A pending lawsuit in front of the Illinois Supreme Court has raised a debate surrounding the responsibility of family members to disclose their loved one’s HIV status (abcnews.go.com, 11/27).
A woman in Chicago, identified as Jane Doe, was awarded $2 million in 2004 after she contracted HIV from her fiancé and alleged that his parents lied to her about his HIV status. According to Doe’s lawyer, she found out that she was HIV positive in 1999, three weeks before her fiancé’s death and long after she could have sought treatment. However, a year later, an appellate court reversed the decision, saying that it was Doe’s responsibility to get tested earlier.
Elizabeth and Kirkpatrick Dilling say that they did not know that their son, Albert Dilling, was HIV positive until just shortly before his death, and that they never lied to Doe about his HIV status. According to court papers, Albert Dilling was aware of his status and kept it from Doe.
The AIDS Legal Council of Chicago says that even if the Dillings knew that their son was HIV positive, it would have been illegal for them to tell his fiancée. “What her boyfriend did was a crime. She had the right to know from him,” said Ann Hilton Fisher, the organization’s director. “But the parents could not and should not have told her.”
She continues: “We've developed a very exact, precise law about when a person’s HIV status can and cannot be disclosed. If the court reverses this decision, it would really undo that.”
SugarandSpice43
