HIV infected no longer need to inform partners.

[Sr. Mints]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

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

Don't ask me, man--I'm a scientist.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

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

Thickest part of the meat

[GGG]

I think it shoukd be up to the individual to ask their partner if they have HIV. You are responsibke for your own sexual health and if you are willing to risk not asking that is your own fault.

An HIV positive person should be required to use a condom to reduce risk but I dont see why they should be forced to provide Health information when it isnt requested.

You dont need to inform about any other STDs so why is HIV special

[cal_guy]

Here's the Supreme Court Judgement.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2012/2012scc47/2012scc47.html

The court also ruled on a case where a woman who had HIV with low viral load (no HIV detected in blood tests) who had an initial sexual encounter with a man prior to her disclosure of her HIV status. They broke up then got back together and then 4 years later they broke up where he then launched a criminal complaint.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2012/2012scc48/2012scc48.html

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think it shoukd be up to the individual to ask their partner if they have HIV. You are responsibke for your own sexual health and if you are willing to risk not asking that is your own fault.

An HIV positive person should be required to use a condom to reduce risk but I dont see why they should be forced to provide Health information when it isnt requested.

You dont need to inform about any other STDs so why is HIV special

I couldn't disagree more. "You didn't ask" is not an acceptable reason to give someone HIV.

As for other STDs, I see no reason where there shoudln't be a responsibility to disclose there too (and are you sure there isn't?)

[Mike F]

I haven't read the case in full yet, but I think people aren't understanding the technicality of the question at issue and thus the decision.

From a quick skimming, the offense that the non-disclosure laws are built around is aggravated sexual assault. The test for aggravated sexual assault requires it to be proven that the "sexual contact poses a significant risk of or causes actual serious bodily harm".

The court looked at the latest science related to HIV transmission and concluded that "as a general matter, a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if: (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low and (ii) condom protection was used."

I.e. where a person has a low viral load and a condom is used, there isn't "a significant risk of serious bodily harm" and thus the person's conduct does not rise to the level that the non-disclosure laws deem criminal.

That appears to be it.

So you can see why it was a 9-0 ruling.

[SebC]

It can also be argued that anything greater than zero is "significant".

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by SebC

It can also be argued that anything greater than zero is "significant".

Then you basically have to make illegal everything that could ever possibly lead to serious harm, no matter how remotely. Not exactly a reasonable thing to do.

[T@T]

Serious question:

Does anyone even get AIDS and die anymore? Even Africa has stopped talking about it lately...seems to me it kind of fizzled out...could be wrong though!

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by T@T

Serious question:

Does anyone even get AIDS and die anymore? Even Africa has stopped talking about it lately...seems to me it kind of fizzled out...could be wrong though!

7000 new cases per day, more than 15 per cent in children under 15. 1.8 million deaths in 2010, 1.7 million in 2011. (from 2011 UNAids report)

Deaths from HIV second only to acute respiratory infections for infectious diseases; in kids, second only to diarrhea.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by billybob123

7000 new cases per day, more than 15 per cent in children under 15. 1.8 million deaths in 2010, 1.7 million in 2011. (from 2011 UNAids report)

Deaths from HIV second only to acute respiratory infections for infectious diseases; in kids, second only to diarrhea.

holy crap

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Then you basically have to make illegal everything that could ever possibly lead to serious harm, no matter how remotely. Not exactly a reasonable thing to do.

It's not making anything illegal, it's making it illegal without disclosure.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by billybob123

7000 new cases per day, more than 15 per cent in children under 15. 1.8 million deaths in 2010, 1.7 million in 2011. (from 2011 UNAids report)

Deaths from HIV second only to acute respiratory infections for infectious diseases; in kids, second only to diarrhea.

More than I thought, A little search says 1.2m of them are from Africa, 500k for the rest of the world.

Very hard to find updated stats, most end in 2008-2009. seems to be slowing down considerably though.