Nondisclosure of HIV status should be decriminalized???

[kamilio]

This is madness! apparently the UN is recommending that countries decreminalize the nondisclosure of HIV status. Currently this is the case; "Whether Canada’s going to change the criminal law, which states that nondisclosure of HIV resulting in a “significant risk” of bodily harm can be considered aggravated sexual assault, depends on a Supreme Court of Canada decision that’s expected by fall."

Why would anyone want to legalize this monstrosity? I am a strong believer that anyone who knowingly has unprotected sex with a partner or spouse knowing full well that they have HIV and never discloses it is a criminal and SHOULD BE IN JAIL! Who are these buffoons who actually want to make this legal?? They should get the same jail time as murderers as they are essentially destroying lives knowingly.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1223427--nondisclosure-of-hiv-status-should-be-decriminalized-report

[stealth]

That's the UN for you.

[ovechkin1]

wow I think the equal rights movement has gone too far in this one.

[cheapmeister]

Another fail by the UN.

[fakishan]

If the court rules in favour of the Crown, then it could mean that anybody living with HIV who fails to disclose their HIV-status can be convicted, even if there is no significant risk of transmission.

Perhaps this is why. Most people don't know the difference between HIV and AIDS. We already have laws that criminalize willful transmission of AIDS. The path to criminalizing non disclosures of medical conditions is a steep one..

[Agafaba]

Perhaps this is why. Most people don't know the difference between HIV and AIDS. We already have laws that criminalize willful transmission of AIDS. The path to criminalizing non disclosures of medical conditions is a steep one..

http://aidssupport.aarogya.com/aids/what-is-aids/66-difference-between-hiv-a-aids.html

I am not so sure that you understand the difference either.

[peanutz]

I actually fully agree with all three UN recommendations. Nondisclosure is not the same as willful transmission or negligence. If someone takes the utmost care in minimizing risk to others, I side on the individual's right to privacy.

I've heard of some people never getting tested at all even if they know their chances of having gotten exposed to HIV are high...because of the current laws. Far worse, in my opinion.

[BornRuff]

This is madness! apparently the UN is recommending that countries decreminalize the nondisclosure of HIV status. Currently this is the case; "Whether Canada’s going to change the criminal law, which states that nondisclosure of HIV resulting in a “significant risk” of bodily harm can be considered aggravated sexual assault, depends on a Supreme Court of Canada decision that’s expected by fall."

Why would anyone want to legalize this monstrosity? I am a strong believer that anyone who knowingly has unprotected sex with a partner or spouse knowing full well that they have HIV and never discloses it is a criminal and SHOULD BE IN JAIL! Who are these buffoons who actually want to make this legal?? They should get the same jail time as murderers as they are essentially destroying lives knowingly.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1223427--nondisclosure-of-hiv-status-should-be-decriminalized-report

You should add these lines from the article to your first post.

"If the court rules in favour of the Crown, then it could mean that anybody living with HIV who fails to disclose their HIV-status can be convicted, even if there is no significant risk of transmission."

“countries may legitimately prosecute HIV transmission that was both actual and intentional, using general criminal law,”

So your hysteria that this report supports "destroying lives knowingly" being legal is unfounded.

I certainly don't know enough about this to comment on exactly where the line should be drawn on this stuff, but the main point is true, that treating people with HIV/AIDS wore harshly than necessary is just another barrier to people actually getting tested.

[kamilio]

You should add these lines from the article to your first post.

"If the court rules in favour of the Crown, then it could mean that anybody living with HIV who fails to disclose their HIV-status can be convicted, even if there is no significant risk of transmission."

“countries may legitimately prosecute HIV transmission that was both actual and intentional, using general criminal law,”

So your hysteria that this report supports "destroying lives knowingly" being legal is unfounded.

I certainly don't know enough about this to comment on exactly where the line should be drawn on this stuff, but the main point is true, that treating people with HIV/AIDS wore harshly than necessary is just another barrier to people actually getting tested.

Wrong. I read that and that is what made me even more hysteric. Whether there was transmission or whether the HIV infected person "tries" to be safe is irrelevant to me; HIV/AIDS is a weapon that can kill and if you have it then you should legally be obliged to disclose it to anyone that you have sexual intercourse with. Point blank! The UN is full of lunatics these days.

[flashy_mcflash]

I believe the logic is that criminalizing non-disclosure will discourage people from being tested at all, which is bad news for everyone because you'd have more people infecting others unknowingly. Truth be told, it's a bad situation either way and I'm not sure where I land on it yet.

[danfromwaterloo]

I think it's a stupid law, for one main reason: proof.

A) You need to establish that the person knew they were HIV positive, which may be difficult.
B) You need to establish that the person never informed the other partner, which would almost always result in he-said-she-said (or he-said-he-said,or she-said-she-said).

Yes, not telling a potential partner that you have HIV/AIDS is a real ***** move, and doing so should be against the law, but good laws must be enforceable. I don't see how this could be.

[kocoman]

When will this law be passed?