine. But as a guide to criminal law, I think pretty poor. If it is to be equal for both will it also be against the law to act irresponsibly by agreeing to have unprotected sex? -- Bob Culmer - Dallas | "Hearts will never be practical until Somewhere over the rainbow | they can be made unbreakable." - Wizard ...in the Land of OZ | "But I still want one." - Tin Man {mic,void,egsner}!ozdaltx!bob
jay@banzai.PCC.COM (Jay Schuster) (10/03/90)
In <39582@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> li40163@prism.gatech.edu (M. AXFORD) writes: > But I support laws that punish for violating the rights of >another. Drink all you want, but if you drink and drive >accept the responsibility that you may get punished. Make love >all you want, but both accept the responsibility to prevent >bad things happening and that if you are careless or knowingly >hurt someone else, then you may get sick or you may be punished >by law. So, do tell, are you saying that those who don't get tested, and don't know their HIV status then, and have unsafe sex, are less culpable than those who do know? What about the ones who were tested but the test was a false negative, or they had the test before they had time to produce antibodies? Are they guilty or not? How about when the rubber breaks because you didn't use enough lube, should you go to jail for that? Or should the rubber company? Sex (not rape) is a completely (on all sides) consensual act (unlike driving). When two (or more) people choose to have unsafe sex, *they* are choosing to do so, and *they* should accept responsibility for their actions. If your decision is based upon lies told you, that's one thing, but if it's based upon ignorance, that's another. I'm not saying that someone who knowingly spreads HIV isn't a sleazewad; anyone who knowingly or unknowingly spreads HIV is a sleazewad, and anyone who allows themself to become infected because they aren't asking the right questions, or are trusting people who are lying to them, is downright stupid. -- Jay Schuster <jay@pcc.COM> uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay The People's Computer Company `Revolutionary Programming'
rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (rolfe g petschek) (10/04/90)
In article <39630@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> bob@ozdaltx.UUCP (Bob Culmer) writes: >In article <39582@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, li40163@prism.gatech.edu (M. AXFORD) writes: >> >> You did not read the first words of my post. Yes I do believe that >> people should be responsible for their own behavior. That is, in part, >> my point -- someone who knowingly spreads AIDS is certainly not >> acting responsibly! > >On the contrary, I did read them - and still come away with the >impression that you go too far in suggesting that this sort of >responsible behavior be legislated. > >I think the law needs to deal with violations of rights, not the >promotion of good and responsible things. > Laws currently on the books deal with both the violations of rights (e.g. the rape/murder laws) and "good and responsible" things e.g. the tort laws. I'm surprised no-one has remarked that attempted transmission of HIV has already been (I think successfully) prosecuted under these existing laws vis. it was called attempted murder when a person known by himself and others to be HIV+ deliberately bit someone. Similarly I think that tort laws have been applied in cases in which a person either knows or recklessly ignores the possibility that (s)he may be HIV+ and deliberately engages in behavior which may transmit HIV. Some of these cases (like most tort cases) seem reasonable to me, others seem ridiculous, depending on the degree of knowledge/responsibility of the complaint. Generally I think that a jury or judge would be expected to decide on the facts of the case. Anyway the point is that deliberate transmission of HIV is probably already illegal, collection of relevant evidence is already legal (e.g. blood samples are routinely subpeonaed for paternity/rape cases) and I doubt that HIV is sufficiently "new" in the legal sense to warrant new laws, unless it should be decided that HIV is sufficiently different from, say, asbestos or other hazards to be explicitly exempted from the laws which seem previously to have been applied. I do not hold that opinion. Disclaimer: I am not, never have been, and never want to be a lawyer. These are the random meanderings of someone who occasionally reads newspapers. He agrees that to deal with HIV we need >let's get more explicit educational materials. And, of course more tolerant people, though that may be harder still. -- Rolfe G. Petschek Petschek@cwru.bitnet Associate Professor of Physics rgp@po.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University (216)368-4035 Cleveland Oh 44106-2623
cyn@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu (Cyndi Smith) (10/10/90)
Various posters have brought forth various "reasons" for and against the idea of criminal prosecution of those who engage in unprotected sex with others when they _KNOW_ they have tested positive for the AIDS antibody. I offer three cases of the following analogy (my stand will hopefully be clear from the analogy chosen). 1) "A" cooks a meal for "B" and _knowingly_ uses some deadly poison. "B" dies. Should "A" be prosecuted for not telling "B" about the poison? Or is "B" to blame for not taking the antidote before eating? 2) "A" cooks a meal for "B" using some ingredients that "A" knows could likely have been exposed to poison. "B" dies. Same questions as above. 3) "A" cooks a meal for "B" having _no_ idea that some ingredients are poisoned. "B" dies. Same questions. Legally - 1) "A" can be prosecuted for intentional murder (I don't know the legalese). 2) "A" can be prosecuted for murder - probably not intentional since "A" didn't _know_ thi food was poisoned. 3) "A" can be prosecuted for negligent homocide - but charges would probably be dropped if there was no obvious reason for "A" to suspect that the food was bad. Now, this makes sense to me, how about other opinions pro/con (come on, I can take it! 8>)) Cyndi Smith an12349@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu My opinions are MINE, I tell you, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE!
Hoffman.El_Segundo@XEROX.COM (10/10/90)
I apologize to those who've been on this list long enough to have seen most of this before. This is only a slight revision of something I wrote here in article 1300 (4 Oct 89). Cyndi Smith presents various situations regarding food preparation with poison, and suggests they might have some bearing on AIDS transmission. I say NO. Sure, an HIV infected person ought to be held accountable for his/her behavior. But that does NOT mean that you, if you are UNINFECTED, are blameless if you become infected through risky sexual behavior. The situation is NOT analogous to anything relating to food preparation. Sex is generally more consequential than eating. The better analogy here is to a woman who becomes pregnant when she doesn't want to. Whose fault is it? Both parties, I would say. -- Rodney Hoffman
rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Boldbear) (10/10/90)
In article <39942@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> cyn@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu (Cyndi Smith) writes: >Various posters have brought forth various "reasons" for and against the >idea of criminal prosecution of those who engage in unprotected sex with >others when they _KNOW_ they have tested positive for the AIDS antibody. >I offer three cases of the following analogy (my stand will hopefully be >clear from the analogy chosen). > >1) "A" cooks a meal for "B" and _knowingly_ uses some deadly poison. "B" >dies. Should "A" be prosecuted for not telling "B" about the poison? Or >is "B" to blame for not taking the antidote before eating? > >2) "A" cooks a meal for "B" using some ingredients that "A" knows could >likely have been exposed to poison. "B" dies. Same questions as above. > >3) "A" cooks a meal for "B" having _no_ idea that some ingredients are >poisoned. "B" dies. Same questions. I think these examples show why the analogy is misleading. It is uncommon for someone to knowingly or unknowingly add poison while cooking a meal. It is very common for someone to deliberately deceive someone about known STDs. It is very common for someone to not know that they are HIV+. It is reasonable to assume that food is unposioned. It is not reasonable to assume that a person has no STDs. >Legally - >1) "A" can be prosecuted for intentional murder (I don't know the >legalese). I think "A" should be prosecuted for manslaughter or negligent homicide (or whatever your state calls it), but not murder, simply because "A" did not intend on harming "B" (unless you meant to imply that "A" did - the example isn't specific enough). >2) "A" can be prosecuted for murder - probably not intentional since "A" >didn't _know_ thi food was poisoned. >3) "A" can be prosecuted for negligent homocide - but charges would >probably be dropped if there was no obvious reason for "A" to suspect that >the food was bad. No prosecution at all. No intent to harm. No particular reason to suspect things are other than the default: that "A" might knowingly or unknowingly have STDs. "B" took risks that the average person (I think there's something in law about what a typical/average person knows/believes) knows about. -- Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions _ / email: rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US phone: (415) 827-4301 <_/>< S0/8 b-/+ g- l y- z- n o a-- u+ v-- j- B3 f+ t- dvcv sv w- m+ r+ p / "There is no right 'not to be offended'." -Bob Culmer
matthew@ooc.uva.nl (Matthew Lewis) (10/11/90)
cyn@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu (Cyndi Smith) writes: >Various posters have brought forth various "reasons" for and against the >idea of criminal prosecution of those who engage in unprotected sex with >others when they _KNOW_ they have tested positive for the AIDS antibody. >I offer three cases of the following analogy (my stand will hopefully be >clear from the analogy chosen). (Three examples) >Now, this makes sense to me, how about other opinions pro/con (come on, I >can take it! 8>)) With all due respect, I feel that the analogy was badly chosen. Sure, 'A' cooks a meal for 'B'. But to make this scenario accurate, 'B' knows that it is ALWAYS possible, regardless of the cook or the source of the raw food, that the food is poisoned. Even stronger, 'B' is surrounded by advertisements, newspaper articles, television shows, and stories of friends who have died from food-poisoning, all of which tell him to 'take the antidote' (or not eat these foods). Yet, blithely, 'B' enjoys his meal, and dies. 'A' should have been responsible enough not to serve the food in question, but 'B' had the opportunity to charmingly say, 'No thanks.' Can we please end this discussion? Most people agree that one's own life is one's own responsibility, while some people think that the responsibility can be shoved over on someone else. I am no defender of the 'A's of this world, but every 'B' has his or her own responsibility. Yes, there are 'B's who are innocent or badly informed, and maybe there are situations where 'A's behaviour could or should be described as criminal (teenagers, mentally handicapped, someone from the rainforests of New Guinea?). But, for responsible members of an (in principal) well-informed society, the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. Matthew Lewis -- Matthew Lewis, University of Amsterdam Grote Bickersstraat 72 +31-20-52 51 220 1013 KS Amsterdam Internet: matthew@ooc.uva.nl The Netherlands UUCP: uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!uvabick!matthew
KARYPM%SJUVM.BITNET@oac.ucla.edu (Paul M. Karagianis) (10/11/90)
of pure intelligence, but in terms of sanity. At one time we (humans) thought we could change the weather or our crop yields by sacrificing a goat or virgin; more recently we decided as a society that blacks were too inferior to be citizens (e.g. the Dred Scott decision), women were too scatter brained to be trusted with the vote, et cetera ad nauseum. If you know you have a lethal STD and you lie to your partner, causing them to select "higher-risk" (i.e. normal) sex, and they die as a result then you are a murderer. The recent "poison" analogy based on this rather self-evident fact was, I believe, aimed more at making the distinction between homicide, negligent homicide and accidental homicide. I agree that PRAGMATICALLY, in the current moral climate, the individual is responsible for their own welfare, but I'm getting more than a little tired of hearing people (who I believe are defending the sick from the very real threat of persecution in our medieval society) apologize for murderers because "everybody lies about sex" (I don't have the recent posters exact quote but it's a classic example of circular logic) or... > Most people agree that one's own life is one's own > responsibility, while some people think that the responsibility can > be shoved over on someone else. I am no defender of the 'A's of this > world, but every 'B' has his or her own responsibility. > ... > But, for responsible members of an (in principal) well-informed > society, the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. > > Matthew Lewis Typical blame-the-victim nonsense. There is no such thing as "safe" sex (traditional - I'm not concerned with masturbation or phones) unless one can trust ones partner to be honest on this topic. The fact that we can't trust others in a (small, IMO) minority of cases is not only inexcusable, but intolerable. Those in our society who see AIDS as Gods cure for Homos and Drug addicts place the rest of us in the position of accepting individual behavior that we would vehemently oppose in, say, corporations. I don't have to even ask the dealer that I choose to buy a car from if the thing is safe: if I get rear-ended and the thing blows up due to a cheesy gas-tank, the law is on my side. If you want a *really* sleazy analogy then try this: someone breaking into my house to rob me who is injured because I tied a piece of string from the doorknob to the trigger of a shotgun has the law on their side. By extrapolation, someone who catches AIDS because they raped someone who didn't warn them should also have the law on their side. People who lie, or fail to volunteer the information when appropriate are wrong. The fact that they may be doing this because they are afraid of the very real threat of societal persecution is indicative of social wrong. The sane situation that society should be working towards is the one where we can assume others are honest and that they won't be unjustly penalized for their honesty. In the mean time, let's not label as stupid or irresponsible those who were human enough to believe the liars they loved. -Kary +-------------- * standard disclaimers apply * --------------+ : "If it's a miracle, Color Sergeant, it's a short chamber : : Boxer-Henry point four five caliber miracle." - Zulu : +------------ 40o 43' 20" N -- 73o 47' 35" W ------------+
The.Bird@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org (The "Bird") (10/18/90)
The laws specifically produced for this disease have been promulgated due to a
real problem with effectively removing prostitutes from the streets whether
they are infected with HIV or not. However, the most effective police actions
are arresting the "Johns" in undercover operations. Other than this scenario
which is a REAL problem with high incidences of recurrance, it just doesn't
seem to me to be much of a problem worth spending all this time and effort on.
If you are a "John" picking up prostitutes off the street and you are not
afraid of the threat of AIDS, YOU need to be locked up FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION
and WILLFUL IGNORANCE should be criminalized. Now I don't seriously believe
_that_ idea will play well in Peoria but it is just as logical as locking up
someone else for your protection from participating in known risky behavior
requiring the consent of BOTH parties.
So, the next time someone wants to bring up the subject could they please cite
all, or even 5 or 6, of the cases of intentional transmission that make them
think all this rhetoric and/or legal protection is such a serious and
widespread problem. Gaeton Dugas and Rock Hudson don't count. <grin>
Intellectual "headtrips" are sometimes nice and I even get caught up in them
on occasion but this one has really been beat to death for the 18 months I
have been connected to this echo.
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!135!38!The."Bird"
Internet: The."Bird"@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.orgrburns@uunet.UU.NET (10/20/90)
The idea arresting "Johns" and prostitutes is somehow protecting people from AIDS is rediculous. According to a recent UCLA study of Nevada *legal* brothels the transmission of AIDS there is nil. I personally feel the better solution to the AIDS problem with prostitution is to legalize and license prostitution, requiring HIV positive prostitutes to let their customers know they are HIV positive (the same might be applied to Johns also). This approach to tend to segregate the HIV positive and negative populations and encourage safer sex among the HIV negative population. It would also eliminate much of the incentive for HIV+ prostitutes to ply their trade among the HIV- population since they could openly solicity HIV+ customers (and there are a lot more HIV+ gay and straight men in the US than HIV+ women).