3 ms·

I gotta disagree there -- that change merely brought HIV in line with other communicable diseases. Now, maybe one can make an argument that knowingly exposing s

by abeppu 5y ago

I gotta disagree there -- that change merely brought HIV in line with other communicable diseases. Now, maybe one can make an argument that knowingly exposing someone to any of a class of communicable diseases, based on the seriousness of those diseases, should be a felony. But singling out HIV exposure to be categorically distinct from every other disease doesn't seem reasonable or just.

bingohbangoh 5y ago
The HIV medications aren't exactly side effect free and, unlike STDs such as herpes, result in death if you don't take them. HIV isn't just another communicable disease.
- 3520 5y ago
  You're right. HIV isn't just another communicable disease in someone with an undetectable viral load, it's just another untransmissible disease [0]. [0]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2720997 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/27209...
  - bingohbangoh 5y ago
    If you take diligent care to take the proper pill everyday, you can make in transmissible for your partner. But the risk of you not doing so is _very high_ to your partner. As such, it should be disclosed. If there is trust between people, then its acceptable.
    - 3520 5y ago
      I would argue that the risk of someone not taking their medication is not "very high". The individual with HIV is highly incentivized to take their medication because it ensures their continued survival.
chuckee 5y ago
Then the solution is to raise the penalty for other diseases similarly severe as HIV, not lower the penalty for HIV. Though I agree with the other comments that the risk of transmission should be taken into account (since medication, if taken, has lowered it considerably since the HIV-felony laws were passed), that's not what the law did.
- abeppu 5y ago
  What the law did was reconcile treatment of knowingly exposing someone to HIV with knowingly exposing them to another disease. If the law should take exposing someone to a disease more seriously, it should be for a broad category of diseases based on their actual attributes. It just seems unhinged that in CA prior to that change, and in some places today, person A with well-managed or undetectable HIV can commit a felony for not disclosing that, where person B with literally anything else (e.g. drug resistant TB, ebola, whatever) cannot. And frankly, why should we only think in terms of "communicable diseases"? My understanding is in many cases where companies have exposed whole populations to pollutants that had real health impacts, the legal remediation is civil lawsuits, not charging the company with a felony. I live in the Bay Area. A while back I followed the story of a person with an active measles infection who traveled into SF. The DPH traced all their steps, published where they went at what times, which train car they were in, etc, but were fastidious to not reveal who this person was. Even though they risked exposing an indeterminate number of people, they were still expected to have a right to privacy. Today we have people claiming that anyone seeking to know their covid vaccination status is infringing on their rights to privacy about a health concern. Claiming that people with HIV should be _felons_ if they don't disclose their status, regardless of whether they're capable of transmitting, seems hard to justify.

by abeppu 5y ago

bingohbangoh 5y ago

The HIV medications aren't exactly side effect free and, unlike STDs such as herpes, result in death if you don't take them. HIV isn't just another communicable disease.

3520 5y ago
You're right. HIV isn't just another communicable disease in someone with an undetectable viral load, it's just another untransmissible disease [0]. [0]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2720997 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/27209...
- bingohbangoh 5y ago
  If you take diligent care to take the proper pill everyday, you can make in transmissible for your partner. But the risk of you not doing so is _very high_ to your partner. As such, it should be disclosed. If there is trust between people, then its acceptable.
  - 3520 5y ago
    I would argue that the risk of someone not taking their medication is not "very high". The individual with HIV is highly incentivized to take their medication because it ensures their continued survival.

chuckee 5y ago

Then the solution is to raise the penalty for other diseases similarly severe as HIV, not lower the penalty for HIV. Though I agree with the other comments that the risk of transmission should be taken into account (since medication, if taken, has lowered it considerably since the HIV-felony laws were passed), that's not what the law did.

abeppu 5y ago
What the law did was reconcile treatment of knowingly exposing someone to HIV with knowingly exposing them to another disease. If the law should take exposing someone to a disease more seriously, it should be for a broad category of diseases based on their actual attributes. It just seems unhinged that in CA prior to that change, and in some places today, person A with well-managed or undetectable HIV can commit a felony for not disclosing that, where person B with literally anything else (e.g. drug resistant TB, ebola, whatever) cannot. And frankly, why should we only think in terms of "communicable diseases"? My understanding is in many cases where companies have exposed whole populations to pollutants that had real health impacts, the legal remediation is civil lawsuits, not charging the company with a felony. I live in the Bay Area. A while back I followed the story of a person with an active measles infection who traveled into SF. The DPH traced all their steps, published where they went at what times, which train car they were in, etc, but were fastidious to not reveal who this person was. Even though they risked exposing an indeterminate number of people, they were still expected to have a right to privacy. Today we have people claiming that anyone seeking to know their covid vaccination status is infringing on their rights to privacy about a health concern. Claiming that people with HIV should be _felons_ if they don't disclose their status, regardless of whether they're capable of transmitting, seems hard to justify.