Write a Comment
20 Comments
I was shocked and appalled from what I am reading. The constitution right of privacy protected under the first and fourteenth amendements should cover a persons right to do whatever they want with their own bodies.(Used in Roe V Wade a womans right to choose to abortion.) There is no mention of holistic protocals as alternatives. There is a whole underground of health oriented treatments available since the early 80's. If I became HIV positive I would look into alternative medicines through a licensed Naturopathic doctor (licenced by the AMA)or an OMD. I am a cancer survivor and quit the chemotherapy program.I took responsibility for my own DIS-EASE. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't. No one has the right to tell anyone what the have to do to their own body.
P.S. As for the criminalization of people with HIV. MANY of us in the early days of the AIDS PANDEMIC were (rightfully) concerned about ANY list, under anyones' jurisdiction that listed NAMES of people infected with HIV, suggesting instead that a randomization protocol would work to preserve anonymity and everyone's legal rights to confidentiality and hence stave off prosecution by fear mongers. The choice the general PUBLIC made over 20 years ago has now come full circle and the bad decisions of those years are now due and payable. The only thing that will change ALL of the relevant issues for the HIV COMMUNITY is COHESIVE POLICY! on ALL FRONTS. Medical, Societal, Legal and Personal. PERIOD
I find it disturbing in this debate that the invisible foundation of the agruments seems to be that HIV infection ONLY happens through sexual conduct. As one of the longest living survivors (since being told I had a strange ENZYME in my blood in 1979) with HIV, I MUST remind all of you that sex is not the only mode of transmissionm for HIV. I NEVER had unprotected sex, I believed in Medical Professionals and their OATH, and yet it was these same medical professionals whose actions resulted in my HIV infection! ANYONE who engages in sex without a CONDOM needs to be an adult and face the consequences of that decision. Otherwise keep it in your pants and out of someone's butt or mouth! PERIOD! Meanwhile, giving ART to people not in IMMEDIATE need of same to save their lives, is an ethical issue and disturbing in the extreme. As disturbing as the willingness everyone seems to have to sit back and say and do NOTHING while being confronted with the Stigma attached to HIV infection. I ONCE had a doctor who upon my initial examination with her, found out I was HIV positive (because I disclosed that, knowing it was true even before having frozen blood tested later on and getting the results that I was indeed positive as far back as 1981 when I had the blood frozen)moved her chair back when I coughed. As though the virus was Air-Borne. Did I sit back and TAKE the discrimination and ignorance? NO!!!!!!! I went the distance and had her license YANKED PEOPLE! We need ACCOUNTABILITY in our Legal and Medical Communities, not just PABLUM.
Daniel, your logic is circular, insular and "politically quarantined". the responsibility that HIV-negative people have to keep themselves uninfected will never politically or legally equate with the responsibility HIV-positive people have to disclose our status to our sexual partners. i understand the emotions and reasoning that lead you and many others into this circular thinking, but i'm also terribly aware that your point is dead-on-arrival outside the HIV-activist community. Our activist community has taken your position for decades, yet egregious prosecutions of HIV-positive people only grow more numerous. that SHOULD tell activists something, but it's clear many in the HIV+ community don't want to face the real possibility that this tactic has been politically backfiring for decades. for my part, i tell all my fellow HIV+ friends and acquaintances to guard their legal rights and legal safety jealously. i tell them to carefully and verifiably disclose their status to all partners b4 sex, preferably online or in front of reliable witnesses. once in awhile, a friend will reply "i know disclosure is, like, really controversial and there's many opinions on it"...and i have to remind him or her that ***outside of the HIV+ community, there is no controversy whatsoever...there is only the broad consensus that disclosure is mandatory, and should be enforced with severe penalties***. telling HIV+ people in the USA to disclose their status to sexual partners only at their own discretion is rather comparable to telling gay teens in homophobic households or gay adults in Saudi Arabia to come out of the closet...it's VERY easy for you to say but does little more than set that person up for danger and peril. it's an indulgent and irresponsible moral posture. it is my fervent hope that the legal assault on HIV+ people is obliterated by a true Cure, but failing that, mark my words: in 20 years there will be more prosecutions of HIV+ people, especially for "she/he-said vs she/he-said" non-disclosures. i'm well-aware that many hope this particular issue is winnable (Sean's writings on the matter literally glow with this implication), but i see no evidence of that at all...quite the contrary. demanding equally shared responsibility for infection-prevention will probably remain an intellectual fashion in our community, but politically it will continue to backfire, resulting in further legal defeats...particularly of innocent people already victimized by a virus and by stigma. OF COURSE i know that saying this HERE is like talking blasphemy to a wall, but the issue is too grave to simply remain silent.
Jeton - In response to your comment that it is premature to talk about forced treatment. When I start reading articles where something like this is even suggested, then it is ABSOLUTELY time to start discussing the topic. There is never a bad time to discuss equal rights and defend against discrimination. While your take on criminalization may be easier to swallow for those who are not HIV disabled, it hides and sheds no light on the shared responsibility of someone who is not infected and allows the persistance of the spread of HIV. I find this equally disturbing that you cannot acknowledge this simple fact. After all, the HIV+ person was negative as well before becoming infected.
Jeton - you misunderstand my post, I am not defending those who intentionally choose to infect other. I am defending the decision of others to take away the rights of, and criminalize ALL HIV people simply because they are HIV +. Furthermore, my comment where I stated that you cannot put the blame solely on the shoulders of the HIV+ person has merit because it is a well publicized FACT how HIV is transmitted. If you are going to criminalize someone who is HIV+ for not using a condom, then you also need to criminalize the uninfected person who did not use a condom because they to took part in the transmission of HIV. Even if they do not know the other person is HIV+ they still know how it is transmitted and therefore also have a responsibility to protect themselves. If the uninfected person does not use a condom, then it is reasonable to assume that they accept the risks that come along with that because HIV is so well publicized. As you can see, there is a flaw in your logic. If you are going to advocate criminalization, even those who purposely infect, then you must criminalize the uninfected party who also made the decision to participate because the other HIV+. The only exception to this would be in an instance of rape where the uninfected part was not given a choice and was infected by force. What is the saying 'People who live in glass houses?' Discrimination is a funny thing. Therefore, both you and Liz would be discriminating against the HIV+ person because a person is not completely innocent simply because they are HIV negative. It would be like someone tanning without suntan lotion even thoug it is well known how you get cancer? Your logic suggests we should criminalize that person for giving themselves cancer. Think before you speak.
Although I am concerned about the criminalization of HIV positive people based on hysteria and lack of scientific information regarding transmission risks, but having been infected by someone who knew his status when first had sex (which did not include anal sex or anything close to it but included unprotected oral sex based on the long standing myth in the gay community that you can't get it that way), was not responsible enough to get himself on treatment considering he was sexually active and did not disclose until AFTER having our sex, because at that point he was actually interested in pursuing the matter further, I think I have two cents to add to the discussion: willful misconduct by a person cannot be equated ethically or morally to the negligence or lack of information on risk reduction strategies by another. The fact is that I am now HIV positive, and my life and professional prospects and future plans have been obliterated forever, to be substituted by those prospects and future plans which may be achieved within the realites and constraints of all sorts that the infection brings, not least among them, structuring your life, not around what you want to do professionally, but on the availability of a health plan that will cover the cost of your medications. Not to speak about the endless anti HIV pill taking and doctor visiting, and well as the other drugs I take to manage the anxiety, the depression and the solitude that HIV brings, because political correctness aside, having HIV is about the worst feature to advertise in the gay dating world. I feel no sympathy for the man who changed my life for the worse or anyone who behaves like that or for the legal or other consequences for their disregard for the value of the people that they have sex with. Indeed, if could fry him, I would. To embrace the notion that equates the responsibility of a person who actually knows he has the virus and knows the life changing nature of an infection on the other person and his family, then I would have to conclude that I should also merrily go around penetrating other men without condoms even if they do not have the information or self esteem to demand a condom be used and then blame them for their infection.
Ivan
In Austria Europe there is a case of Barbara Seebald - a woman with HIV (she is a HIV denialist) who refused ART treatment and delivered a baby. She was sentenced for imprisonment for causing grevious bodily harm.
November 10, 2011