Laws Are Needed...

 

This link is among the numerous posts online for this today.  The article details the investigation & arrest of an HIV+ man from Idaho.  He sought to spread HIV to as many men & boys as possible.  He admits having sex with between 30 - 50 men & boys without revealing his actual HIV status.  Who knows how many he infected.

These men can get treatment.   Maybe they should've known better.  Maybe it's not a life sentence.  Still, the onus was on him to reveal, as much it was for them to protect themselves.   This man is going to prison.   He may not have killed these people.  But he destroyed their lives as they had known them.  Nothing for them will ever be the same.  

We need laws against purposely spreading diseases, whether it's HIV or something else.  No one should have the right to knowingly infect another person.  Especially with something that has no cure.

I wish finding out about this was surprising, but it isn't.   That's all for now.

Cya...

No, But Yes...

 

Slightly busy morning, we need to 1st of the month stuff underway.  I didn't notice any articles this morning, so this is going to be an opinion matter.  People say HIV is no longer a death sentence & shouldn't be criminalized or have a person required  to  reveal  their status.  

Let's be clear, I don't anyone should be charged simply for being HIV+.  Onto my issues with this matter.  As for HIV no longer being a death sentence.   How 1st world of you.  If you can get the resources;  medical treatment, meds, food, housing, etc...  HIV probably won't kill you.  There's a lot places where none of those things are givens.

Again, back to HIV not being a death sentence.   It most certainly was to the life the person was living before they knew they were HIV+.  They will never be the same.  They will never live that same life again.  It's gone, it was replaced with a life of being + &  taking meds, seeing doctors, facing stigma, etc...

Finally, as for not revealing your status.  If you have sex with someone & you didn't  reveal pertinent info  about yourself, like being HIV+, that was a non-consensual encounter.  By not revealing that knowledge, you robbed that person of being able to give informed consent.  You violated them, their  trust,  their life.  You may not have used force, but you raped them & potentially ruined their life.

HIV shouldn't be criminalized.  But it shouldn't be  legitimized & normalized like it's a common cold.  Any one who feels HIV isn't at least in part a death sentence, is mistaken.  Any one who opts not to inform their partners is a monster.

My opinion on the matter, take care.

Cya...

Indirect HIV Meds...

 

Many HIV+ people wind up having other medical issues, due to or affected by their HIV status.  This can lead to the need for non-HIV meds.  Among those are opioids.  This isn't a great piece, but it's a start at looking at how new opioid regulation will impact HIV+ patients.  I hope there are more developed articles coming.

That's all for now.  It's overly warm, I'm dehydrated & I need a shower.   Take care.

Cya...

The Law...

 

Some  states are  moving to decriminalize the knowing transmission of HIV or having sex with someone with revealing your HIV+ status.  I don't support that.  

Hear me out.  I don't think HIV should be singled out.  I think if you knowingly expose someone to any serious illness without informing them, it should be considered assault with a biological agent.  If the other person is  denied the right to avoid the situation or to remove themselves, then their rights were violated.   Any action knowingly endangering others without their consent should be illegal.

That's my 2¢ on the matter. Take care.

Cya...

Thanks For Nothing...

I'm not a fan of using overtly political sites.  For this, I will.  The 1st article on Vox & the 2nd Washington Examiner.  The Vox article says requiring people who knowingly have HIV to disclose that to potential sex partners is too difficult & damaging.  They feel it only adds to the stigma of being +.  The 2nd piece is opposed & states some 2020 Presidential campaigners as supporting the repeal of such laws.  Pete Buttigieg & Cory Booker have supported the idea of undoing such "hardships."

Giving someone else the option to refuse sex with you because you have a STD, may not be pleasant, but it's the ethical & should remain legal thing to do.  If you have so little respect for your partner, then walk on by.  Having sex with someone while withholding such information, is deceptive.  IMO, it's a violation & should be treated as such.   

The repeal of such laws wouldn't support honest, caring people.  It would only aid callous cowards willing to potentially expose others to HIV.  These aren't noble people experiencing a hardship.  They're barely a step above zombies.   They want sex instead of brains.  Maybe if they used their brains, they'd see how harmful they're being.  It's doubtful, but it could happen.

Cya...

PS - I'll never vote for anyone supporting these repeals.

Consent...

This article is about a bill in the New York State Senate Health Committee.  If passed, it would allow doctors to test anyone for HIV without consent.  There was some reference to signage in  medical centers, but it was unclear & would be all the warning the patient was given.  Entrance would be taken as consent.  That wouldn't fly for sex, why should it for medical procedures?

I absolutely support testing.  But, I also fully support consent.  Who decides which patients to test?  Who's going to pay for this test?  It shouldn't be the patient, if they didn't request it.   This approach may have good intentions, but it's very misguided.  It could set a precedence for very dangerous & invasive things.

Your consent should always be required for anything involving your person.  Anything else, no matter the intent, is a violation.

Cya...

Another Smoky Morning...

I have to go out in a bit.  I had planned on doing more this morning, but 1 of my craptastic neighbors decided it was a good morning to burn piles of leaves.  The smoke bellowed right into my house.  My breathing is shot.  This basically killed my plans for today.  I hope my neighbor at least got burned.

Here's an interesting article on California's ridiculous new law.  It's a good read from someone else who actually happens to be +.  

Hope you have a great Friday the 13th.

Cya...

California WTF...

The governor of California signed a bill that will lower the knowing exposure of others to HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor.    Glad I don't live there.  What special kind of stupid do you have to be to pass this law?  Oh yes, you have to be a super-liberal.   Hope they choke on their capes.

This doesn't just include sexual exposure either, it covers blood donation as well.   Just amazing how far people are willing to bend over to appear PC.   But according to them HIV is just a minor inconvenience these days.  

I guess having to be tethered to amazingly expensive medications, doctors appointments & labs test is just a slight bump in the road nowadays.   I hope every person that pushed for the law contracts this illness so they can experience 1st hand the minor disturbance HIV will have on their life & well being.

This is just horrifyingly stupid.

Cya....

Utter Crap Proposal...

This newspaper article is a continuation of a post from a couple of days ago.  A new bill in California  would change a + person having without revealing their HIV status from a felony to a misdemeanor.   Not only would this include actual sexual intercourse, but also the donation of blood, plasma or semen.  

The proponents of this bill call the treatment of HIV to be antiquated & discriminatory.  They may be old, but I think the guidelines should stand.   I agree when they call it discriminatory.  These laws only concern HIV & should include any illness transmitted via bodily fluids. 

I'm so angry at these people.   They're willing to allow a person to be infected & only charge the knowing offender with a misdemeanor.  Also, it seems the only people fighting against this are Republicans.  Thanks a lot Democrats, you've just made me agree with Republicans because you've gone so bat-shit crazy liberal.  Just thanks ever so.

I hope this bill doesn't pass, but it probably will.  They say these laws are too hard on people living with HIV.  It makes them feel too stigmatized.  Really, I don't feel that way at all.  As a person living with HIV, it's my responsibility legally & ethically to be upfront about my status.  What's so hard about that?

Cya...

$ & Healing....

Matters of healing & health should never combine with those of profit & wealth.  Doing so limits healing & ensures greed & suffering.    This article is about how the Attorney General of Massachusetts is suing Gilead Sciences for what appears to be price gouging concering medications for with HIV & Hep C.

Gilead was sued by the  AIDS Healthcare Foundation.  They are seeking to invalidate the patents over the HIV med Tenofovir.    They claim the company prolonged the shelf life & endangered the patients by not addressing safety concerns with the drug until it was profitable.  Doing this would extend the patent & keep the medication from being produced in a generic form.

Massachusetts' suit was primarily to prompt the company to lower their prices on these life saving medications.  Some of their Hep C meds are over a $1,000/day.  A 12 week course of a med can run just shy of a 100K.  These prices are bankrupting states medicaid programs & other agencies trying to supply these medications.  They totally prohibitive for all but the most wealthy.

What's going to come from this?  I don't know.  But, it's certainly something to watch.

Cya...

Stupid...

This article is in response to a judge's statement on a case involving an HIV + man.  The man, Ricky Webster, engaged in sexual activity with some girls and didn't tell them of his HIV status.  I'm not removing their responsibility in this matter.  They should've demanded condoms.  However, he was wrong for not telling them he was +.  The judge stated.

This ranks as the most cowardly of human acts... what Ricky Webster did, was to steal the lives of those young girls. 

The writer, Mayo Schreiber, Jr. (an attorney dealing with HIV policy) pitched a little fit.  He said the girls lives hadn't been stolen.  They hadn't been assaulted.   He continued on to tell of the way this judge's statements might impact others living with HIV.   I wonder if this lawyer's crying foul was genuine or just to stir up publicity.

As a person living with HIV, the type of people this attorney is expressing concern for, I totally agree with the judge.  Mr.  Webster did not have the right not to reveal he was + to his sexual partners.  If those girls are +, then he did steal the lives they had.  The lawyer has a very narrow interpretation of what is an assault. 

The person who did the harm to people living with HIV wasn't the judge.  It was Mr. Webster & his actions.  To a lesser extent, it was this attorney for pot stirring & making the HIV+ community look as if we can't take responsibility for our actions.   Mr Schreiber, your comments were not accurate or representative of all people living with HIV.  Thanks anyway.

Cya...

Yeah California...

There's big news in California today.  The governor signed into effect a law demanding vaccinations for kids.  The only exceptions will be medical.  Parents are going to scream they know what's best & their rights, blah, blah, blah.   Unless they're medical researchers or other medical staff, I doubt they know better  & screw their tights.  What rights?  The 1's where they don't vaccinate their kid & get to expose others to the virus?  That's BS.

Way to go California.  Promote vaccinations.  Measles shouldn't be something we think about in connection to your state.

Cya...

Standard Deviations...

I'm a trained Sociologist.  I usually don't go there, but I will now.  A core component of any research science graduate program involves methods, theory &  the dreaded statistics.    These are the tools to do your research.  You'll take a theoretical approach via a research methodology & often use statistics to decipher your data.

This is when you get to things like bell curves.  Similar to that thing you hoped someone didn't set high on your school tests.  Then maybe the teacher might grade on a curve because no got over a certain point.   

If a bell curve is placed on a standard 100 point test, then the center of the curve would be between 50 & 51.  The 1st standard deviation of a normal distribution should account for about 65% of all the points or ranges from mid teens to mid 80's.  The 2nd deviation should include everything from  the next +/- 13% or so or from mid single digits to the mid 90's.  The 3rd deviation should include everything but the lowest & highest points.  Each deviation after that would have even smaller populations.

Why did I just give you crash course on bell curves?   Because this is why conservatives are screaming.  Gays in the USA who just got the national right to marry removed 1 level of standard deviation from themselves & moved closer towards the center of things.  They moved toward the masses.  Like or not, they became more normalized.  I've always been the type to tell you to let your freak flag fly high.   Well, these people's flags just went down a couple of notches, getting closer to everyone else's.

Still don't get it?  OK.  There's a South Park  episode where Cartman is teasing Kenny for being the poorest kid in school.   Eventually Kenny is removed from the school for a while & Cartman revels in it.  At least until he realizes he is now the poorest kid in school.  

If more people become accepted then eventually, we'll have to look for others to discriminate against.  Its all very stars on thars.   What if we really accept the poor, the gay, the downtrodden, the ethnic;  then who will we target?  The ideologues, the religious, the conservatives, etc...  Every step these groups take towards being normal, threatens the conservative's ideology & power.  

With Gays being more accepted, white populations shrinking & less people being religious, there is a very real threat to the conservatives & their fairy tales.   It won't happen soon.  But we're closer than ever to ridding the power positions of this world of people like this.  So, yes, the Supreme Court decision to allow Gay marriage poses a serious risk to their power base.  Goodie.

Cya...

Yet Again...

This article is about a Pennsylvanian doctor settling a discrimination case against a + man & his family.   The results of this legal action are good, but the article just points out acts of discrimination against + people flourish in our country.  They're prevalent among medical workers who should know better.  

These articles reporting medical prejudice & negligence in regards to HIV & those living with it come way too often.  This isn't new.  HIV is a well understood phenomenon,  No reasoning behind an act of discrimination versus a + person is justifiable.  No act of medical negligence regarding any infectious disease is excusable.  

How are people supposed to come out into the open about their HIV status if they can't even trust their doctors?  They can't.  Most of them can't risk the consequences of others acts of hatred, fear & ignorance against them & their families.

Sorry to go all sci-fi on you here, but it's like Yoda said.  "Fear is the path to the dark side.  Fear leads to anger.  Anger leads to hate.  Hate leads to suffering."  A lot of the USA is already on the dark side.  This is a time of fear mongering & marketing hatred.  Sounds like conservative politics & most religious ideology to me.

Cya...

Sort Of Against The Grain...

There are several articles out about Victoria, Australia  pushing for the repeal of a 90's law passed to criminalize the intentional spread of HIV.   I'm of 2 minds on this.  As the law stands now, it seems to be entirely aimed at HIV transmission.  That's just stupid.   What if I purposely gave someone TB, Hep C, Ebola or some other life threatening disease?  Would that be just honky dory?  From what I can tell of this law, it couldn't be used against such a case.

This law shouldn't be limited to HIV, it should be include the active, knowing transmission of any serious illness that could result in death or permanent alteration in a person's life.  HIV is far from being the top killer among diseases.

While, I do think the law should be altered to be more applicable to other diseases, I don't think it should be eliminated.   I'm sure I'll get hisses from that, but whatever.  To intentionally spread HIV should be a punishable offense.   It might not kill a person these days, but it will forever alter their life.  

They say that laws like this will only further ostracize + people.  I call BS on that.  Its simple, once you know you're +, don't screw around.  There is no such thing as safe sex, only "safer."  This isn't a matter of consent either.  No one can knowingly consent to becoming HIV +,  There's no way, that any one not infected with HIV, can fully understand what its like to be +.   

That's like me saying I understand what its like to be a severe diabetic.  I've know people who were.  I've even known someone who died of diabetes.  Still, I don't know what its like to have that ailment.

Any knowing transmission of HIV should be viewed as an act of aggression.  There should be serious sanctions against it.   It costs the infected, those around them & whoever is actually paying for the care of the infected.   HIV isn't the chicken pox or even a cold.  It won't be cured in the foreseeable future & it can kill you.  

Cya...