An Idea on HIV

[Nineveh]

A nationally syndicated columnist who is openly homosexual is offering what he calls "a truly radical step" to curb unsafe sex -- forcing HIV-positive homosexual men who knowingly or negligently spread the virus to be financially accountable to their affected sexual partners.

The idea is being panned by medical experts who work extensively with the homosexual community, but it has drawn praise from a spokesman for a leading conservative group in Washington, D.C., who not only called the establishment of HIV paternity a "useful" idea, but said there should be more criminal prosecution for the reckless spread of HIV.full story (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archiv e\200503\SPE20050314a.html)

[On Fire]

The homos should also pay for a court system to hear all of the law suits.

[firechyld]

You're referring to Dan Savage, who is one of my heroes. :)

I think it's a fantastic idea. Here's the text of the original comment:

If people are looking for a truly radical step—something that might actually curb unsafe sex—I've got a suggestion. But first some context: When extremely promiscuous gay men assess the risks and benefits of unprotected sex, most assume that if they get infected, or if they infect someone, that an AIDS organization or state health agency will pay for the AIDS meds they or their sex partners are going to need to keep themselves alive. It seems to me that one surefire way to curb unsafe sex would be to put the cost of AIDS meds into the equation. I'm not suggesting that people who can't afford AIDS meds be denied them—God forbid. No, my radical plan to curb unsafe sex among gay men is modeled on a successful program that encourages sexual responsibility among straight men: child-support payments. A straight man knows that if he knocks a woman up, he's on the hook for child-support payments for 18 years. He's free to have as much sex as he likes and as many children as he cares to, but he knows in the back of his mind that his quality of life will suffer if he's irresponsible.

So why not drug-support payments? If the state can go after deadbeat dads and make them pay child support, why can't it go after deadbeat infectors and make them pay drug support? Now that would be radical. Infect someone with HIV out of malice or negligence, and the state will come after you for half the cost of the meds the person you infected is going to need. (The man you infected is 50 percent responsible for his own infection.) Once a few dozen men in New York City, San Francisco, Toronto, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and Vancouver are having their wages docked for drug-support payments, other gay men will be a lot more careful about not spreading HIV. Trojan won't be able to make condoms fast enough.

"I don't think there's anything inherently illegal about it," said Jon Givner, director of the HIV Project at Lambda Legal Defense And Education Fund, when I called to bounce the idea off of him. "It's just a matter of whether you think it's good public-health policy." Jon doesn't. "I don't want to play the role of the apologist for irresponsible behavior, [but] whatever public-health policies we develop should not be based on blaming the person with HIV first."

Ana Oliveira, the executive director of Gay Men's Health Crisis, was more receptive to the idea. "We find ourselves at a time where the idea of holding people accountable, of building consequences into behavior choices, may be needed to help change the paradigm," Oliveira said. "We certainly appreciate the element of justice in your idea. It could act as a deterrent, and that would be helpful. The difficulty is that it would be impractical to implement. It would require some kind of a determination process, and the pitfall would be a lot of he-said/he-said situations."

Still, Oliveira thinks everything should be on the table right now, as do many other frustrated public-health officials and HIV-prevention educators. So I'm tossing my idea out there.



Letters from Savage's readers responding to the idea can be found here: http://www.theonionavclub.com/savagelove/drugsupport/

Caution: there may be a spot of bad language on that page.

[firechyld]

The homos should also pay for a court system to hear all of the law suits.


We don't make women who are infected by straight men pay for their lawsuits... and since straight men who infect white women are the only ones who have been charged so far, at least in the US, any change to the court system should start there.

[Free-Agent Smith]

Hmmm? Make them pay for half? Why not make them pay for all of it? Sell every asset they have and then put the one convicted to death so they can't do it again.

I would say this about any terminal disease that is maliciously spread to anyone not just in the homosexual community.

[firechyld]

Hmmm? Make them pay for half? Why not make them pay for all of it? Sell every asset they have and then put the one convicted to death so they can't do it again.

Because in a consensual situation, the person who gets infected from the encounter is still partially responsible for what happened. Yes, the person who passed on the illness did a terrible thing, but the other individual still made the choice to have unprotected sex.

It's just like when a heterosexual man gets a woman pregnant. He's eligible for child support, but she still has to pay for some of the child's expenses.

I would say this about any terminal disease that is maliciously spread to anyone not just in the homosexual community.

I concur. :)