People Who Pass On AIDS Virus May be Sued

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

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?

oh great. at this rate we'll wind up with a us government disclosure form that one has to carry around and show before getting in bed. instead of imbra, it will be bedra!

[tomica52 0]

They are going to die... what are they going to sue them for??

[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....

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.

Exactly! And if a person is apathetic over his/her own life, a lawsuit won't be diddly squat...

I dunno about you, but I'd rather be sued than die. I'd rather neither happen, but I value my life more....and that's the rub...a person who doesn't give a chit about his/her own body will not, in logcal theory, be moved off their asses cos they could be sued.

There's my 1.57

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?

oh great. at this rate we'll wind up with a us government disclosure form that one has to carry around and show before getting in bed. instead of imbra, it will be bedra!

Get a notarized consent form on the way to the hotel

[onwa 6]

They are going to die... what are they going to sue them for??

Well, it could be awhile (20 +) years before you do. I say that if a person contracted HIV from someone who failed to disclose that information, the person would be sued for medical costs and any other related thing to HIV.

Edited July 5, 2006 by onwa

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

They are going to die... what are they going to sue them for??

Well, it could be awhile (20 +) years before you do. I say that if a person contracted HIV from someone who failed to disclose that information, the person would be sued for medical costs and any other related thing to HIV.

most likely, they'll just sue and make some attorney rich.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Exactly! And if a person is apathetic over his/her own life, a lawsuit won't be diddly squat...

I dunno about you, but I'd rather be sued than die. I'd rather neither happen, but I value my life more....and that's the rub...a person who doesn't give a chit about his/her own body will not, in logcal theory, be moved off their asses cos they could be sued.

There's my 1.57

But to go back to the earlier example - do you think that a person should not be able sue if they are hit by a car, or hit by.... I don't know... a falling piano (silly example I know).

This law is basically equating infecting someone with an infectious disease (such as HIV) with causing actual bodily harm through negligence.

I don't know whether or not it will be effective, but I think there is a valid reason to suggest that people should be held accountable for failing to take their sexual health seriously.

[sugarcane 0]

I don't know whether or not it will be effective, but I think there is a valid reason to suggest that people should be held accountable for failing to take their sexual health seriously.

I totaly agree.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In fact, I'm pretty sure in Europe if you do infect someone with HIV its regarded as GBH.

[Fandango 1,439]

Exactly! And if a person is apathetic over his/her own life, a lawsuit won't be diddly squat...

I dunno about you, but I'd rather be sued than die. I'd rather neither happen, but I value my life more....and that's the rub...a person who doesn't give a chit about his/her own body will not, in logcal theory, be moved off their asses cos they could be sued.

There's my 1.57

But to go back to the earlier example - do you think that a person should not be able sue if they are hit by a car, or hit by.... I don't know... a falling piano (silly example I know).

This law is basically equating infecting someone with an infectious disease (such as HIV) with causing actual bodily harm through negligence.

I don't know whether or not it will be effective, but I think there is a valid reason to suggest that people should be held accountable for failing to take their sexual health seriously.

I see what you're getting at...and I understand the dilemma, but I honestly don't know what the answer is. But up until now, you were saying how this is to combat apathetic people to be more responsible, and I can categorically say that my opinion on that is that it won't work.

Yes, hitting someone with your car - you should pay damages. Well, the insurance will pay. So what next? Sexual insurance thru StateFarm or AllState? (I'm being flippant here obviously). But yeah, you're walking down the street and someone throws a piano on you..you should sue.

Someone infecting another puposely? They should go to jail. But at the end of the day, jail comes with free healthcare, so to many that would be a Godsend.

I'm all for personal responsibility...and that works both ways. KNOW who you're sleeping with...get them checked. In the instance ofa philandering spouse or long term partner...well I have no answers there cos it's a dilemma....but I just don't like the idea of the gov't mandating sexual relationships...as I said earlier..it's a VERY fine line to walk. How do you prove who gave what to whom? How really would a court of law REALLY be able to categorically say - by a preponderance of evidence - who did what?

I dunno, I just don't like it at all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Exactly! And if a person is apathetic over his/her own life, a lawsuit won't be diddly squat...

I dunno about you, but I'd rather be sued than die. I'd rather neither happen, but I value my life more....and that's the rub...a person who doesn't give a chit about his/her own body will not, in logcal theory, be moved off their asses cos they could be sued.

There's my 1.57

But to go back to the earlier example - do you think that a person should not be able sue if they are hit by a car, or hit by.... I don't know... a falling piano (silly example I know).

This law is basically equating infecting someone with an infectious disease (such as HIV) with causing actual bodily harm through negligence.

I don't know whether or not it will be effective, but I think there is a valid reason to suggest that people should be held accountable for failing to take their sexual health seriously.

I see what you're getting at...and I understand the dilemma, but I honestly don't know what the answer is. But up until now, you were saying how this is to combat apathetic people to be more responsible, and I can categorically say that my opinion on that is that it won't work.

Yes, hitting someone with your car - you should pay damages. Well, the insurance will pay. So what next? Sexual insurance thru StateFarm or AllState? (I'm being flippant here obviously). But yeah, you're walking down the street and someone throws a piano on you..you should sue.

Someone infecting another puposely? They should go to jail. But at the end of the day, jail comes with free healthcare, so to many that would be a Godsend.

I'm all for personal responsibility...and that works both ways. KNOW who you're sleeping with...get them checked. In the instance ofa philandering spouse or long term partner...well I have no answers there cos it's a dilemma....but I just don't like the idea of the gov't mandating sexual relationships...as I said earlier..it's a VERY fine line to walk. How do you prove who gave what to whom? How really would a court of law REALLY be able to categorically say - by a preponderance of evidence - who did what?

I dunno, I just don't like it at all.

I'm not sure if I do either - but I can see the logic that a person should, first and foremost, be responsible for their own sexual health (not simply expecting others to follow suit).

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Well, the insurance will pay. So what next? Sexual insurance thru StateFarm or AllState? (I'm being flippant here obviously).

now that would be a funny commercial:

and like a good neighbor.......

you're in good hands....

bleh. currrently i'd have very low premiums anyways

Edited July 6, 2006 by charlesandnessa