3 ms·

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 tha

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.

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.