Supreme Court HIV Disclosure Case Is A No Brainer!
0 views
Skip to first unread message
David Jeffrey Spetch
Feb 8, 2012, 10:57:57 AM2/8/12
to poli...@googlegroups.com
Supreme Court HIV Disclosure Case Is A No Brainer!
In Bold are clips copied directly from the online site of City News Canada. In between I add outstanding support to one of these two sides.
[b] But lawyers for Mabior and the Quebec woman, who cannot be named, both argue such a sweeping responsibility for disclosure unfairly strips those carrying HIV of their right to privacy. This could have a chilling effect which could "discourage people from being tested and treated for HIV and further endanger both themselves and the public," Mabior's lawyers argue in their submission. [b]
Does convicting a murderer not invade that murderers privacy aka Paul Teal / Bernardo. If someone offers free ice cream along the way to a clinic, this might discourage people from getting tests done! Being a single guy who does get lucky once in a while I get get tested about once a year (give or take) for potential signs of any STD in my blood and I will continue to do so no matter how much harsher penalties may get for not disclosing such information when diagnosed with HIV! Won't stop me!
[b] Condom users or those who have a low enough viral load to make transmitting the disease unlikely should not be punished, they argue. Criminalizing everyone who has sex without disclosing their HIV would "open the floodgates" to ridiculous prosecutions. [b]
Key words, Viral load = infection no matter how concentrated obviously carries the risk of transmitting the disease! How many people that are infected got infected through transmission by someone with a so called low enough viral load is relevant to closing this absurd angle. How many of them got HIV when their infected Partner insisted upon and ensured the use of a condom? Oh and condoms never break. (sarcasm without laughter)
[b] "It will serve only to turn law abiding citizens into criminals regardless of their efforts to protect their partners by complying with public health advice on HIV prevention. Such a result would shock the community and serve only to further stigmatize the virus and anyone living with it." [b]
If they are law abiding citizens then they obviously are willing to tell people they have the virus in the first place because law abiding is that important to them. Keeping it so that people with HIV have to tell sex partners before sex that they have the virus has been the law for how long / 1996? Do our communities look or sound shocked that this law has in any way further stigmatized the virus?!! Well lets have a look at before this law was made, what was the rate of infection growth before this law compared too after this law. (go by percentage of population in Canada before the law and after) If anything I suspect it has helped to reduce infection spread because the infected are aware that if the do not disclose the information it could lead to serious conflict with the law.
[b] Defence lawyers for the Quebec woman echo those arguments. They say Canada lags far behind other countries when it comes to HIV infections. The law is crying out for modernization and clarification of what constitutes "significant risk," they say. [b]
Canada lags far behind when it comes to HIV infections? That is a good thing and here they are trying to make it ok so that infected people can go around spreading the disease so Canada can catch up with other countries? What kind of sick twisted minds come up with this stuff?
[b] "We submit that only the actual intentional transmission of the virus should be criminalized, as in most of the Commonwealth countries." [b]
If you know that you are infected with HIV and you have sex with someone without telling them, then that quite obviously is intentional whether they contract the virus or not!
I feel for people with HIV, they didn't ask to get it and it is quite the responsibility to have to tell anyone you want to have sex with that you might infect them because if you don't accept that responsibility then the law will have to accept that responsibility for you because lives are at steak.
Love
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
In Bold are clips copied directly from the online site of City News Canada. In between I add outstanding support to one of these two sides.
[b] But lawyers for Mabior and the Quebec woman, who cannot be named, both argue such a sweeping responsibility for disclosure unfairly strips those carrying HIV of their right to privacy. This could have a chilling effect which could "discourage people from being tested and treated for HIV and further endanger both themselves and the public," Mabior's lawyers argue in their submission. [b]
Does convicting a murderer not invade that murderers privacy aka Paul Teal / Bernardo. If someone offers free ice cream along the way to a clinic, this might discourage people from getting tests done! Being a single guy who does get lucky once in a while I get get tested about once a year (give or take) for potential signs of any STD in my blood and I will continue to do so no matter how much harsher penalties may get for not disclosing such information when diagnosed with HIV! Won't stop me!
[b] Condom users or those who have a low enough viral load to make transmitting the disease unlikely should not be punished, they argue. Criminalizing everyone who has sex without disclosing their HIV would "open the floodgates" to ridiculous prosecutions. [b]
Key words, Viral load = infection no matter how concentrated obviously carries the risk of transmitting the disease! How many people that are infected got infected through transmission by someone with a so called low enough viral load is relevant to closing this absurd angle. How many of them got HIV when their infected Partner insisted upon and ensured the use of a condom? Oh and condoms never break. (sarcasm without laughter)
[b] "It will serve only to turn law abiding citizens into criminals regardless of their efforts to protect their partners by complying with public health advice on HIV prevention. Such a result would shock the community and serve only to further stigmatize the virus and anyone living with it." [b]
If they are law abiding citizens then they obviously are willing to tell people they have the virus in the first place because law abiding is that important to them. Keeping it so that people with HIV have to tell sex partners before sex that they have the virus has been the law for how long / 1996? Do our communities look or sound shocked that this law has in any way further stigmatized the virus?!! Well lets have a look at before this law was made, what was the rate of infection growth before this law compared too after this law. (go by percentage of population in Canada before the law and after) If anything I suspect it has helped to reduce infection spread because the infected are aware that if the do not disclose the information it could lead to serious conflict with the law.
[b] Defence lawyers for the Quebec woman echo those arguments. They say Canada lags far behind other countries when it comes to HIV infections. The law is crying out for modernization and clarification of what constitutes "significant risk," they say. [b]
Canada lags far behind when it comes to HIV infections? That is a good thing and here they are trying to make it ok so that infected people can go around spreading the disease so Canada can catch up with other countries? What kind of sick twisted minds come up with this stuff?
[b] "We submit that only the actual intentional transmission of the virus should be criminalized, as in most of the Commonwealth countries." [b]
If you know that you are infected with HIV and you have sex with someone without telling them, then that quite obviously is intentional whether they contract the virus or not!
I feel for people with HIV, they didn't ask to get it and it is quite the responsibility to have to tell anyone you want to have sex with that you might infect them because if you don't accept that responsibility then the law will have to accept that responsibility for you because lives are at steak.
Love
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages