Quote:
Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said his coalition was "dismayed and shocked by the Supreme Court’s decision.
"It is a step backward for public health and for human rights," Mr. Elliott said. "The Supreme Court has ignored the solid science and has opened the door to convictions for non-disclosure even where the risk of transmission is negligible – in the realm of 1 in 100,000."
|
Something about this quote doesn't make sense.
So they've created a new law that says that people are not legally obligated to inform their partners that they are HIV positive, as long as they have low HIV levels and use a condom.
The guy from the HIV Legal Network thinks this will open the door to convictions for non disclosure even when the rist is negligible? Isn't that exactly what the law was designed to protect, people whose chance of passing on the virus are negligible because they have low levels and use condoms?