Languish Gheys and/or Lawtalkers to Me

[Viking]

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2F2012%2F07%2F24%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fpolitikk%2Fhelse%2Fhiv%2F22655069%2F

The law in Norway at present unwittingly infecting someone with HIV is a crime punishable by up to 3 years in prison. Apparently in Norway this is a LGBT issue (go figure). I have to admit this is very confusing for me. I feel I should be worked up about this and enraged but I don't know how and on which side of the issue.

The argument for changing the law is that the law at present disincentivizes testing and the rate of infection is increasing.

Is there any law anywhere else where transmitting infectious diseases is illegal?
How is unwittingly infecting someone with HIV different from unwittingly shooting somebody or unwittingly running them over with a car (legally and morally speaking)?
How does the disincentiviation work? The idea that people choose not to get tested to avoid the extra 3 prison years is just ludicrous and if anything demanding of a harsher sentence.

[jimmy olsen]

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2F2012%2F07%2F24%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fpolitikk%2Fhelse%2Fhiv%2F22655069%2F

The law in Norway at present unwittingly infecting someone with HIV is a crime punishable by up to 3 years in prison.

Monstrously unjust! 

[Josquius]

I can definitely remember a case or two in the UK with people getting imprisoned for purposfully infecting people.

[Martinus]

I am confused by the OP - what is your argument and what exactly is the crime? Is it a crime if someone who has HIV but does not know it infects someone? Or is it only a crime if you know you have HIV and infect someone? Also, is the liability dependent on prior disclosure (i.e. it is not a crime if you inform someone up front about having HIV) and/or taking reasonable precautions (e.g. you use a condom and it breaks)?

Also does the law apply equally to other potentially lethal diseases such as tuberculosis and certain forms of hepatitis? If it just singles out HIV, I can see how this would be seen as motivated by animus rather than any serious health concerns.

There is a whole lot of issues like this to consider but your opening posts goes in circles and does not really address what your specific point here is.

[Martinus]

Oh ok I think I understood what you mean - yeah, there is a concern that if you only penalize people who know they have HIV and infect someone, then you indeed disincentivize people to get tested.

Personally I think that infecting someone with a disease should not be illegal (whether the diseased person knew about being diseased or not), except where you could prove the actual intention to infect (e.g. someone plants germs in a well or something like this) - anyone who has unprotected sex with another person should be aware of the risk it carries, so I don't see how the entire responsibility should rest with the person who has the disease. You could make a case for disclosure, but again this is problematic - where do you draw a line - some interactions for people suffering from certain diseases may carry a risk of infection but the risk is 0.0000001% or so - should they be required to disclose their disease to the other person? And as I said, there is absolutely no reason to penalise differently someone infecting someone else with HIV than with hepatitis etc.

[Viking]

The reason the OP is confused on the issue is that I am confused on the issue and the OP reflects this. I can't frame the issue or define it.

The law the gheys want to remove (note social democrat and liberal-conservative gheys both) is the one banning infection with HIV regardless of knowledge of HIV state.

Now that I've had some time to let this issue settle.

On one side you have the analogy to vehicular manslaughter with if I understand it correctly (or if I understand it incorrectly use whatever it is that I am describing rather than the words I used) means that through negligence the driver caused the death of some bystander. I'm pretty sure these laws have clear definitions of culpability and standards for due care on the part of the driver.

On the other side you have the analogy to the cold or flu. While being infected with the cold or the flu (more people die of the flu than AIDS is western societies by a large margin) can be just as harmful as being hit by a car no legal standard seems to apply to carriers of the flu virus.

[Admiral Yi]

Some US jurisdictions have similar laws.

Semi-famous case a while back where a distinctly unmagical negro gave half the graduating class of a school in upstate New York the bug.

[Ed Anger]

Some US jurisdictions have similar laws.

Semi-famous case a while back where a distinctly unmagical negro gave half the graduating class of a school in upstate New York the bug.

Talk about jungle fever.

[Syt]

Some US jurisdictions have similar laws.

Semi-famous case a while back where a distinctly unmagical negro gave half the graduating class of a school in upstate New York the bug.

Surely he must have been magical if he got that much tail.

[Tamas]

Some US jurisdictions have similar laws.

Semi-famous case a while back where a distinctly unmagical negro gave half the graduating class of a school in upstate New York the bug.

Impressive!

[Valmy]

Surely he must have been magical if he got that much tail.

Well he could have just given it to one person and it spread around.  Of course...how would they know it was he who started it?

[Martinus]

On one side you have the analogy to vehicular manslaughter with if I understand it correctly (or if I understand it incorrectly use whatever it is that I am describing rather than the words I used) means that through negligence the driver caused the death of some bystander. I'm pretty sure these laws have clear definitions of culpability and standards for due care on the part of the driver.

The duty of care of a vehicle driver is quite different though than a duty of... well, who exactly? Someone breathing and as a result infecting someone else with a disease that can be transmitted that way? So I don't think this is a very good comparison. Unless you are making a point that each person's duty of care should be to act as if he or she was suffering from all existing transmittable diseases and take all applicabe precautions.

And as I said before, if this law only applies to HIV, this is a completely ridiculous case of discrimination compared to other lethal disease carriers.

Btw, does the law make it a crime even if the victim was aware of the disease or only if this wasn't disclosed?

[garbon]

If one does search convicted and infected in google, looks like all the top hits are a handful of stories about people who deliberate tried to infect others with HIV.  And so yeah sounds a little bit like laws on the books because of scaremongering around HIV.

Though this one suggests that the UK convicted someone of causing grievous bodily harm for herpes : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/19/jail-herpes-sexually-transmitted-infection

[Viking]

The duty of care of a vehicle driver is quite different though than a duty of... well, who exactly? Someone breathing and as a result infecting someone else with a disease that can be transmitted that way? So I don't think this is a very good comparison. Unless you are making a point that each person's duty of care should be to act as if he or she was suffering from all existing transmittable diseases and take all applicabe precautions.

And as I said before, if this law only applies to HIV, this is a completely ridiculous case of discrimination compared to other lethal disease carriers.

Btw, does the law make it a crime even if the victim was aware of the disease or only if this wasn't disclosed?

No, I'm suggesting that there is a reasonable standard of care one can expect from a living breathing human living in a human society. Having or participating in disease risk factors would suggest a moral responsibility to be informed of one's own infection status. If you have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men who have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men then I think it is reasonable that you are responsible for determining your own HIV status and acting accordingly.

[garbon]

The duty of care of a vehicle driver is quite different though than a duty of... well, who exactly? Someone breathing and as a result infecting someone else with a disease that can be transmitted that way? So I don't think this is a very good comparison. Unless you are making a point that each person's duty of care should be to act as if he or she was suffering from all existing transmittable diseases and take all applicabe precautions.

And as I said before, if this law only applies to HIV, this is a completely ridiculous case of discrimination compared to other lethal disease carriers.

Btw, does the law make it a crime even if the victim was aware of the disease or only if this wasn't disclosed?

No, I'm suggesting that there is a reasonable standard of care one can expect from a living breathing human living in a human society. Having or participating in disease risk factors would suggest a moral responsibility to be informed of one's own infection status. If you have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men who have lots and lots of unprotected anal sex at bath houses with lots and lots of different men then I think it is reasonable that you are responsible for determining your own HIV status and acting accordingly.

I don't see why "I don't know" wouldn't be a reasonable admission.