With a hat that says "I believe the law should codify acceptable behaviour" on, I think someone who knows they're HIV+ and lies or fails to mention it, then has unsafe sex with someone and infects them, should be guilty of an offense. I think the level of the offence ought to be similar to rape or GBH.
With a hat that says "I believe the law should be written to minimise suffering given the way people are likely to behave", which is my usual hat, my answer is I'd need more time to ponder the likely effects of such a law.
Re: Home HIV testing kits... I would use one on the premise that they are as reliable as, say, home pregnancy testing kits. Should such HIV kits become available I believe that like pregnancy testing kits, they should be available off the shelf rather than over the counter - it seems to make people 'less shy' about buying them for starters, plus if an over the counter HIV kit was treated like the morning after pill, as well as a potentially prohibitive price the 'over the counter' thing would put people off (FFS Levonelle is about £20 over the counter and not everyone can get to their bloody doctor in time to get it, and it's not nice being stood in Boots being grilled by a random pharmacist about why you want it etc)
As for using one as an avoidance of a GUM clinic, in my case this would be due to prior poor experiences: I have been treated like shit - one doctor in particular treated me as if I was 'dirty' as soon as I walked in before I was tested (not that they should treat anyone as 'dirty' regardless if they know they have X, Y and Z or not). The nurses and receptionists were all fab though :-)
Re: 'If someone who is HIV+ has sex with someone who is HIV- and infects them...'
I find the idea of legislation on this scary, partly because (as with most legislation) there would be so many ways that it could be abused, and also because I think each case would have to be taken on its own merits. There are so many aspects to consider that I don't think a standardised piece of legislation would work. Writing something that would have the flexibility to work would be a job and a half though.
Ultimately I'd probably go for something along the lines of having it be considered a criminal offence if someone lied and said they were HIV- when they knew there were +, but I'm not sitting too comfortably with that.
To comment on question 4 - I think it would be a very hard law to enforce, which is why I said no, even though I think that to sleep someone with knowing that you have HIV without informing the other person is a awful thing to do.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
baggyeyes
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-04 03:50 pm (UTC)With a hat that says "I believe the law should be written to minimise suffering given the way people are likely to behave", which is my usual hat, my answer is I'd need more time to ponder the likely effects of such a law.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-04 05:36 pm (UTC)I would use one on the premise that they are as reliable as, say, home pregnancy testing kits. Should such HIV kits become available I believe that like pregnancy testing kits, they should be available off the shelf rather than over the counter - it seems to make people 'less shy' about buying them for starters, plus if an over the counter HIV kit was treated like the morning after pill, as well as a potentially prohibitive price the 'over the counter' thing would put people off (FFS Levonelle is about £20 over the counter and not everyone can get to their bloody doctor in time to get it, and it's not nice being stood in Boots being grilled by a random pharmacist about why you want it etc)
As for using one as an avoidance of a GUM clinic, in my case this would be due to prior poor experiences: I have been treated like shit - one doctor in particular treated me as if I was 'dirty' as soon as I walked in before I was tested (not that they should treat anyone as 'dirty' regardless if they know they have X, Y and Z or not). The nurses and receptionists were all fab though :-)
Ethical concerns
From:Re: Ethical concerns
From:Re: Ethical concerns
From:Re: Ethical concerns
From:(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-05 01:38 am (UTC)I find the idea of legislation on this scary, partly because (as with most legislation) there would be so many ways that it could be abused, and also because I think each case would have to be taken on its own merits. There are so many aspects to consider that I don't think a standardised piece of legislation would work. Writing something that would have the flexibility to work would be a job and a half though.
Ultimately I'd probably go for something along the lines of having it be considered a criminal offence if someone lied and said they were HIV- when they knew there were +, but I'm not sitting too comfortably with that.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 08:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 09:19 am (UTC)