Languish Gheys and/or Lawtalkers to Me

[Martinus]

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.

Again, why are you singling out HIV? It is neither as deadly a disease as it used to be nor is it the only lethal disease out there, nor the most vicious of them. So this law seems to be motivated by anti-HIV (read: anti-gay) scare.

And besides, your example only shows your ignorance - cases like this are never as clear cut. For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.

[garbon]

And besides, your example only shows your ignorance - cases like this are never as clear cut. For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.

For the most part that group probably isn't infecting anyone (beyond potentially childbirth) if they are monogamous halves.

[Viking]

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

Well, to get back to the traffic analogy. "I don't know" is not a reasonable admission if the fact in question is "is there a pedestrian in on the road in front of my car" when you are not looking at the road in front of your car. You are expected to be vigilant in traffic and if you are not vigilant then you a liable for the consequences of your negligence.

I'm trying to figure out at what point the onus is on you the check if you are HIV positive, there is a point at which your risk factors are such that it would be irresponsible to not investigate.

[garbon]

Well, to get back to the traffic analogy. "I don't know" is not a reasonable admission if the fact in question is "is there a pedestrian in on the road in front of my car" when you are not looking at the road in front of your car. You are expected to be vigilant in traffic and if you are not vigilant then you a liable for the consequences of your negligence.

I'm trying to figure out at what point the onus is on you the check if you are HIV positive, there is a point at which your risk factors are such that it would be irresponsible to not investigate.

But that's not similar. After all, you don't need a test to see if pedestrians are in front of your car or not - you just look out.  Learning if you are HIV-positive costs some amount of money/time - I'm not sure why there should be any onus on a person to find out and then divulge this sort of health information.

[Viking]

Again, why are you singling out HIV? It is neither as deadly a disease as it used to be nor is it the only lethal disease out there, nor the most vicious of them. So this law seems to be motivated by anti-HIV (read: anti-gay) scare.

And besides, your example only shows your ignorance - cases like this are never as clear cut. For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.

The law singles out the HIV. I'm don't think I am. HIV is my example. I think the same questions apply to any infectious diseases. I could have used Typhoid Mary as an example here for the same effect. I used HIV since it is singled out in this specific law.

I'm trying to figure out why HIV needed it's own law, if deliberate infection or inadvertent infection (I asked out this in the OP) is punishable by law anywhere for any other diseases and what the moral and legal obligation I have to ensure that I don't infect others if I have a communicable disease.

I know this is not clear cut this is why I am confused. I suggest you take of your pink ghey goggles and read what I wrote and not filter it through your homophobe detection subroutine you use in daily life, you already know I am not a homophobe; I just find male gay sex icky.

[Martinus]

Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.

[Valmy]

For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.

And we need to come down hard on those deviants!

But seriously the most new cases of HIV every year are married monogamous people?  Go figure.

[Viking]

Well, to get back to the traffic analogy. "I don't know" is not a reasonable admission if the fact in question is "is there a pedestrian in on the road in front of my car" when you are not looking at the road in front of your car. You are expected to be vigilant in traffic and if you are not vigilant then you a liable for the consequences of your negligence.

I'm trying to figure out at what point the onus is on you the check if you are HIV positive, there is a point at which your risk factors are such that it would be irresponsible to not investigate.

But that's not similar. After all, you don't need a test to see if pedestrians are in front of your car or not - you just look out.  Learning if you are HIV-positive costs some amount of money/time - I'm not sure why there should be any onus on a person to find out and then divulge this sort of health information.

I would suggest that looking is the test and the act of looking has an opportunity cost; I could spend those seconds snorting coke off my dashboard.

But, to restate the analogy. Remember, I'm not trying to argue a point, I'm using Languish to clarify my thinking on this. How is the cost of the HIV test (free and anonymous at walk in clinics here in Norway) different from the cost of a gun safe for storing guns when it comes to children and self inflicted gun wounds. The owner of the gun is liable for it's use if it is not stored correctly. If the law doesn't specify correct storage there is still a standard of what any reasonable person would consider safe storage that would have to be me.

I'm saying that somebody who had repeated sexual encounters with Magic Johnson, Freddy Mercury and Rock Hudson while injecting HIV infected blood twice a day into his blood stream has cannot use the excuse "I didn't know", while a virgin who has never been pierced by a hypodermic needle can use it. In between there is a wide spectrum of people and behaviors. At what point on that spectrum does the excuse "I didn't know" cease to be reasonable?

[Viking]

Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.

The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).

[Barrister]

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.

Again, why are you singling out HIV? It is neither as deadly a disease as it used to be nor is it the only lethal disease out there, nor the most vicious of them. So this law seems to be motivated by anti-HIV (read: anti-gay) scare.

And besides, your example only shows your ignorance - cases like this are never as clear cut. For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.

With agressive drug therapy HIV is no longer lethal - it doesn't mean the disease itself isn't still lethal.  You'll still die without your retroviral drugs if you're HIV positive.

The issue is subtle enough that I'm probably missing something reading a machine-transleted article.

In Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive.  I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.

It would be difficult/impossible to change the law to go after people who unknowingly transmit HIV though - you'd never get beyond the mens rea component, and crim neg really doesn't fit.

[garbon]

For example, currently the fastest growing HIV infected group in the US are straight monogamous Black and Latino women who are faithful in their marriages.

And we need to come down hard on those deviants!

But seriously the most new cases of HIV every year are married monogamous people?  Go figure.

That demo is expanding because while the female partner is monogamous, the male partner is not.

[Martinus]

Viking, you haven't answered my question - what about prior disclosure.

The law punishes unknowing infection with up to 3 years and intentional infection with 6. I think the law considers having unprotected sex while HIV positive as intentional infection. I don't know what effect the state of knowledge of the person being infected has on this, but knowing norway; presumably agreeing to be infected or agreeing to risk being infected is a sign of mental illness or coercion (in which case it would be rape as well).

Are you saying that under Norwegian law a person who is HIV positive cannot legally have sex with another person without committing a crime? That's fucked up beyond anything that was said in this thread so far. 

[garbon]

At what point on that spectrum does the excuse "I didn't know" cease to be reasonable?

I think it should be reasonable across the board. After all, in most cases said individual can't infect anyone unless there is a willing partner. (In the cases of unwilling partners - we have a crime for that.)

[garbon]

In Canada, people can and are convicted of aggravated sexual assault if they knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing they are HIV positive.  I suppose there is some risk that might discourage people from finding out their HIS status, but given that it is a lethal disease without treatment I think there is a pretty large incentive to getting tested no matter what.

Is it also a crime if one had sexual relations with someone without disclosing they had Ebola?

Anyway, your last bit is odd considering a big part of the HIV epidemic is that people aren't getting tested and then continuing to have unprotected sex.

[Viking]

It would be difficult/impossible to change the law to go after people who unknowingly transmit HIV though - you'd never get beyond the mens rea component, and crim neg really doesn't fit.

This is what the status of the law in norway as is. It is illegal to unknowingly transmit HIV in Norway. Punishable by up to three years in prison.

This is the law the bi-partisan ghey lobby in norway wants to remove.









I think I have now boiled my question now.

"At what point does refusing to test yourself for HIV (or any other communicable disease) become negligent?"