People Who Pass On AIDS Virus May be Sued

[Laura_and_IanM 0]

I have to say that I agree with Lisa on this one. Personally, I think that each and every one of us should take responsibility and if we are so worried about it, then we should get tested and make sure that our partners get tested if not already done. And not to mention, just because the first test comes back negative DOES not mean that they are in the clear. I believe you have to go through a serious of test spread out over a year or two (not sure what the time frame is tbh). I have always asked my partners if they have been tested, if they have then great! Even with that though, going by their word is still not a guarantee. I know how many men I have been with and I tell ya, I have to say that I feel like the virgin Mary compared to some of the younger girls that use to work for me at a restuarant I use to manage. I mean these girls are only 18 and have already been with like 20+ guys!!! AND HAVE BEEN HAVING SEX SINCE THEY WERE 14-16. I just can't get over it lol. When one of them asked me once how many men I have been with, she laughed! She literally laughed in my face because I could count on one hand and still have some fingers left!!! I am proud to say that I haven't been with more than what I have been. I respect myself for it. We need to teach responsibility instead of teaching people how to sue. I am surprised that they don't have a class labeled "How to sue so you don't ever have to work again 101"!!!! We play with fire, expect to get burned. Its kind of like playing poker. If you have pocket Aces, and go all in, you take the risk that someone is going to call you with fook all and still beat your sorry a$$!! You have sex without taking precautions...lol you better be ready to pay the piper when he comes knocking...and you may not like the bill he gives you...sorry mam or sir..but you must now pay with your life...

You could have sex with only one man in your life for 10 years, no problems and then in your 11th year you contract AIDS. You are not responsible for your partner's infidelity. I seriously doubt any judge is going to rule in a woman's favor who has a one-night-stand of unprotected sex with a stranger. The courts aren't going to remove any personal responsibility from the plaintiff - don't you guys ever watch Judge Judy??? Oye!

WE arent saying that you are responsible for your partners infidelity!! We are saying you are responsible for your own ACTIONS!!! If you are going to sleep with someone, then you have to find out some background information about him or her and their past sexual partners...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think that if a person is going to be so cavalier with risking his/her own life, fear of a lawsuit, or fear of establishing blame is not going to do much either.

Perhaps, but as I said I think apathy is a major problem. People do not act in accordance with their own self interest - as I mentioned poor voter turnout, people refusing to vote are not doing themselves or others any favours. Should they be charged with a criminal offence? I'm not so sure, but I understand the philosophy behind it.

As I see it politicians are simply trying find new ways to solve old problems. Doesn't mean it will work - but something has to be done, as clearly you can't force people to attend mandatory HIV screenings.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You could have sex with only one man in your life for 10 years, no problems and then in your 11th year you contract AIDS. You are not responsible for your partner's infidelity.

WE arent saying that you are responsible for your partners infidelity!! We are saying you are responsible for your own ACTIONS!!! If you are going to sleep with someone, then you have to find out some background information about him or her and their past sexual partners...

What about their sexual partners while they are in a relationship with you? How can you possibly keep track of that without making it a habit of always have a PI track your SO from the beginning of your relationship to death/breakup?

[Laura_and_IanM 0]

You could have sex with only one man in your life for 10 years, no problems and then in your 11th year you contract AIDS. You are not responsible for your partner's infidelity.

WE arent saying that you are responsible for your partners infidelity!! We are saying you are responsible for your own ACTIONS!!! If you are going to sleep with someone, then you have to find out some background information about him or her and their past sexual partners...

What about their sexual partners while they are in a relationship with you? How can you possibly keep track of that without making it a habit of always have a PI track your SO from the beginning of your relationship to death/breakup?

That is a good question but I think that is going to get off the original topic. Now you are falling into trust and that isn't being brought up in the so called law or whatever. Although I guess you can use that as a good defensive arguement in regards to someone suing. They could turn around and say well yeah we understand that you have been given AIDS/HIV, but you need to be held accountable because you trusted this person..obviously your choice or judgement of character should be the one on stand...So many ways of looking at it and of course we aren't all going to agree.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You could have sex with only one man in your life for 10 years, no problems and then in your 11th year you contract AIDS. You are not responsible for your partner's infidelity.

WE arent saying that you are responsible for your partners infidelity!! We are saying you are responsible for your own ACTIONS!!! If you are going to sleep with someone, then you have to find out some background information about him or her and their past sexual partners...

What about their sexual partners while they are in a relationship with you? How can you possibly keep track of that without making it a habit of always have a PI track your SO from the beginning of your relationship to death/breakup?

That is a good question but I think that is going to get off the original topic. Now you are falling into trust and that isn't being brought up in the so called law or whatever. Although I guess you can use that as a good defensive arguement in regards to someone suing. They could turn around and say well yeah we understand that you have been given AIDS/HIV, but you need to be held accountable because you trusted this person..obviously your choice or judgement of character should be the one on stand...So many ways of looking at it and of course we aren't all going to agree.

When you buy a new car from a dealer, you trust that the car really is new. Lemon laws exist in so many states precisely to protect the consumer from this breach of trust.

There is no reason to think that the law can not or should not protect one against certain forms of breaches of trust. Certainly, when said breach results in a terminal illness, it is difficult to argue that the law should not play a role. If the breach resulted in nothing more than a broken heart, I'd see your point about the law not playing a role. But when you give someone a bug that will (not may) kill them, you oughta be responsible. It's not that much unlike a visitor slipping on water on the floor of your house and suing you for damages. Even if you didn't realize the water was there, even if you didn't realize hazardous conditions existed, guess what? You should have known...

[Aymerlu 3]

Chance are, it won't ever be a man contracting AIDS from a woman, but I believe it's almost always the woman who contracts it from the man in a heterosexual encounter.

So not true. I worked in a public heath clinic for a while and a woman passes on the virus just as easy and the man.

[Fandango 1,439]

I think that if a person is going to be so cavalier with risking his/her own life, fear of a lawsuit, or fear of establishing blame is not going to do much either.

Perhaps, but as I said I think apathy is a major problem. People do not act in accordance with their own self interest - as I mentioned poor voter turnout, people refusing to vote are not doing themselves or others any favours. Should they be charged with a criminal offence? I'm not so sure, but I understand the philosophy behind it.

As I see it politicians are simply trying find new ways to solve old problems. Doesn't mean it will work - but something has to be done, as clearly you can't force people to attend mandatory HIV screenings.

I think it's a dangerous step to have the government get involved to govern ppl's sexual activities tho...we're walking a really fine line here, imo....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

WE arent saying that you are responsible for your partners infidelity!! We are saying you are responsible for your own ACTIONS!!! If you are going to sleep with someone, then you have to find out some background information about him or her and their past sexual partners...

Understood, however you're whole complaint is that somehow this ruling puts the weight of the responsibility on the partner with AIDS and none on the non-infected partner. I've just reread the article and nowhere does it say that the non-infected partner is absolved from taking any responsibility. What I understand this ruling to do is that it assigns responsibility to anyone who has reason to believe they are carriers of the AIDS virus - that they are responsible to tell their partners about that risk. That not knowing you have the AIDS virus cannot be a legitimate excuse, if you are putting yourself at risk by unprotected sex that is extra-marital or outside the primary relationship.

John conceded that he would be liable if he had affirmatively known, by means of an AIDS test or medical diagnosis, that he was infected when he had sex with Bridget. But he argued that the information Bridget sought could at best show that he had reason to know he was infected and that such so-called constructive knowledge should not be enough to give rise to liability.

So the defendent in this case thought he was not liable since he hadn't been tested, and the court is saying that's not a good enough excuse. It's the defendent actions prior to the relationship or during that make him liable. Does that make sense?

Edited July 4, 2006 by StevenJinky

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Understood, however you're whole complaint is that somehow this ruling puts the weight of the responsibility on the partner with AIDS and none on the non-infected partner. I've just reread the article and nowhere does it say that the non-infected partner is absolved from taking any responsibility. What I understand this ruling to do is that it assigns responsibility to anyone who has reason to believe they are carriers of the AIDS virus - that they are responsible to tell their partners about that risk. That not knowing you have the AIDS virus cannot be a legitimate excuse, if you are putting yourself at risk by unprotected sex that is extra-marital or outside the primary relationship.

John conceded that he would be liable if he had affirmatively known, by means of an AIDS test or medical diagnosis, that he was infected when he had sex with Bridget. But he argued that the information Bridget sought could at best show that he had reason to know he was infected and that such so-called constructive knowledge should not be enough to give rise to liability.

So the defendent in this case thought he was not liable since he hadn't been tested, and the court is saying that's not a good enough excuse. It's the defendent actions prior to the relationship or during that make him liable. Does that make sense?

so he's liable even though he didn't know he had it. interesting. next up, lawsuits for carrying a cancer gene.

on another note, that's something nessa and i had done before we met. brought new meaning to "i'll show you mine if you show me yours"

[Caladan 19]

This ruling just strikes me as a bit weird. Intentional spreading of the virus? Take 'em out and beat 'em. If you don't know that you have it and spread it through normal sexual contact? Ehhhhhhh.

It's supposed to encourage people to look after their own help, but a) I don't think it'll work and B) I'm not sure of the validity of the law that requires one to seek medical testing. Would a law requiring monthly physicals (to ensure no one's running around with a bad immune system) be legit?

It may lead to good results, but I'm not sure it's good law.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think that if a person is going to be so cavalier with risking his/her own life, fear of a lawsuit, or fear of establishing blame is not going to do much either.

Perhaps, but as I said I think apathy is a major problem. People do not act in accordance with their own self interest - as I mentioned poor voter turnout, people refusing to vote are not doing themselves or others any favours. Should they be charged with a criminal offence? I'm not so sure, but I understand the philosophy behind it.

As I see it politicians are simply trying find new ways to solve old problems. Doesn't mean it will work - but something has to be done, as clearly you can't force people to attend mandatory HIV screenings.

I think it's a dangerous step to have the government get involved to govern ppl's sexual activities tho...we're walking a really fine line here, imo....

To a degree its common sense - they're not criminalising it, which is different to those laws that make it a criminal offence for someone diagnosed with an incurable disease to WILFULLY infect a person with it.

I don't know if legislating is the best option, but something needs to be done about general apathy, and if individuals can't/won't do it and accept responsibility for their behaviour I don't really have a problem with the government doing something. At the end of the day this is about monetary damages - after all if you hit someone with your car, they have the right to sue.

[Alex+R 0]

Chance are, it won't ever be a man contracting AIDS from a woman, but I believe it's almost always the woman who contracts it from the man in a heterosexual encounter.

So not true. I worked in a public heath clinic for a while and a woman passes on the virus just as easy and the man.

That's actually not true. Women are actually much less capable of passing it on than a man is, in terms of anatomy.

And to whoever said that negative tests aren't conclusive (too lazy to go back and look), they are, if your risky encounter was 6 months ago or more. It is a positive test, if not done in the traditional blood-test way but in the 30-minute finger-prink way, that is inconclusive.

A law of this type was inevitable, but also a shame, in my opinion. I think it REMOVES the burden of personal responsibility because now the law is telling you it's not your fault if you contract HIV. In fact it is so much not your fault that you can sue the person who gave it to you.

I would also say that it really ISN'T your fault if you get it from a longtime cheating partner. Basically, there is far too much grey area on this issue to ever merit legislation. I can't believe they did it!

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I think that if a person is going to be so cavalier with risking his/her own life, fear of a lawsuit, or fear of establishing blame is not going to do much either.

Perhaps, but as I said I think apathy is a major problem. People do not act in accordance with their own self interest - as I mentioned poor voter turnout, people refusing to vote are not doing themselves or others any favours. Should they be charged with a criminal offence? I'm not so sure, but I understand the philosophy behind it.

As I see it politicians are simply trying find new ways to solve old problems. Doesn't mean it will work - but something has to be done, as clearly you can't force people to attend mandatory HIV screenings.

I think it's a dangerous step to have the government get involved to govern ppl's sexual activities tho...we're walking a really fine line here, imo....

To a degree its common sense - they're not criminalising it, which is different to those laws that make it a criminal offence for someone diagnosed with an incurable disease to WILFULLY infect a person with it.

I don't know if legislating is the best option, but something needs to be done about general apathy, and if individuals can't/won't do it and accept responsibility for their behaviour I don't really have a problem with the government doing something. At the end of the day this is about monetary damages - after all if you hit someone with your car, they have the right to sue.

when you have to get the government's permission to have sex in the future....remember this conversation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think that if a person is going to be so cavalier with risking his/her own life, fear of a lawsuit, or fear of establishing blame is not going to do much either.

Perhaps, but as I said I think apathy is a major problem. People do not act in accordance with their own self interest - as I mentioned poor voter turnout, people refusing to vote are not doing themselves or others any favours. Should they be charged with a criminal offence? I'm not so sure, but I understand the philosophy behind it.

As I see it politicians are simply trying find new ways to solve old problems. Doesn't mean it will work - but something has to be done, as clearly you can't force people to attend mandatory HIV screenings.

I think it's a dangerous step to have the government get involved to govern ppl's sexual activities tho...we're walking a really fine line here, imo....

To a degree its common sense - they're not criminalising it, which is different to those laws that make it a criminal offence for someone diagnosed with an incurable disease to WILFULLY infect a person with it.

I don't know if legislating is the best option, but something needs to be done about general apathy, and if individuals can't/won't do it and accept responsibility for their behaviour I don't really have a problem with the government doing something. At the end of the day this is about monetary damages - after all if you hit someone with your car, they have the right to sue.

when you have to get the government's permission to have sex in the future....remember this conversation

I don't see this as a particularly big issue. I don't think anyone can deny that undiagnosed HIV (due to people not bothering to practice safe sex and get themselves checked out) is one of the major reasons that this disease is so prevalent.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

so he's liable even though he didn't know he had it. interesting. next up, lawsuits for carrying a cancer gene.

on another note, that's something nessa and i had done before we met. brought new meaning to "i'll show you mine if you show me yours"

It means if he has had unprotected sex prior to being with you or during your relationship, in essence putting himself at risk for AIDS and he doesn't reveal that in some way that is clear to you that he may have exposed himself and possibly have contracted AIDS, he'll be held liable for not telling you. We have all kinds of disclosure laws as Agent Smith pointed out. If you buy a house and the seller doesn't tell you there is a hug crack in the foundation - you can sue them, even if the seller was unaware of it. It's their responsibility to have the house fully inspected prior to selling. What part of that doesn't make sense?