Oh ghod

[lovingboth]

There's been another conviction for HIV transmission, this time of a woman.

As ever, there is zero evidence that, despite the comment in the story, the infection was "deliberate".

I am more surprised that it's so hard to find the details. "A woman with HIV could infect you lads!" (my paraphrasing) was one of the HEA's more notorious ads, not least because the viewer was supposed to be horrified that she would look the same as she did now in several years time. Presumably, they'd be happier if she died quickly.

But on the BBC's website, it's not in the news page, not in health, not on the Wales page, but only on the SE Wales one. A bit of browsing reveals that it's copied from a Press Association story, not that the BBC acknowledge that...

Comments

[lovingboth]

Yep, we're talking Cunningham recklessness here, which requires the defendant to know that a risk is being taken, even if the injury is not intended.

What makes me weep is that she's reported as saying that "health staff had told her that it was almost impossible for a woman to pass on the virus." If she didn't think there was a risk, that's a defence. Instead, she plead guilty.

The position in England & Wales, following the Appeal Court's ruling in the second case to come before them is appalling. They drew the curious distinction between

being aware of the risks of having unprotected sex with someone, including infection or pregnancy,

and

consenting to the specific risk that they might be infected with HIV as a result.

Because his HIV status was concealed from the women, the court declared that there could not have been informed consent to the second risk, or even an "honest belief" on his part that there was, despite their willingness to have unprotected sex with him, knowing of the more general risks.

[zotz]

"health staff had told her that it was almost impossible for a woman to pass on the virus."

Where's that from? The BBC just says "difficult".

[lovingboth]

The Sun.

The BBC's report has changed several times, as they've retracted several claims that she 'deliberately' or 'knowingly' infecting him.

[zotz]

Most of the stories don't mention that bit at all. ICWales says difficult. It would be worth knowing which was more accurate.

[lovingboth]

BASHH, in their guidelines for PEP, reckon that the per act risk for "insertive vaginal intercourse" is between 0.03%-0.09%, i.e. less than one in a thousand.

There's evidence to suggest that it's nearer one in ten thousand, outside the initial couple of months after her being infected and any eventual onset of Aids.

Anyway, they were fucking without condoms for ten months. Say they did it a hundred times. With the high end of the BASHH estimate, you're looking at a 8.6% chance of transmission, low end, less than 3%. She's far more likely to have become pregnant.