This week in sex, as Roland Hulme told us, we had two interesting disease-related developments.

The first awesome announcement was that the patent on Combivir, an anti-viral medication that is believed to reduce the risk of infecting sexual partners with HIV/AIDS, has expired. This means drug companies can now begin producing a generic form of the drug, which will greatly reduce the cost and increase the number of HIV+ people who will have access to the drug.

On the heels of this comes an arrest made because a patient refused to take medication that would prevent his Tuberculosis infection becoming contagious. This is the 32nd arrest of its kind in the county.

Some of you remember the fella who intentionally had sex with a number of women without disclosing his HIV+ status. He was eventually convicted of 14 felony accounts of assault, though we're sure that's little comfort to the women he infected.

And all this raises the question: Should the government hold people who have communicable (whether by sex, fluids or more common methods like coughing) diseases responsible for the health of those around them? What about if the disease is curable? less

If someone is KNOWINGLY a carrier of a life-threatening disease and they KNOWNINGLY pass it on to partner, they should be held responsible for basically MURDRERING another individual...it can be a slow death..but it is still technically MURDERING THEM! less

This isn't necessarily true. HIV is no longer the death sentence it one was. We're this still the epidemic in the 90's, I'd completely agree with the claim of murder. But now we have one man who has been effectively CURED of AIDS, plus drug cocktails that keep symptoms away, and pills that keep sexual partners from contracting the disease.

No, it is not responsible to have unprotected sex without disclosing your STD/STI status, but it's no longer murder for many of the original major diseases.

I'm revoking my original statement. Suing people who give others HIV/AIDS are no worse than people who are giving each other herpes or any other STD. If someone is doing this intentionall, they should be required to take their meds. But other than that? It's nobody's business but theirs and their partner(s)'. less

This isn't necessarily true. HIV is no longer the death sentence it one was. We're this still the epidemic in the 90's, I'd completely agree with the claim of murder. But now we have one man who has been effectively CURED of AIDS, plus drug cocktails that keep symptoms away, and pills that keep sexual partners from contracting the disease.

No, it is not responsible to have unprotected sex without disclosing your STD/STI status, but it's no longer murder for many of the original major diseases.

I'm revoking my original statement. Suing people who give others HIV/AIDS are no worse than people who are giving each other herpes or any other STD. If someone is doing this intentionall, they should be required to take their meds. But other than that? It's nobody's business but theirs and their partner(s)'. less

it is not necessarily a death sentence...in the same way that it used to be. But it does shorten life span. and it does depend on who gets infected. I already have a very serious auto-immune disease. If I were to contract HIV it would be a death sentence, because the meds I am on do not play with with other auto-immune drugs. I would have to choose what would kill me, but it would kill me. Are some lives more important than others?

It is worse. Most STIs have treatments and are curable..until there is a cure fro HIV it is a death sentence no matter how good the drugs are it is a death sentence.


Also mental patients who are a harm to themselves are forced to take their meds...HIV patients could be considered a HARM to others and should be required by law in the same manner to take their meds. less

I didn't mean to insinuate that some lives are more valuable than others at all. I hadn't thought of auto immune diseases, but you bring up a good point. However, that makes it even more important for you to be aware of your partners' statuses before engaging in any sexual contact with them.

But I'd like to reiterate that HIV/AIDS isn't the same as it used to be, and it doesn't ALWAYS shorten life span. It depends on each individual with the disease - as you said - but with simple pills that are becoming more affordable, people diagnosed with HIV and AIDS don't have to live a shortened life at all. It can be just as long and as healthy as anyone else's.

As for most STDs/STIs, they actually don't have cures or even vaccines. Herpes is still incurable. So is HPV and Hepatitis B. All of them are treatable, though, just like HIV is. You can still live long, happy, healthy life with STDs. And when you're careful, there's no worry about them.

As for people who are mentally ill (mental patients is a derogatory phrase) who are a danger to themselves, they are not always forced to take their medications. It depends on if they are seeing a therapist regularly, seeing a doctor regularly, are able to be out and about in public, etc. When they are forced to take their medications, the longest that a psych ward can hold them is 72 hours without a court order, which is long enough to dope them up with their medications and then send them out on the streets, where they either become the victim of a crime or commit one.

We have no business interfering with anyone else's health unless they are harming other people. Would you force someone with Measles to take medication if they didn't want to? No, probably not. But you might if they were going to be coming to work with you or taking care of your children. less

we do agree here. I just believe that with HIV it is on a greater scale and I think you would agree with me that if you can get someone sick by a certain type of contact that you should A: have to abstain from that type of contact or B: you should have to have treatment. But of those who have knowledge of their disease are knowingly risking the health of others the courts have every right to get involved.

I know better than to put mental patient I just wasn't thinking sorry.

Other things;
Over 75% of those with HPV will clear up the disease on their own, our bodies are mostly amazing things. less

If someone is KNOWINGLY a carrier of a life-threatening disease and they KNOWNINGLY pass it on to partner, they should be held responsible for basically MURDRERING another individual...it can be a slow death..but it is still technically MURDERING THEM! less

We have already decided that we cannot force mentally ill patients to take their medications but we can hold them responsible or at the very least lock them away if they hurt someone while in a deluded state...knowingly. It's a fine line to walk and I do not envy judges or juries that must decide these things.
Intentionally infecting someone should be as much of a crime as shoving a knife into someone's spine! It's still harming someone intentionally. Where the line gets drawn is an issue I wrestle with. Infecting someone with a curable disease is still criminal as far as I am concerned...what if the "cure" cannot be obtained by the ill due to their unique body chemistry? I worry about these things...
I think the operative word here is 'intentionally' infecting others...if you don't know you are sick or you do your best but someone still gets ill I don't think that is criminal. At the same time I know I would still be very angry. less