HIV infected no longer need to inform partners.

[MrMastodonFarm]

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.

[sevenarms]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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

That's one mighty turn off.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Ah yes....good ol' grey area Canadian Law. Who decides what are "low levels".

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by sevenarms

That's one mighty turn off.

That's rather a short sight comment. I think that piece of information is key before you ger your end away.

NO?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Ah yes....good ol' grey area Canadian Law. Who decides what are "low levels".

Anytime a law deals with the reasonableness of an action there will be grey area, that's sort of how that works. There is no way to have a black or white answer to these situations.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Anytime a law deals with the reasonableness of an action there will be grey area, that's sort of how that works. There is no way to have a black or white answer to these situations.

I don't see it as grey. If the person knew or ought to have known they were infected, then they should disclose same to their partners. Is it unromantic, yeah, but I am sorry that's life in the big leagues.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't see it as grey. If the person knew or ought to have known they were infected, then they should disclose same to their partners. Is it unromantic, yeah, but I am sorry that's life in the big leagues.

Re-read what you posted from the second article, this is an assessment of reasonableness which by definition will have many aspects of grey to it. There's no black or white answer to what is reasonable, every circumstance is different.

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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

they do deserve to know, i agree!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Re-read what you posted from the second article, this is an assessment of reasonableness which by definition will have many aspects of grey to it. There's no black or white answer to what is reasonable, every circumstance is different.

If knows they have the virus, or takes part in activites that puts them at risk of contracting the virus, I believe they should be informing their partners.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If knows they have the virus, or takes part in activites that puts them at risk of contracting the virus, I believe they should be informing their partners.

I've never said anything to the contrary, my response was to someone about the legal standards, not your personal opinion.

[YYC in LAX]

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.

Pretty sure you're right. Actually, I'm not just sure, I'm HIV positive.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

I've never said anything to the contrary, my response was to someone about the legal standards, not your personal opinion.

sorry miss read you

[Cecil Terwilliger]

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?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

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?

He's saying that they should be allowed not to disclose if they have low levels and don't use a condom.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by SebC

He's saying that they should be allowed not to disclose if they have low levels and don't use a condom.

Not quite. I think he's saying that even people who are high risk should be able to not disclose if they use a condom.

The quote below would suggest that he's definitely not saying that low level people should be able to not use a condom.

"In practice, the court’s ruling means that people risk being criminally prosecuted even in cases where they took precautions such as using condoms – which are 100 per cent effective when used properly," he said.

[flylock shox]

Interesting decision, particularly the fact it was unanimous.

One important thing to note is that it arises in the criminal context, i.e., the Court has found it's not appropriate to criminalize the conduct referred to. That doesn't mean a "victim" doesn't have a means of redress. They could always bring a civil action seeking compensation for any mental distress they experienced upon learning of their partner's infection.

A colleague of mine was involved a few years ago in the criminal defence of an HIV positive guy who was up on aggravated assault charges. He was privy to a lot of the science underpinning the "low viral load" defence that was used in this case. Basically, although most people and the media in particular are of the view that HIV is deadly and easily transmissible, it's actually quite hard to catch, and made even less so through the use of antiretroviral medications and safe sex practices.

The result seems to me to be that people are responsible for their own sexual health, and if they don't make inquiries of their sexual partners, generally they are stuck with the consequences (absent some civil remedies that may be available).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

Pretty sure you're right. Actually, I'm not just sure, I'm HIV positive.

Are you really?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by peter12

Are you really?

Woooosh.

[Sr. Mints]

Don't worry, folks--as long as you cook your partner until the internal temperature reaches 160 °F, you'll be fine.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

Don't worry, folks--as long as you cook your partner until the internal temperature reaches 160 °F, you'll be fine.

But where is the best place for the 'thermometer'?