GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   Chit Chat (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=185)
-   -   HIV testing - A standard part of your yearly physical (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=80900)

Munchkin03 09-22-2006 08:17 PM

I think this is a great idea, but it might be hard logistically.

We can whine all we want about personal liberties, but let's get real here: HIV/AIDS is a public health issue. Is being required to take the Mantoux skin test for TB before you go to college/start some jobs violating personal liberties? It's simply another way to eliminate a health threat. I, personally, don't see anything wrong with testing for either. But then again, I get tested every six months.

honeychile 09-22-2006 10:47 PM

Hippa doesn't cover insurance companies - they know more about your health than you probably do.

But for the most part, I'm all for it, along with testing for Hep C. Most people don't realize that even blood from a Hep C infected person that has been dry for a week is active and can still infect someone else.

Eggroll 09-26-2006 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 1325668)
I don't see the negative side of loosing anonymity...but then again, I'll freely admit that I believe that if someone who is knowingly HIV+ has sex with someone and doesn't tell them that they are HIV+ and the other person contracts it, they should be charged with manslaughter.


I said the same thing for the longest time but not anymore.

AlphaFrog 09-26-2006 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggroll (Post 1327809)
I said the same thing for the longest time but not anymore.


Well, apparently at least the legislators of SC agree with me. I found out after talking with my mom, who does AIDS counseling in SC, that you CAN be charged with manslaughter for infecting someone with AIDS if you don't give them prior warning. She has a client that was convicted. I'm not sure if other states have this same legislation, though.

GeekyPenguin 09-26-2006 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 1325996)
Hippa doesn't cover insurance companies - they know more about your health than you probably do.

But for the most part, I'm all for it, along with testing for Hep C. Most people don't realize that even blood from a Hep C infected person that has been dry for a week is active and can still infect someone else.


According to the Department of Health and Human Services, HIPAA does cover insurance companies.

valkyrie 09-26-2006 04:19 PM

How is it "manslaughter" if the person is still alive? Wouldn't that be pre-slaughter, which is almost as awesome as pre-pregnant?

33girl 09-26-2006 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin (Post 1327919)
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, HIPAA does cover insurance companies.


It certainly does and it's a giant pain in the ass.

HIPAA is a stellar example of shutting the barn door after the horse is long gone. I think the providers dreamed it up just so they could get out of doing stuff. Anyone who thinks it's actually protecting their privacy any more than it was protected before is living in Happy Fairy Land.

OtterXO 09-26-2006 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 1325686)
I don't know if I've seen that one. What was the verdict??

I feel compelled to remind people that Law & Order is not really an accurate source for information regarding law.

As for the original topic, I have a problem with being forced to submit myself to any test that I don't want. But I don't think that's the case here. If it's just included in the whole co-pay for my yearly physical I don't really have a problem with it. I believe you can elect which bloodwork you want done anyway and HIV testing would fall under that same umbrella. So although your doctor may "recommend" HIV testing as part of your yearly physical, you don't have to do it.

ETA:
Quote:

The CDC recommendations update guidelines released in 1993 and suggest:

• A voluntary "opt out" approach. Patients would be told that HIV testing is part of routine care but could decline the test, just as they can decline to be tested for cholesterol.
This is from the article. After looking at it I have no problem with the recommendation.

AlphaFrog 09-26-2006 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valkyrie (Post 1327977)
How is it "manslaughter" if the person is still alive? Wouldn't that be pre-slaughter, which is almost as awesome as pre-pregnant?

Quote:

Voluntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter arises in cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for murder is mitigated by the circumstances and state of mind. The most common example is the so-called heat of passion killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding a spouse in the arms of a lover or witnessing an attack against his or her child.
In looking up a few articles, others have also been charged with "assault with a deadly weapon".

OtterXO 09-26-2006 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 1328101)
In looking up a few articles, others have also been charged with "assault with a deadly weapon".

I think the point she was making is that you can't charge someone for manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) without a body (to be blunt). An assault charge doesn't require a body.

valkyrie 09-26-2006 06:34 PM

Quote:

Voluntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter arises in cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for murder is mitigated by the circumstances and state of mind. The most common example is the so-called heat of passion killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding a spouse in the arms of a lover or witnessing an attack against his or her child.
Right, but you have to actually CAUSE death -- there has to be a killing (at least in every "manslaughter" definition I've ever heard).

Colorado:

18-3-104. Manslaughter.

(1) A person commits the crime of manslaughter if:

(a) Such person recklessly causes the death of another person; or

(b) Such person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.

Eggroll 09-27-2006 09:17 AM

Manslaughter or not if someone gave me HIV there would probably be a body by the end of the day.

AlphaFrog 09-27-2006 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valkyrie (Post 1328107)
(a) Such person recklessly causes the death of another person; or

It could get sticky, but a prosecutor could probably argue that even though the person has not died yet, the person who gave them HIV is/will be the cause of their death. To which the defense attorney would probably say "What if the victim gets hit by a bus tomorrow...the defendant is no longer the 'cause of death'". Then it's up to the judge/jury to decide. I don't know exactly how it works. I'm just speculating, but like I said, apparently it has happened that someone was convicted of manslaughter for infecting someone with HIV. Also possible that maybe the victim died of AIDS-related complications before the prosecution of the offender, making it manslaughter.

GeekyPenguin 09-27-2006 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog (Post 1328467)
It could get sticky, but a prosecutor could probably argue that even though the person has not died yet, the person who gave them HIV is/will be the cause of their death. To which the defense attorney would probably say "What if the victim gets hit by a bus tomorrow...the defendant is no longer the 'cause of death'". Then it's up to the judge/jury to decide. I don't know exactly how it works. I'm just speculating, but like I said, apparently it has happened that someone was convicted of manslaughter for infecting someone with HIV. Also possible that maybe the victim died of AIDS-related complications before the prosecution of the offender, making it manslaughter.


Or probably not, because there could be a cure of AIDS well before the person died and then somebody would have spent 30 years in jail for absolutely no reason. Go criminal justice system!

Langox510x 09-27-2006 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 1325942)
I think this is a great idea, but it might be hard logistically.

We can whine all we want about personal liberties, but let's get real here: HIV/AIDS is a public health issue. Is being required to take the Mantoux skin test for TB before you go to college/start some jobs violating personal liberties? It's simply another way to eliminate a health threat. I, personally, don't see anything wrong with testing for either. But then again, I get tested every six months.


I agree. If it was something that wouldnt possibly effect and endanger the lives of others thats one thing, but we can slow down the spread of AID's with methods like this so that people with AID's are aware they have it and not spreading it to everybody else.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.