badcrumble
Member
smh at the ignorance in this thread. if you're undetectable, you're not exposing anyone. studies have proven this again and again.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
- Thread starter koji kabuto
- Start date
MrOogieBoogie
BioShock Infinite is like playing some homeless guy's vivid imagination
So you are saying they should crimilize the spread of all stds?
I so strongly disagree with that sentence I could not disagree any more than I already am.
Before having sex, If someone asks you your status.
It doesn't matter if you're undetectable or not. If someone directly asks you before sex. You should have a moral AND legal obligation to tell them the truth. And if you either lie, or otherwise somehow omit your positive status, because you are afraid that person wont have sex with you. And you then have sex with that person based on your deceptions.
That deception should 100% be considered rape in the eyes of the law. And you should be worried about your ass sitting in jail or prison for deceiving someone to have sex with you like that.
skullmuffins
Banned
you don't "get away with it". it's still illegal, they're just treating it now like every single other infectious disease.
Dion Blaster
Member
It's still illegal. And the law change is designed to stop the spread of HIV. Have you read anything about this subject before declaring it "wrong"?
metalslimer
Member
How many times do I have to say that almost 100% of people who work on treating HIV have pushed for this? Do you seriously think California is just doing this to be wacky? It's fucking depressing how little people actually know about HIV and that stigmatization is a large part in why people are afraid to get tested
People are spouting their bullshit gut reactions while not knowing a single damn thing about the issue
People are spouting their bullshit gut reactions while not knowing a single damn thing about the issue
"Gee..with logic like this, I won't get tested at all. I don't wanna deal with all that hassle, especially when we can just use a condom..ignorance is bliss, anyway!"
Is what that enforces. It induces fear, it makes it the be all end all diagnosis, and people lie all the time.
This bill makes it so people are MORE likely to get tested and disclose their status because they can't face legal time should allegations and the like, start to fly.
This bill also still makes it illegal to intentionally transmit the disease with malicious purposes. Which is what I assume, you're trying to say. People who are undetectable, and on medication, do not fall under this.
And_Gignac
Member
Fucking depressing how people in here are willfully ignoring the data, the science and the opinion of people who have spent most of their adult lives resarching HIV.
This is how Trump won tbh.
pretty done
Member
This is barbaric.
It has been shown time and time again that upping the criminality of STDs does little to stop the spread of them, and a LOT to discourage people from acting responsibly.
So many people in this thread are only pretending to give a shit about the spread of STDs, when the only thing they seem to care about are Draconian laws that only punish and shame, not prevent.
badcrumble
Member
Yep. Serodiscordant couples have known this for a while but recent studies have borne it out.
The imaging (aka successful molecule detection, considering both false negatives and false positives to be 'unsuccessful') on the blood test is good enough at this point that if the test can't see it, you don't have any active/transmissible viral load (it's still dormant in your cells and capable of reproduction if no longer suppressed via drugs).
I'm sure that where you see "0%" you should read it as "0.001%" or whatever, because statistics include a margin of error, but that's what the studies show.
I can understand the reasoning for trying to remove the stigma by making it a misdemeanor instead of a felony, but the disease is still dangerous considering the lack of healthcare access and costs to treat than most other stds. And there is no cure, so it's a lifelong maintenance. There is still a reason to be worried about contracting the virus as well because the rate of drug adherence is shockingly bad: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068890/
The treatment of chronic illnesses commonly includes the long-term use of pharmacotherapy. Although these medications are effective in combating disease, their full benefits are often not realized because approximately 50% of patients do not take their medications as prescribed.
The treatment of chronic illnesses commonly includes the long-term use of pharmacotherapy. Although these medications are effective in combating disease, their full benefits are often not realized because approximately 50% of patients do not take their medications as prescribed.
True UHC and a mandate that STD tests and HIV tests are a required part of a yearly wellness check will do a hell of a lot more for getting people tested and diagnosed than just about everything else I can think of.
Don't assume. I said nothing about transmission. Before sex, if you are directly asked specific questions, you should feel both a moral and legal obligation to answer those specific questions truthfully.
For Christ sake I tell people if I even have dry throat that may be a common cold, or it could just be a dry throat. And seemingly in this thread people are arguing that it should be OK for people to intentionally deceive their sexual partners about their STD status.
If you are directly asked about a specific issue about your medical history (such as your STD or HIV+ status) and you lie about it for the sole purpose to get someone to have sex with you that IMO should be rape.
Nobody should be advocating sex by intentional and direct deception.
titiklabingapat
Member
Pretty much, yes. You just don't see the researchers saying it is absolutely zero because they are doing a good job presenting the data. As always, people are hung up on that 0.001% margin of error. I mean, what do the researchers know anyway.
Hence you see the term undetectable. If you are adhering, you are undetectable.
Fine stats say if it is diagnosed today you should make it to 75, 3 years of the current life expectancy for the normal person, provided you don't get a secondary illness.
Bottom line is though, autoimmune deficiency is not something you want when you get older and your body weaker.
That's a big if when 50% of people on these medications aren't adhering properly. Informed consent should still be encouraged between sexual partners.
titiklabingapat
Member
Again, the qualifier is undetectable. You seem to be lumping all people with HIV when even medical professionals make distinctions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39872530
It's 78 with current regimens.
User Name Here
Member
Nvm
Fox Mulder
Member
I'd still kill someone that deceived and knowingly gave me hiv. I don't care how treatable it is.
I feel like this is the better answer.
I also feel like if you knowingly have an std and you don't disclose you basically raped the person.
pixelation
Member
effectively = zero?... since when?
ShironRedshift
Member
Seriously. All of this.
This thread seems to be a case study of how fake news spreads and is so effective (even though, to be clear, the news itself is indeed real in this case. It's the reactions to that news and how it's processed that concerns me). Facts don't matter. Science doesn't matter. Only feelings and perceptions. All else is irrelevant.
Knowingly exposing someone to HIV is STILL. ILLEGAL. in California. It's just a misdemeanor instead of a felony. LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE. There was no reason it should have ever been singled out like that to begin with. This is just finally correcting that wrong.
As for the idea of making things "fair" by just making everything a felony, that's insane. No evidence bares out that such a move would be helpful at all. All it does is make people less likely to get tested at all, which in turn makes it less likely they're getting treatment, which in turn means they're at GREATER risk of infecting others (because the treatment for HIV not only helps those infected but if taken properly reduces the rate of transmission to zero), not less. Such laws result in the problems they're trying to tackle becoming WORSE, not better. The desire for such a change is not rooted in any sort of logic, evidence, or science, but vengeance. Just pure vengeance, that doesn't care if it makes the problem it's tackling worse or not. It just wants to lash out regardless.
It might be tempting to do that at first. It might feel right. But that doesn't actually make it right. Particularly not when nothing other than those feelings of vengeance, that is, no science, evidence, or anything backs it up at all. But it's so sad and frustrating that those feelings are so strong and prevalent nonetheless. No wonder stuff like fake news has such an easy time spreading. No one really cares about facts or research or whatever. Just feelings, and confirming those feelings. That's all.
Just glad that most people here aren't in charge of making the laws I guess. If that happens even in a typically progressive site like NeoGAF, that's pretty strong evidence that representative democracy trumps true democracy. Too hard for most people to put their initial feelings and instincts and hunches aside and look at just the facts.
Either way, California did the right thing with this move, and that's what matters, regardless of how upset it may make people.
Fixed.
pixelation
Member
It's not ZERO, quit the bullshit. There's a margin of error miniscule as it might be, hence the need to declare your HIV status.
There is no distinctions in adherence between HIV and other chronic diseases. The medication adherence rate is for all patients with chronic diseases -- HIV patients aren't excluded from that 50% rate. You keep latching onto the "undetectable" qualifier from a research study, which isn't a representation of the entire population of HIV patients on antivirals. It very much depends on that IF they're using their medication correctly (and if they are, then yes they would be undetectable). Not everyone on antivirals will be undetectable. It will depend on if they have proper adherence or not, and it's widely known that chronic illness medication adherence is problematic. Therefore informed consent should still be encouraged. What's the issue?
titiklabingapat
Member
Yeah, it's kinda amazing. Nothing shows GAF's true ugly color sometimes more than HIV and Romas. It's kinda fascinating and terrifying.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
Its difficult for me to blame those with a kneejerk reaction when the thread title itself doesnt explicitly state felony -> misdemeanor. A lot of the initial aggression would have been displaced had it been made clear that willingly spreading the disease is still criminalized, the only caveat being that its now treated on the same level as other harmful STDs.
ShironRedshift
Member
To start off with, this particular post goes out to everyone who keeps focusing on this zero/non-zero chance of transmission subject and not just pixelation in particular. I am NOT singly anyone out, but using this as post as just an example. That's all. With that said:
Why is this non-zero event different? Especially since, if you'd consider those accidents or what-have-you, and that's why it's different. The accident part.... You realize we're talking about people ACTUALLY using protection here, right? That that is what all this zero/non-zero stuff is about? The fact that they're using protection in of itself means they're NOT trying to infect anyone. If they didn't give a fuck about that, they wouldn't take itto begin with. We're talking about people who ARE in fact trying to do the right thing, to reduce their viral load to zero so that they DON'T infect others and treating them like lepers anyway (the irony of how leprosy itself is so infamous in part because of historical misconceptions over such aspects of the disease such as it's method of transmission that were so widespread that even though we know better now it's still in our lexicon to this day), as if they're some type of super-villain regardless.
The act itself is proof of their true intentions, regardless of whether they share that fact or not. If they didn't care at all, why bother taking that protection to begin with? That's not very consistent, is it? They of course ideally SHOULD tell the other person regardless, that's indeed what SHOULD happen, but if they don't, I can't really blame them since revealing that fact will aparently have others just treat them like lepers regardless. Just look at all the misinformation in this thread and the fact that you're even asking this question to begin with for proof. That you're asking such a thing and are so concerned by people who ARE in fact TRYING to do the right thing, by taking the proper medication which not only protects themselves but others as well by reducing the rate of transmission to as close to zero as anyway.
Yet the fact that you are very concerned with making the distinction between true zero and as close to zero as possible while not technically being zero reveals your true intentions and thoughts, regardless of whether you yourself realize it or not, and how you see them as lepers regardless of which actions they take or do not take. Like, seriously. Stop and think about that for a zero.
Unless, that is, you do treat other not-technically zero chances the same? Like the chance of accidental pregnancy even when using multiple forms of contraception? The chance if dying each time you get into a car? A plane? The chance of the Yellowstone supervolcano errupting on any given day? Do you treat all of those the same way that you're approaching this subject, since they're all just as (and in the case of cars, moresi, especially when we consider that's an activity most people engage in multiple times each day, driving, so over the course of a typical lifespan that's exponentially more likely that you'll be involved in some form of automobile accident) likely, so you approach all of those from this same point of view, right?
If not, why? And in particular, why is so much of this venom reserved for people who are in fact trying to do the right thing. Because realize, this current discussion, about zero and non-zero isn't framed on just anyone with HIV, but rather those who ARE in fact taking the proper medication and protection, to help not only themselves, but proevt others as well, regardless of whether they tell others or not. We're still talking about people who are doing everything they can to reduce the rate of transmission regardless. Why is so much of your venom seemingly reserved for people like that, of all people? Just stop and think about that. Just stop and think about that for a moment. Are you really treating this the same as other non-zero chances or not, and if not, why is so much concern being directed toward THOSE people, if all people, who are clearly trying to do the right thing regardless of whether they tell anyone or not.
Because I have though about that. And doing so makes this whole thing bizarre, because why ARE we do fixated on those people who clearly are trying to do the right thing by protecting others regardless of if they tell them or not? Why is so much of the discussion focused on them, of all people! It's just bizarre.
Shadows of leprosy. Just so many shadows of leprosy...
Just curious, do you treat all non-zero chances this same way, with this same venom, fear, and level of concern? Like, are you equally concerned about the non-zero possibility of condoms/birth control/IUDs/even all these combined failing and an unintentional pregnancy occuring? The possibility that you get into or are the (accidental) cause of an automobile accident? The chance of a horrific death in a plane accident? Because those are also events that are just as (and in the case of stuff like car accidents, way more) likely to happen on any given day, every day of the year, yet most people push them out of their mind.
Why is this non-zero event different? Especially since, if you'd consider those accidents or what-have-you, and that's why it's different. The accident part.... You realize we're talking about people ACTUALLY using protection here, right? That that is what all this zero/non-zero stuff is about? The fact that they're using protection in of itself means they're NOT trying to infect anyone. If they didn't give a fuck about that, they wouldn't take itto begin with. We're talking about people who ARE in fact trying to do the right thing, to reduce their viral load to zero so that they DON'T infect others and treating them like lepers anyway (the irony of how leprosy itself is so infamous in part because of historical misconceptions over such aspects of the disease such as it's method of transmission that were so widespread that even though we know better now it's still in our lexicon to this day), as if they're some type of super-villain regardless.
The act itself is proof of their true intentions, regardless of whether they share that fact or not. If they didn't care at all, why bother taking that protection to begin with? That's not very consistent, is it? They of course ideally SHOULD tell the other person regardless, that's indeed what SHOULD happen, but if they don't, I can't really blame them since revealing that fact will aparently have others just treat them like lepers regardless. Just look at all the misinformation in this thread and the fact that you're even asking this question to begin with for proof. That you're asking such a thing and are so concerned by people who ARE in fact TRYING to do the right thing, by taking the proper medication which not only protects themselves but others as well by reducing the rate of transmission to as close to zero as anyway.
Yet the fact that you are very concerned with making the distinction between true zero and as close to zero as possible while not technically being zero reveals your true intentions and thoughts, regardless of whether you yourself realize it or not, and how you see them as lepers regardless of which actions they take or do not take. Like, seriously. Stop and think about that for a zero.
Unless, that is, you do treat other not-technically zero chances the same? Like the chance of accidental pregnancy even when using multiple forms of contraception? The chance if dying each time you get into a car? A plane? The chance of the Yellowstone supervolcano errupting on any given day? Do you treat all of those the same way that you're approaching this subject, since they're all just as (and in the case of cars, moresi, especially when we consider that's an activity most people engage in multiple times each day, driving, so over the course of a typical lifespan that's exponentially more likely that you'll be involved in some form of automobile accident) likely, so you approach all of those from this same point of view, right?
If not, why? And in particular, why is so much of this venom reserved for people who are in fact trying to do the right thing. Because realize, this current discussion, about zero and non-zero isn't framed on just anyone with HIV, but rather those who ARE in fact taking the proper medication and protection, to help not only themselves, but proevt others as well, regardless of whether they tell others or not. We're still talking about people who are doing everything they can to reduce the rate of transmission regardless. Why is so much of your venom seemingly reserved for people like that, of all people? Just stop and think about that. Just stop and think about that for a moment. Are you really treating this the same as other non-zero chances or not, and if not, why is so much concern being directed toward THOSE people, if all people, who are clearly trying to do the right thing regardless of whether they tell anyone or not.
Because I have though about that. And doing so makes this whole thing bizarre, because why ARE we do fixated on those people who clearly are trying to do the right thing by protecting others regardless of if they tell them or not? Why is so much of the discussion focused on them, of all people! It's just bizarre.
Shadows of leprosy. Just so many shadows of leprosy...
Nope.
Not really sure why there is an agenda to push the idea that it is, the possibility is radically reduced, but there's absolutely still a chance of transmission.
Again, I'm not sure why people seem to be pushing some sort of agenda that HIV is just like any other infection and is easily treatable/has little impact on day to day life.
What's the motive behind this?
People need to take responsibility it's as simple as that.
If you have HIV tell the other person - if they want to sleep with you then they will. Otherwise, deal with it, you're not entitled to anything just because the other person is statistically unlikely to get it - especially when those statistics rely on you taking your meds correctly.
hurricanes
Member
People get into their cars KNOWING there is a chance of accidents. You parter has the right to KNOW the risk, however small that is.
bigjeffery
Member
Reactionary woke-ism.
Why are there so many posts laser focused on supposed selfishness of the person spreading HIV? Get over it. That's not what most people are talking about.
What we are talking about is the usefulness of these laws in combating the spread of HIV and other STDs. And these laws, as has been demonstrated, are not useful. They do not work. Point blank.
And news flash, when you have access to medication, HIV is easily treatable and doesn't have a major impact on your day to day lie. There are several HIV medications that are one pill a day with no discernible side effects. Sticking to an HIV treatment regimen, today, is easier than diabetes, most cancers, and fuck, even ASTHMA.
ShironRedshift
Member
WHO'S FUCKING SAYING THIS? WHO?
Of course there's a fucking chance! No duh. There's a chance of everything and anything. No one's denying that there's technically a chance. The real questions are:
A.) Why it's apparently so important to make that distinction between technically Zeo or not to do msny people, when that much should be obvious and the point is that it's as close to zero as possible, and that people are so ficlxated on a technically non-zero chance when it's doubtful they apply the same caution to other aspects of their lives, such as avoiding personal automobiles under the same logic, which begs the question of why so much scrutiny is being applied to this one particular non-zero chance unlike those
And
B.) Why do much of the discussion has apparently been taken up by an obsession with people who are HIV+, but are doing the right thing by taking the protective medication that reduces their viral load to as close to zero as possible in the first place, but despite taken that protective measure to help not only themselves but other, acting like they're out to infect others anyway simply because they don't tell someone and that they're super-villains anyway. If they were trying to intentionally infect people, they wouldn't bother taking that shit in the first place! So why is do much of this discussion focused on THEM of all people? It boggles the mind.
Like, if we were talking about people who weren't bothering to use any form of protection at all, that would be one thing. But NOPE. Somehow the discussion has shifted that even those who are trying to do the right thing, and take protective medication, are just as much lepers as anyone else, if not more so, since the discussion is focusing so much on them of all people.
Why's it matter? Why are THEY the ones people are so focused on that we keep having this zero/nonzero or whatever discussion in this thread? Doesn't that strike anyone else as at least JUST A LITTLE odd? That this discussion is apparently so important, that we keep coming back to it?
Like not the ones who aren't even bothering to take any medication at all. Nope. The focus of the discussion apparently just had to be those who ARE in fact taking medication to reduce their viral load to as close to zero as possible and whether that chance is technically zero or not. THAT'S apparently one of the pressing questions of this thread. One of the ones we keep coming back to. Not even those who aren't bothering at all. Whether those who are trying are technically zero or nonzero or I don't even know. THAT'S what apparently needs to dominate.
And people struggle to understand why someone might be hesitant to reveal if they're HIV+, even if they are in fact trying to do the right thing. Heh, I wonder. Threads and discussions like this are why. They're exactly why.
Exactly.
HIV today is not being spread by the positive person diligently taking their medications and living a healthy life. It's being spread by the people who don't know their status, don't WANT to know their status, and don't want to face the reality of their status because of the fear that they're going to be treated like lepers by society, and threads like this only prove why that fear is so prevalent and why laws like this do more harm than good.
GameAddict411
Member
But that's assuming everyone takes their daily medication on time. Skipping a few doses will increase the risk significantly. I still wouldn't feel comfortable with unprotected sex unless there is trust and monogamy.
GameAddict411
Member
Poor GRIMES
Banned
Let me compile:
1. A little over half of those that are HIV positive believe its ethically right to disclose your status to sexual partners.
2. Criminalzing HIV transmission as a felony creates fear, leading to those that may have the disease to not get treated because of the personal and professional ramifications.
3. Many states treat HIV positive people as inherently dangerous to the community because of these types of laws, leading to cruel and unusual punishments. In the case of Rhoades, an HIV positive man, who was sentenced to 25 years of prison and was forced to register as a sex offender because of consensual sex between him and another man. To put this in perspective, neither parties mentioned HIV directly prior to their encounter, and the encounter itself was not risky: condoms were used, Rhoades was on his medication, and transmission did not occur. The punishment still held. This is wrong.
4. No one is arguing that HIV is a benign disease; it is not. But it is also not the death sentence it used to be in the 80s and 90s because of advanced treatments.
5. People in favor of destigmatization believe that at-risk populations are encouraged to test for HIV because the stigma will not be there; people will not be ostracized anymore because of both their intial testing for the disease and the potential of them testing postively for the disease.
6. It is best to hold both parties accountable in their consensual relations. The exception to this is when the power dynamics differ: in the case of an older man with a younger male adult, where coercion may factor in it.
7. Disclosure of HIV with those that are positive happens more often than not. Posters in this thread are not in favor of protecting those that intentially withhold information when asked.
For further literature:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...disclose-that-to-every-sexual-partner/265736/
1. A little over half of those that are HIV positive believe its ethically right to disclose your status to sexual partners.
2. Criminalzing HIV transmission as a felony creates fear, leading to those that may have the disease to not get treated because of the personal and professional ramifications.
3. Many states treat HIV positive people as inherently dangerous to the community because of these types of laws, leading to cruel and unusual punishments. In the case of Rhoades, an HIV positive man, who was sentenced to 25 years of prison and was forced to register as a sex offender because of consensual sex between him and another man. To put this in perspective, neither parties mentioned HIV directly prior to their encounter, and the encounter itself was not risky: condoms were used, Rhoades was on his medication, and transmission did not occur. The punishment still held. This is wrong.
4. No one is arguing that HIV is a benign disease; it is not. But it is also not the death sentence it used to be in the 80s and 90s because of advanced treatments.
5. People in favor of destigmatization believe that at-risk populations are encouraged to test for HIV because the stigma will not be there; people will not be ostracized anymore because of both their intial testing for the disease and the potential of them testing postively for the disease.
6. It is best to hold both parties accountable in their consensual relations. The exception to this is when the power dynamics differ: in the case of an older man with a younger male adult, where coercion may factor in it.
7. Disclosure of HIV with those that are positive happens more often than not. Posters in this thread are not in favor of protecting those that intentially withhold information when asked.
For further literature:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...disclose-that-to-every-sexual-partner/265736/
Discourse
Member
It's a proven scientific fact. The medications have advanced a lot since the 80's to the point where you just take one pill a day to suppress the virus to undetectable levels. Side effects from the medications are also not as bad as they used to be even 10 years ago. Magic Johnson has been living with HIV for at least 26 years.