HIV testing - A standard part of your yearly physical

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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

Whoops, not true.

Originally Posted by honeychile

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.

Actually Hep C can survive for up to two weeks out of the body in a nutrient-rich environment (which, by the way, is absurdly long - HIV lasts mere minutes outside the body) . . . but since the blood should probably be dried by then, your chances of actual infection are not nearly as large as if the blood were dry, so yeah, it's kind of alarmist.

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

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.

I haven't read everything as I have a Natural Resources test in a couple of hours, but has anybody been siting sources?? I've always been tought that there is no such thing as Voluntary manslaughter. Also I know for a fact that people have recieved life for purposely infecting others with AID's though I can't remember what the charge was. I'm guessing you could be charged with a number of things.

OT: KSig, Redsocks are wack!!

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Whoops, not true.

Source, please? That's not what our Health Officials told us.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Actually Hep C can survive for up to two weeks out of the body in a nutrient-rich environment (which, by the way, is absurdly long - HIV lasts mere minutes outside the body) . . . but since the blood should probably be dried by then, your chances of actual infection are not nearly as large as if the blood were dry, so yeah, it's kind of alarmist.

The dried blood is still infectious, up to seven days, as per our Health Offiicials. If you want to take the chance, fine. I chose not to do so.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Source, please? That's not what our Health Officials told us.

GP covered this thirteen posts ago. She even directly quoted you.

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

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

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

GP covered this thirteen posts ago. She even directly quoted you.

I stand corrected (see how easy it is to admit a mistake?), as I misspoke. GP said what I was meaning to say.

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

I haven't read everything as I have a Natural Resources test in a couple of hours, but has anybody been siting sources?? I've always been tought that there is no such thing as Voluntary manslaughter. Also I know for a fact that people have recieved life for purposely infecting others with AID's though I can't remember what the charge was. I'm guessing you could be charged with a number of things.

OT: KSig, Redsocks are wack!!

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a...voluntary.html

It depends on the jurisdiction but in CA there is voluntary manslaughter.

[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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by honeychile

The dried blood is still infectious, up to seven days, as per our Health Offiicials. If you want to take the chance, fine. I chose not to do so.

If the virus is alive, the blood is infectious. This is borderline silly - do you understand how infection works? It's considerably more difficult without a delivery vehicle (liquid -> fluid -> mixes easily with other fluids -> introduction to blood stream = infection) - there's obviously still a risk, and you shouldn't handle blood/fluids without precaution no matter what, but there's a different order of magnitude in what it would take to infect.

Like I said - it's somewhat alarmist, although I'm sure your Health Officials, while apparently highly fallible, were simply trying to give you 'worst-case' to keep you safe.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

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

Definitely, especially since the first two letters of HIPAA stand for Health Insurance. I thought that would be a dead giveaway.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.