October #128 : So Sue Me - by Lucile Scott

POZ - Health, Life and HIV
Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:

Back to home » Archives » POZ Magazine issues




Table of Contents
 

Here Comes the Son

Meet The Grandparents




Feet First

Attention, Class!

Flu's Clues

Gene Genies

Control Issues

Trainer's Bench-October 2006

The Big Chill

Ask The Sexpert-October 2006

Cash Prizes!

Inside Job




False Positives

Believe the Hypo

So Sue Me

Gender Bender

Hurricane Liz

The Little AIDS Club That Could

I’m Gonna Tell

Change Is Good




Editor’s Letter-October 2006

Mailbox-October 2006

Catch Of The Month-October 2006



 
Most Popular Lessons

The HIV Life Cycle

Shingles

Herpes Simplex Virus

Syphilis & Neurosyphilis

Treatments for Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

What is AIDS & HIV?

Hepatitis & HIV



email print

October 2006


So Sue Me

by Lucile Scott

Will Californians cash in on a case that allows them to sue their suspected infector?

In the fall of 2000, a woman whom California Supreme Court documents identify only as “Bridget B.” tested positive for HIV. Her husband, “John B.”—whom Bridget claims had “unprotected sex with multiple men before and during their marriage without her knowledge”—tested positive soon after. Bridget alleges that his “negligent” behavior was the cause of her infection, and in July 2006, the California Supreme Court said she could launch a civil suit against him. The case is pending. Immediately, speculation arose: Would the bench’s decision clog courtrooms with purely spiteful suits? Would it force suspected infectors statewide to disclose their sexual or drug history? POZ asked legal experts to weigh in. “The court’s ruling is very narrow and applies only to people in monogamous relationships [who do not disclose their risk behavior],” says Lambda Legal Defense Fund’s Jon Givner. However, he adds, it could cause an increase in lawsuits that will not hold up in court but will nonetheless invade people’s privacy. California attorney Gloria Allred, who was involved in the O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson trials, says, “It’s saying that one would have to disclose the frequency and nature of the high-risk behavior but not the names. It’s about negligence. It’s the right decision.” HIV positive West Hollywood councilmember and lawyer John Duran, says, “The decision balances the right to privacy with the right to discovery. And as an HIV positive person, I believe that we do have the legal and moral obligation to do no harm, just as HIV negative people have an obligation to protect themselves.” Gavel.


[Go to top]

Join POZ Facebook Twitter Google+ MySpace YouTube Tumblr Flickr
Quick Links
Current Issue

HIV Testing
Safer Sex
Find a Date
Newly Diagnosed
HIV 101
Disclosing Your Status
Starting Treatment
Help Paying for Meds
Search for the Cure
POZ Stories
POZ Opinion
POZ Exclusives
Read the Blogs
Visit the Forums
Job Listings
Events Calendar


    chrisf
    san jose
    California


    usuallyhappy
    Palm Springs
    California


    sefarady
    New York
    California


    Fergie911
    Chicago
    Illinois
Click here to join POZ Personals!
Ask POZ Pharmacist

Talk to Us
Poll
Survey
Pop Watch

more surveys
Contact Us
We welcome your comments!
[ about Smart + Strong | about POZ | POZ advisory board | partner links | advertising policy | advertise/contact us | site map]
© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.