3 ms·
The probability of an HIV+ person on antivirals, with undetectable levels of the virus, transmitting it to you, is lower than the probability of someone who thi
by sunshowers 3y ago
The probability of an HIV+ person on antivirals, with undetectable levels of the virus, transmitting it to you, is lower than the probability of someone who thinks they're HIV- transmitting it to you. It is correct for the law to reflect this reality. We all know that the way the world works is that unintentional actions from stigmatized minorities are treated as intentional.
I'd recommend this article from Lambda Legal, which outlines exactly what was wrong with the old law in practice while making the extremely reasonable point that treating HIV differently from every other communicable disease is terrible public policy. https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/faq_for_new_ca_law_sb_239.pdf https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publicati...
- whatshisface 3y agoI'm not so sure that a right to give me a cold is a good idea... Especially when there are options like outdoor air ventilation that reduce the spread of airborne viruses. Maybe there should be some sort of liability for preventable spread of disease.
- sunshowers 3y agoThe issue here concerns criminal law. Liability is civil law. Whether institutions should be held liable for not putting things like ventilation in place is an interesting question, but irrelevant to interpersonal criminal law. And besides, the law turns the act from a felony to a misdemeanor. We are not even in the same ballpark as asserting some kind of "right" to give someone else a cold or HIV.
- readyman 3y ago[flagged]
- sunshowers 3y agoTo readyman's flagged response, I was referring to HIV+ people in general as the stigmatized minority. But shame on you for your response—no reasonable person would say that sex workers aren't a stigmatized minority.