HIV infected no longer need to inform partners.

[undercoverbrother]

WOW this is a crazy decision. HIV infection is like being kind of pregnant?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...680/story.html

The Supreme Court of Canada has absolved HIV carriers of the legal obligation to inform sex partners about their condition as long as they have a low level of the virus and use condoms.
In a 9-0 ruling, the high court specifies those two key conditions, clarifying the rules on whether it is a crime for people with extremely low levels of HIV to withhold their condition from their sex partners.

[cDnStealth]

W...t...f?

[return to the red]

k what? How do you have low leves of HIV? Isn't it pretty black and white, yes or no?

"How come you never told me you have HIV!? Now I have HIV!"

"Don't worry baby, it's just low levels"

[Ducay]

We're obviously missing some key understanding of how "low level HIV" works; the Supreme Court doesn't often agree 9-0, so it must have been a pretty slam dunk decision.

[AR_Six]

^Eh, unanmious courts aren't that uncommon.

What always gets me about these news stories is they never provide a link to the actual decision.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Ducay

We're obviously missing some key understanding of how "low level HIV" works; the Supreme Court doesn't often agree 9-0, so it must have been a pretty slam dunk decision.

You may be right. Newpapers often leave out much in their stories, but we are talking life altering/life ending situations here.

Even if you have low level and low risk of infecting your partner, there is still a risk.

How would be willing to take that risk? I would not.

[GreenLantern2814]

"It's just Harper's way of back-dooring gay hate into the national consciousness" - reactionary students

[undercoverbrother]

this is a better story, more info.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4591389/

Specifically, today's decisions said that in order to obtain a conviction for aggravated sexual assault, the Crown must show that an accused person failed to disclose his or her HIV status despite there being "a realistic possibility" of transmission.

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."

[undercoverbrother]

It makes me wonder if Jacob Zuma is sitting on the bench.....

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^Eh, unanmious courts aren't that uncommon.
.

Agreed, however if it were a contentious issue that put the public at a major risk, you'd at least have a couple dissenting votes. Obviously the legality behind their decision was pretty clear.

[BloodFetish]

Is there a HIV "low level" test that I'm not aware of? Like a breathalyzer or something?

[Regulator75]

Being married and monogamous is now AWESOME!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Being married and monogamous is now AWESOME!

haha, I said the same this to my wife this morning after watching that story. Then I waved my wang in her face.

[Yasa]

I think the "low-level" is based on people taking antiretroviral medications which sort of halts the progression of HIV to AIDS. I don't know for sure, but I think that's what it means. So I can only assume that if somebody is taking ARVs then the chances of transmission are relatively low.

But...I think that's a poor reason and a poor decision. It's pretty reckless and irresponsible to not disclose something as serious as that. Even if the chance of transmission is low, there's still a risk and HIV/AIDS is too serious of a disease to not let people know.

[peter12]

From what I have read, being on HAART for HIV/AIDS, and having undetectable or "low levels" of the virus probably means you have a lower likelihood of passing the virus to a partner than if you were using condoms.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by peter12

From what I have read, being on HAART for HIV/AIDS, and having undetectable or "low levels" of the virus probably means you have a lower likelihood of passing the virus to a partner than if you were using condoms.

Those two words are what scare me. WHile it's "lower" it is still a likelihood.

Interesting that the AIDS/HIV advocacy groups seem unhappy with this decision.

[MrMastodonFarm]

This is only okay if you're not wearing protection. If a person who has HIV chooses not to use protection they have to tell their partner. With the "low level" and wearing a condom the chances are slim-to-none of transferring the virus.

Still... if I was about to bone someone, who had HIV, even if I was going to use a condom.. I'd still like to know.

[mykalberta]

nm, I just dont care enough

[HELPNEEDED]

Fact even with super high levels and a condom used the un-infected partner is safe 99.999% of the time.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

Fact even with super high levels and a condom used the un-infected partner is safe 99.999% of the time.

Sure that's true, but don't you think the partner should know about the infection?