HIV testing - A standard part of your yearly physical

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

(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]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

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!

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

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.

I don't know that it's logical to argue that the cause of death of a person who hasn't died will be HIV. With all the new drugs out there it seems that HIV has turned into more of a chronic illness than a death sentence. (just my opinion, btw) However, if the person has died then that's a completely different situation.

[SigmaChiCard]

The AIDS test is very scary to get no matter what you've been doing, waiting for the results is frightening. So I dont get the regular AIDS test anymore, I get the round about AIDS test.I call my friend, I say do you know anyone who has AIDS?

'no'

no? cool....cause you know me

- Mitch Hedberg

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by OtterXO

I don't know that it's logical to argue that the cause of death of a person who hasn't died will be HIV. With all the new drugs out there it seems that HIV has turned into more of a chronic illness than a death sentence. (just my opinion, btw) However, if the person has died then that's a completely different situation.

But I think if you were aware of the fact that you had aids and decided to infect someone by not telling them It could also be argued that you may have not killed that one person, but you did however kill everybody else who this person unknowingly infected.

Oh, and unless you are pulling in 3 figures a year AID's is pretty much a death sentence. Not lets not forget that a higher amount of AID's patients do tend to come from lower income backgrounds, and the fact that the avrage working American makes less then $30,000 a year.

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

But I think if you were aware of the fact that you had aids and decided to infect someone by not telling them It could also be argued that you may have not killed that one person, but you did however kill everybody else who this person unknowingly infected.

Oh, and unless you are pulling in 3 figures a year AID's is pretty much a death sentence. Not lets not forget that a higher amount of AID's patients do tend to come from lower income backgrounds, and the fact that the avrage working American makes less then $30,000 a year.

I understand what you're saying....but that makes even less sense to me logically, actually. But, this is one of those issues that people probably have strong opinions one way or another.

I do agree that AIDS is a likely death sentence for low income people, however, HIV infection isn't always a death sentence even if you are low income. I was speaking with regards to HIV infection, not full blown AIDS.

[GAC3710]

As a person who has had both AIDS and HIV I can honestly say that I do not think it is right to charge someone with manslaughter (or attempted MS) for having sex with someone if one of the 2 is in fact HIV+. Should someone actually do it there are ways around that sort of law. For example, many people are led to believe by government ads that condoms will prevent you from transmitting or catching HIV. This is not the case with all STDs but it is so with HIV. Health departments all over the country will tell you certain types of condoms will prevent HIV infection and others will actually increase your chances due to the type of lube on the condom or things such as sex oils or vasaline(sp?) creating microscopic holes in the "rubbers". The law is not black and white (at least not in my state) but rather "gray" for the most part and open to interpretation. It is however a sex crime and a 3rd degree felony if you have sex with someone knowing you are HIV+ and you do not inform the person (I don't see how this could have a leg to stand on because it could easily turn into a he said she said thing in court). As for any other STDs if you have sex with someone and you have any other STD other than HIV it is a misdemeanor (I can give you the statutes and sub sections if you like). Laws for the most part are not black and white. Thats whats great about our system. Mandatory testing is just another step towards a totalitarian state if you ask me and I pitty the day when our civil liberties are at the mercy of the CDC. I went from having full blown AIDS to being the subject of a study conducted by the leading Univ in my state for HIV/AIDS research due to my recovery. I by no means make 6 figures and my parents are millionaires a few times over so I guess my background is that of a middleclass/upper middleclass family, I'm not gay and I've never used IV drugs. I had a healthy heaping of the pussy pie and it just so happens it caught up with me.

The drugs out there are awesome. I know many nurses that have been exposed to HIV from taking blood from patients and all have taken the meds within 8 hours of being exposed and none have a + status. I went from being on Sustiva and Truvada to starting Atripla (the newest drug available) a few days ago. My life has changed but I am certainly not going to die in the near future or in within the decade as long as I stay on top of everything. My doctors (all 21 of them) have said that if no more advances were made in the field I would still live to be 50+ years old as long as I stayed on top of my game. It is a smart virus and it can really do you in if you allow it but the way I look at it there really isnt much of a choice. I was dealt a shitty hand and I have to win the round with what I have. It is my view that the argument that HIV is a death sentence only comes from people who do not truly understand the virus itself nor the medications already available. Many HIVers look at it as having a nasty case of diabetes, you have to make some changes but as long as you do that and stick to the plan you will be ok.

If there is anything else any of you would like to know please feel free to ask me and I will do my best to answer your questions about laws, infections, medications and yadda yadda yadda.

I wanted to add one more thing: The CDC says about 1,000,000 Americans are infected with 250,000 not knowing it. I believe this number is far lower than what the real number is due to the government not wanting to start a panic resulting in a serious push by politicians to demand a cure. I believe it is a population control and that a cure does exist, military servicemen/women are an example of this. Pharmaceutical comps do not make money off of cures but rather "patching" people up so we have to buy their drugs. But mark my words, should mandatory testing become a reality this country will be in for a serious slap in the face.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by GAC3710

I believe it is a population control and that a cure does exist, military servicemen/women are an example of this. Pharmaceutical comps do not make money off of cures but rather "patching" people up so we have to buy their drugs. But mark my words, should mandatory testing become a reality this country will be in for a serious slap in the face.

Without even getting into the rest of your post, which is commendable, I just want to address this part . . .

The market system for 'big pharma' almost ensures this isn't true - a patentable 'vaccine' or immediate treatment would make billions for the company that designed it, while demolishing the companies producing inhibitors. This would be 20 YEARS with no competition in the market, on a product every living human would willingly pay out the ass for - it makes too much sense, really.

[GAC3710]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Without even getting into the rest of your post, which is commendable, I just want to address this part . . .

The market system for 'big pharma' almost ensures this isn't true - a patentable 'vaccine' or immediate treatment would make billions for the company that designed it, while demolishing the companies producing inhibitors. This would be 20 YEARS with no competition in the market, on a product every living human would willingly pay out the ass for - it makes too much sense, really.

Do you have any concrete evidence to prove this? Do you realize that not having a vaccine would ensure this virus will be with us for centuries, at least? That means "Big Pharma" will continue to make money on PIs for a very long time. Given that outside of the US most of the world's population cannot even afford current medication for HIV let alone even heard of health insurance, so how would "most people" be able to pay out of the ass? Without health Ins most people in the US would not be able to pay HIV meds now. My total med bills (alone) since finding out in Feb 06' have amounted to a little over $50,000. Without HI there would be no way I could have afforded all of that. The average cost of HIV meds is about $1,100-$1,500 a month for HIV meds alone (not including all the non-hiv meds you have to take) per person. How can you honestly believe a vaccine would make more money than meds for big pharma?

Here are few things you should read up on that may open your eyes to this epidemic, our government and big pharma(mainly Merk):

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/shadow.htm

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/pandemic.htm

http://discovery-experimental.com/aids/aids.htm

http://spiripathologyhealing.com/PR_...o_HIV_AIDS.htm

http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1140424088.shtml

http://aliveandwellsf.org/library

(This is about both the HIV/AIDS virus and West Nile)

http://www.whale.to/v/nile.html

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

decided to infect someone by not telling them

Here's the thing -- by having unprotected sex with someone, you're assuming the risk, aren't you? Why should the law consider the person who passed on the HIV "guilty" of anything when the other person engaged in consensual sex with him or her? That makes no sense.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Here's the thing -- by having unprotected sex with someone, you're assuming the risk, aren't you? Why should the law consider the person who passed on the HIV "guilty" of anything when the other person engaged in consensual sex with him or her? That makes no sense.

By accepting a drink from someone you don't know, you're assuming the risk that there might be a date-rape drug in the drink...but it's still illegal to slip someone the date-rape drug without their consent, and that person, if caught would be prosecuted.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

By accepting a drink from someone you don't know, you're assuming the risk that there might be a date-rape drug in the drink...but it's still illegal to slip someone the date-rape drug without their consent, and that person, if caught would be prosecuted.

Having consensual sex with someone without a condom results in an exchange of bodily fluids. I mean for real, when you have sex and don't use a condom, don't you KNOW that dude's stuff is going to end up in your body? I think that's different from being drugged. A better analogy would be -- if you have sex with someone and don't use birth control, you're assuming the risk that you'll get knocked up. If you get knocked up even though you don't want to, can the guy be prosecuted? Tortious pregnancy? Illegal insemination? Or too bad so sad for you?

My question is -- if you KNOW bodily fluids will be exchanged, why would you ever assume your partner doesn't have diseases?

What I really don't get about any sort of crime related to knowing HIV infection, aside from the sheer stupidity of the whole concept -- isn't it incredibly counterproductive? Assuming that any such law requires the person passing on HIV to know that he or she is infected and not tell the sex partner -- well, duh, let's all just not ever get tested! Then we'll never know and nobody can ever say that we knowingly or intentionally infected anyone!

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Having consensual sex with someone without a condom results in an exchange of bodily fluids. I mean for real, when you have sex and don't use a condom, don't you KNOW that dude's stuff is going to end up in your body? I think that's different from being drugged. A better analogy would be -- if you have sex with someone and don't use birth control, you're assuming the risk that you'll get knocked up. If you get knocked up even though you don't want to, can the guy be prosecuted? Tortious pregnancy? Illegal insemination? Or too bad so sad for you?

My question is -- if you KNOW bodily fluids will be exchanged, why would you ever assume your partner doesn't have diseases?

I think we should tick with an analogy such as the date rape drug. A girl who doesn't use birth control can't claim that the guy knew she would get pregnant. Plus like rape purposely infecting someone with AID's is illegal and can get you time in prison.

AID's isn't something that kills off one person then goes away, AID's is exponential. 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32 and so on. Think about 50 years ago when AID's was unheard of and now is some big figure in the millions. Another 50 years from now we might be saying billions.

I'm not trying to get off topic here, but in my natural resources class we have been talking about exponential growth rate of humans, which is now up to 1.3% which means population growth at this rate could double in 70 or so years. I'm seriously going to see what percentage rate AID's is spreading.

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

By accepting a drink from someone you don't know, you're assuming the risk that there might be a date-rape drug in the drink...but it's still illegal to slip someone the date-rape drug without their consent, and that person, if caught would be prosecuted.

I was just about to go there.

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

I don't think it's very hard to pull in three figures a year. Also, AIDS has no apostrophe.

Oh, I mean 6, lol!

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

But I think if you were aware of the fact that you had aids and decided to infect someone by not telling them It could also be argued that you may have not killed that one person, but you did however kill everybody else who this person unknowingly infected.

Oh, and unless you are pulling in 3 figures a year AID's is pretty much a death sentence. Not lets not forget that a higher amount of AID's patients do tend to come from lower income backgrounds, and the fact that the avrage working American makes less then $30,000 a year.

I don't think it's very hard to pull in three figures a year. Also, AIDS has no apostrophe.