@Sarah
Just because a person has a low viral load (In their BLOOD) does not mean that it is at undetectable levels in semen or vaginal fluid. Also, there are resting CD4+ cells that may contain HIV, and antiretroviral therapy is ineffective with regards to these resting cells.... which may activate at any time in the future.
This is from the CDC.
That being said, the real issue is informed consent. It is NOT informed consent unless you know ALL THE FACTS. I know for certain there are people who, regardless of a person's HIV status, may still persue a sexual relationship with that person ( I know a man who is happily married to a woman who is not HIV+ and they have a healthy sex life.. she remains HIV-.)
If you know, and you don't tell, then you are deceitful and immoral
mik - 12 years ago
Id rather shoot drugs with a clean needle then risk having casual sex with anyone in Canada.
Peter - 12 years ago
I couldn't care less how statistically unlikely the risk may be. I believe that absolutely NOBODY (including doctors, the courts, HIV+ people or otherwise) has the right to decide for me what level of risk is acceptable or not. It is up to ME to decide that, and consent without having all the facts is not real consent, it's deceit. By allowing infected people to hide their status, the courts are depriving the potential victims of their inalienable right to make a truly informed decision. Whether biased, unfounded or not based on facts, they still have the right to make THAT decision themselves, not have anybody else make it for them.
What's even more troublesome is to find such level of stupidity at such a high level.
And to really summarize what this is all about: a group of HIV+ who feel alienated and can't get laid if they reveal their condition. Giving "carte blanche" and "license to kill" will certainly not fix anything, nor make them more socially acceptable.
I have seen this movie real close: I dated an HIV+ partner who failed to disclose. I was always safe and luckily didn't get infected. Would I have dated this person had I known? Hell NO! Even if the risk is minimum, even if my fears were totally unfounded, it is still my RIGHT to refuse and say NO.
I ask all the magnificent judges of the Supreme Court of Canada: how would YOU feel if you found out months later that your ex was HIV+ ALL ALONG and never bothered to tell you?
It has always been a cornerstone principle in modern societies that there must be a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society. The right to make decisions about their own body, health and security far outweigh whatever rights to privacy other individuals may have.
James - 12 years ago
Anyone with a sexually transmittable disease must inform their potential partner.
Merely using drugs and a condom does not inform the potential partner of their history of STD's.
A potential partner should be informed of one's STD history.
In my view, the Supreme Court should have left the old law intact as it was written in 1998.
Esther - 12 years ago
@ Dawne "Sad that we have to be mandated to tell the truth in our relationships."
Great observation... well said!
Ken - 12 years ago
Some of us are voting "No" because we find that the court has imposed too much of a burden on people living with HIV. Public health has trumpetted the effectiveness of condoms for the last 30 years and now the Supreme Court is saying that is not enough. What's next, obligatory treatment? Where is the responsibility of the people who are not infected to take care of their own health?
Dawne - 12 years ago
If you know, then so should I. I don't think it should apply only to HIV/AIDS but any sexually transmitted infection/disesase/condition. How does your right to privacy override my right to know? It's sad, though, that we actually need the courts to make a decision like this in the first place. Sad that we have to be mandated to tell the truth in our relationships.
Kelley - 12 years ago
Unless the chances of spreading HIV are 0.000000% with out a condom the partner should be informed even if they use a condom. Anyone who does not is lower than dirt and should be beaten sensless.
Esther - 12 years ago
Sorry... condoms are ONLY 93% effective! 7% of the time, they are useless...
Esther - 12 years ago
No Sarah... people are voting NO because you should be informed if you are being exposed to ANY risk of HIV infection! It's not a cold... it's HIV/AIDS!
Condoms break... and even when they don't, they are ONLY 97% effective. Also there are plenty of other ways to exchange bodily fluids than penetration (how many women insist on a man using dental dam when performing cunnilingus. Also, is it possible that someone could have a weakened immune system to the point that even a low viral load may cause infection? My point is, if you know, you should tell your sexual partner!
I'm a huge proponent of knowing your status. I insist on seeing copies of recent STI and HIV testing from my partner BEFORE beginning a sexual relationship with them... no results, no sex... PERIOD! I also get tested after every relationship because we all know how popular infidelity seems to be these days.
Sarah - 12 years ago
I believe that people are voting no because they don't understand (or believe) how statistically unlikely it is to transmit HIV under the conditions mentioned.
@Sarah
Just because a person has a low viral load (In their BLOOD) does not mean that it is at undetectable levels in semen or vaginal fluid. Also, there are resting CD4+ cells that may contain HIV, and antiretroviral therapy is ineffective with regards to these resting cells.... which may activate at any time in the future.
This is from the CDC.
That being said, the real issue is informed consent. It is NOT informed consent unless you know ALL THE FACTS. I know for certain there are people who, regardless of a person's HIV status, may still persue a sexual relationship with that person ( I know a man who is happily married to a woman who is not HIV+ and they have a healthy sex life.. she remains HIV-.)
If you know, and you don't tell, then you are deceitful and immoral
Id rather shoot drugs with a clean needle then risk having casual sex with anyone in Canada.
I couldn't care less how statistically unlikely the risk may be. I believe that absolutely NOBODY (including doctors, the courts, HIV+ people or otherwise) has the right to decide for me what level of risk is acceptable or not. It is up to ME to decide that, and consent without having all the facts is not real consent, it's deceit. By allowing infected people to hide their status, the courts are depriving the potential victims of their inalienable right to make a truly informed decision. Whether biased, unfounded or not based on facts, they still have the right to make THAT decision themselves, not have anybody else make it for them.
What's even more troublesome is to find such level of stupidity at such a high level.
And to really summarize what this is all about: a group of HIV+ who feel alienated and can't get laid if they reveal their condition. Giving "carte blanche" and "license to kill" will certainly not fix anything, nor make them more socially acceptable.
I have seen this movie real close: I dated an HIV+ partner who failed to disclose. I was always safe and luckily didn't get infected. Would I have dated this person had I known? Hell NO! Even if the risk is minimum, even if my fears were totally unfounded, it is still my RIGHT to refuse and say NO.
I ask all the magnificent judges of the Supreme Court of Canada: how would YOU feel if you found out months later that your ex was HIV+ ALL ALONG and never bothered to tell you?
It has always been a cornerstone principle in modern societies that there must be a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society. The right to make decisions about their own body, health and security far outweigh whatever rights to privacy other individuals may have.
Anyone with a sexually transmittable disease must inform their potential partner.
Merely using drugs and a condom does not inform the potential partner of their history of STD's.
A potential partner should be informed of one's STD history.
In my view, the Supreme Court should have left the old law intact as it was written in 1998.
@ Dawne "Sad that we have to be mandated to tell the truth in our relationships."
Great observation... well said!
Some of us are voting "No" because we find that the court has imposed too much of a burden on people living with HIV. Public health has trumpetted the effectiveness of condoms for the last 30 years and now the Supreme Court is saying that is not enough. What's next, obligatory treatment? Where is the responsibility of the people who are not infected to take care of their own health?
If you know, then so should I. I don't think it should apply only to HIV/AIDS but any sexually transmitted infection/disesase/condition. How does your right to privacy override my right to know? It's sad, though, that we actually need the courts to make a decision like this in the first place. Sad that we have to be mandated to tell the truth in our relationships.
Unless the chances of spreading HIV are 0.000000% with out a condom the partner should be informed even if they use a condom. Anyone who does not is lower than dirt and should be beaten sensless.
Sorry... condoms are ONLY 93% effective! 7% of the time, they are useless...
No Sarah... people are voting NO because you should be informed if you are being exposed to ANY risk of HIV infection! It's not a cold... it's HIV/AIDS!
Condoms break... and even when they don't, they are ONLY 97% effective. Also there are plenty of other ways to exchange bodily fluids than penetration (how many women insist on a man using dental dam when performing cunnilingus. Also, is it possible that someone could have a weakened immune system to the point that even a low viral load may cause infection? My point is, if you know, you should tell your sexual partner!
I'm a huge proponent of knowing your status. I insist on seeing copies of recent STI and HIV testing from my partner BEFORE beginning a sexual relationship with them... no results, no sex... PERIOD! I also get tested after every relationship because we all know how popular infidelity seems to be these days.
I believe that people are voting no because they don't understand (or believe) how statistically unlikely it is to transmit HIV under the conditions mentioned.