A court order has been issued to stop a Seattle man from infecting people with HIV. According to King County court documents a man identified only as "AO" has infected at least eight people with the virus.
"Based upon generally accepted standards of medicinal and public health science, it is believed that the respondent's conduct continues to endanger the public health."
King County Public health officials said he was diagnosed with HIV at the King County Public Health and STD Clinic at Harborview Medical Center back in 2008. If the man doesn't show up for future counseling sessions or doesn't follow the cease and desist order he could be jailed for contempt of court.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/king-county-prosecutors-say-hiv-positive-man-conti/nhKpd/
(Score: 1) by Gravis on Monday September 15 2014, @12:12AM
a C&D wont stop bad human behavior, walls will.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tathra on Monday September 15 2014, @12:21AM
why are they only threatening him with contempt of court? if he knows he has HIV and is not, at a minimum, informing his partners then he is committing a crime [wikipedia.org] (washington, where this story is from, is one of the states [wikipedia.org] that has this law).
now, i'm not saying or agreeing with the idea that discrimination against people with HIV is ok, but actively infecting other people with a virus that will severely diminish their quality of life for the rest of their life (a lifetime of taking antiretrovirals, huge medical costs, weakened immune system, etc), and possibly kill them, should be a crime. even if he's only in denial about having it and not one of those assholes trying to infect as many other people as possible just to be a dick thats still reckless endangerment or something, and i'm pretty sure that, if people die from it, that fits the definition of manslaughter.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by iwoloschin on Monday September 15 2014, @12:56AM
I'm curious if it's possible to prosecute him for homicide? Knowingly infecting another person with HIV, to me that sounds like premeditated murder.
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Monday September 15 2014, @02:11AM
Only after the person dies of the disease he infected them with.
If they step off a curb and get run over by a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.... well that is just bad luck.
But they might be able to incarcerate on attempted murder, until the victim dies of the disease. Then it is Murder 1.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday September 15 2014, @04:59AM
Meanwhile, isn't this functionally the same as injecting someone with a dangerous drug without their knowledge and consent? How is it different from, say, a date-rape drug? Couldn't it be prosecuted similarly?
Seems to me the best public-health precaution would be to make his identity very public, as a warning to all.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday September 15 2014, @10:11AM
> Seems to me the best public-health precaution would be to make his identity very public, as a warning to all.
Perhaps some big "HIV INFECTED" tattoos on / near his sexy areas as well, just to be sure.
(Score: 2) by nightsky30 on Monday September 15 2014, @11:33AM
While that might be a great warning to all, I would not want to be the tattoo artist doing that given his recent behavior.
(Score: 2) by nightsky30 on Monday September 15 2014, @11:38AM
So then something opposite of the Down Periscope's "Welcome Aboard", maybe like the black death/quarantine flags they flew on infected ships?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday September 15 2014, @01:18PM
If he had tuberculosis and was trying to spread it around, he'd be in quarantine. (And might be even if he was keeping it to himself.)
But with HIV's former status as OMG GAY DISEASE, we can't lock the bastard up, cuz that might be "prejudiced" or "insensitive".
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday September 15 2014, @05:15AM
I believe it used to be prosecuted this way, at least in Canada way back before there were drugs to stop/slow HIV/AIDS [basically, the only thing to do way stop fucking everybody in sight without a condom, which of course, part of the population was unable to do]. So some people, after being diagnosed continued to have sex without condoms and without telling their partners they had HIV/AIDS [some just didn't care, some intentionally wanted to infect others as payback for themselves being infected] and were prosecuted for attempted murder.
But nowadays, with the medication available and not wanting to appear to persecute gay people, you have to REALLY try hard to actually get prosecuted, and then it's something lame like endangering public health or something so you only get a couple of months.
(Score: 2) by nightsky30 on Monday September 15 2014, @11:44AM
If the law which prosecutes an HIV infected, and possibly homosexual person is the very same law which also saves an uninfected homosexual person from being infected, then how can that be seen as homosexual persecution? Not to mention the law was written for all infected people, not just gays...Does someone really see that as persecution?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @01:32AM
Stop being so homophobic. If he wishes to convert others to gay cancer, that's his decision. You on like HIV is bad, like AIDs causes severe problems for the immune system, possibly leading to death. You republican bigots need moar social justice training.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @12:29PM
i'm not a neoconservative republicunt by any stretch of the imagination, but democraps are no better; they will accuse anyone that disagrees with obama of being racist, and take pride in theft of hard earned wages from the working class to give to lazy entitled bums. they also seem to think that while monetary and fiscal responsibility is evil, its perfectly ok to force an unconstitutional and unfunded healthcare system down everyone's throats.
i guess offering morons free stuff is a surefire way of getting elected though, cos there are plenty of morons who want free stuff... pity the poor unborn generations that are gunna pay for such selfishness though
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @05:31PM
We call racism where we see it. Anybody who bitches nonstop about Obama doing something that Dubya did that didn't complain about Dubya doing it is most likely racist. And we're not the ones constantly pushing corporate welfare, so I don't see how that last part makes any sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @09:59PM
i never expected you to... it's ok you can you back to watching cnn and stuffing your face with taco bell
(Score: 1) by nishi.b on Monday September 15 2014, @08:35AM
I remember that in a similar case a few years ago in France. The guy was sued for "knowingly endangering someone else's life" (litteral translation) and also poisoning - "administering a harmful product". The guy was found guilty and was sentenced to jail time, a therapy, and had to pay compensation. There was some debate because HIV patients' organizations were afraid that other, less clear-cut cases could be a problem, but it has not being the case since then.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday September 15 2014, @06:44PM
You shouldn't need a special law. This sounds to me like "assault with a deadly weapon". The fact that it's slow doesn't make it any less deadly, nor does the fact that it is now often treatable...at tremendous cost, inconvenience, and danger.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @12:37AM
Knowingly infecting someone with a life-threatening disease is 1st degree attempted murder. Let the punishment fit the crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @11:58AM
Yes give the man who was infected with HIV another more immediate way to kill many which causes you to hemorage /sarcasm
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Monday September 15 2014, @12:47AM
This guy is going around giving people HIV, and they're worried about his privacy? For $diety's name man, publish his name and his damned photo all over the city so everybody knows to run away when they see him.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Monday September 15 2014, @02:47AM
They're probably not because people will probably be lynching him rather than running away. It's happened before. Frankly though, I'm fine with that. If it's been proven that he has it and has been infecting people then he 100% deserves what is coming to him. It's no longer a matter of proving guilt anymore, that's already done with.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday September 15 2014, @03:27AM
I'm infected with AIDS, I fuck every day, I kill everything I fuck. [youtube.com]
I'm infected with AIDS, I fuck every day, I kill everything I fuck.
I fill you up with my disease, contaminate you with deadly needs, my loaded cock is like a gun, I'm a walking time bomb killing everyone! DIE!
(chorus)
Let me be your stiff hard fuck, cram your cunt with poisonous cock, your hairy cunt will be my aim, deadly penetration is my game! DIE!
(chorus)
Drenched in my fluids you'll never know, I plant the seed of death untold, before I die (I hope I do), kill many more as I've killed you! DIE!
(chorus)
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Monday September 15 2014, @03:45AM
So what you're saying is, this is suicide by HIV infectee lynch mob. There are less convoluted ways of doing this I think.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @04:13AM
> This guy is going around giving people HIV, and they're worried about his privacy?
There is also the privacy of his victims to consider (including people he failed to infect but may be branded anyway).
Publishing his identity may out them indirectly.
I'm not saying they should not do it, I'm just saying that it is complicated.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday September 15 2014, @03:19PM
No, the fallout is complicated. The solution is simple.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @06:24PM
It is always the people who won't be affected who think thoughtless action is an easy solution.
Mission Accomplished!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by evilviper on Monday September 15 2014, @03:37AM
Not getting any of the interesting and nuanced responses about the challenges of enforcing public health that I was expecting... Instead, this seems to have simply riled-up the angry villagers.
Too bad. I guess I just won't submit this type of story here, anymore.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Monday September 15 2014, @04:00AM
If you are going to moan about not getting the comments that agree with your point of view. Perhaps you should not post any stories here at all.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @04:16AM
No, don't be a douche, especially a douche who hasn't submitted any stories of his own.
But anyone who is going to moan about the quality of the comments, should at least lead by example.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday September 15 2014, @05:19AM
I have no particularly strong POV on the subject, except for believing that calls for violence are a bit much, and that's about all I've seen thus far.
And I may be missing something... why, exactly, did you think I should be interested in your opinion on the subject?
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @06:43AM
> And I may be missing something... why, exactly, did you think I should be interested in your opinion on the subject?
You two are douching all the way down.
The reason he thinks you should be interested in his opinion is because you posted in a forum.
Don't post if you can't handle responses you don't like.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Monday September 15 2014, @08:39PM
Yeah, what this guy said.
But I do admit to commenting and replying to posts that I do not care about.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mhajicek on Monday September 15 2014, @04:02AM
I don't see much room here for nuance. Would you care to enlighten us?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday September 15 2014, @04:17AM
From a public health perspective, perhaps it would be medically sound to tattoo a big, red letter "A" on the foreheads of those diagnosed with HIV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @07:21AM
Or maybe a big red ring on his penis as a warning. No one but a prospective partner should be seeing this anyway.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday September 15 2014, @07:34PM
Many Europeans will remember this:
http://sealedwithabrand.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/hiv-positive.jpg [wordpress.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @04:47AM
Perhaps you were writing for the wrong audience? maybe you should try a bug[1] forum ?
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @05:06AM
Meanwhile in Canada, you most likely end up listed as sex offender if you do this. Sex offender status is the least that should be done.
http://www.brandonsun.com/breaking-news/Police-charge-first-Manitoba-woman-with-spreading-HIV-157782585.html [brandonsun.com]
The Supreme Court ruled in 1998 than an individual can be charged with aggravated sexual assault if they have HIV and engage in consensual sex that poses a significant risk of transmission of the virus without first disclosing they have the virus to their sexual partner.
A spokeswoman for the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network said Schenkels is the 14th woman with HIV in Canada to face assault charges for having consensual sex without first disclosing they have the virus.
Of the other 13 women previously charged, it was alleged that three of those had transmitted the virus to their partner. The network said of those three women, one was charged with aggravated sexual assault but ultimately pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm and sexual assault; one pleaded guilty to aggravated assault; and the other was charged with aggravated assault.
The organization said police across the country charge about 10 people a year, most of them men, with transmitting the virus.
Seems US legal system is not really tough on crime where it matters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @06:46AM
> Seems US legal system is not really tough on crime where it matters.
Doesn't seem to be much money in it. If they lock him up the prison system will then become responsible for his continuing medical treatment. That's a money loser for the for-profit prison system.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday September 15 2014, @11:03AM
In surprised he wasn't prosecuted. Giving people dangerous diseases through a lack of care is reckless and a crime in many places.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @12:02PM
What kind of "nuance" do you think is possible? If you're carrying a lethal virus, you have a personal responsibility to minimize the transmission of that virus and the death of other humans. We're not talking about whether to stay home when you have a cold, here: we're talking about some guy who's placing his personal pleasure above other people's right to life. HIV is no longer the death sentence it was 20 years ago, but it is still an incurable virus requiring life-long management and associated with elevated death rates.
Or are you looking for policy suggestions for how to deal with people who pose a health hazard and demonstrate themselves unwilling to mitigate that hazard? Permanent isolation [cdc.gov] for recalcitrant carriers. HIV colonies to replace the old leper colonies? There's no more reason to lock up or mark HIV carriers than HPV or herpes carriers, but carriers of those viruses have a responsibility to care for the health of their partners - if they can't do that, it's a criminal matter, not a public health matter.
Do you think there's an "other side" to kids throwing bricks off overpasses? Some "nuance" to leaving bowls of antifreeze for the neighborhood dogs? I mean, help me out here: in what way is this guy's behavior justifiable? I can see where someone might post this story because "contempt of court" seems like a pretty weak penalty for the harm caused, but the tone of your posting (not article) implies that you're disappointed by the general "throw the book at him" responses.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday September 15 2014, @07:13PM
This is a person who has been diagnosed with a deadly disease and is intentionally spreading it. Proving malice would be difficult, and it may be absent. Proving that he is endangering people is straightforwards.
The question is what to do about it. Quarantine of some sort appears necessary. But he doesn't appear trustworthy, so you can't depend on any informal enforcement, and "solitary" in prison is normally not really solitary...and the way it's not is inhumane.
He should be charged and convicted of "assault with a deadly weapon". But then what do you do? He shows no desire to abstain. Putting him in an ordinary prison would spread the disease.
Perhaps in his case capital punishment is the best choice...but most US prisons are quite inhumane with their approaches to capital punishment. (I favor hypoxemia as test pilots reported that it lead to rapture followed by deranged, but not painful thought processes, followed by unconsciousness. Then when he's unconscious, extract all his blood. It would need to be safely disposed of, but even were he conscious the process wouldn't be painful.)
Everybody's going to die eventually, and this person isn't safe to keep among the living. Quarantine depends upon the good will of the quarantined person. OTOH, given our current legal system and legal processes, a lynch mob might be the safest solution. It's not ideal...e.g. it probably wouldn't be humane, but what alternative do you propose?
P.S.: This isn't the first person with HIV to intentionally spread the disease. I'm afraid that I have scant sympathy to those who do so. But I'd still prefer that they not have pain and additional suffering inflicted upon them. Preferences, however, must give what to what is possible.
Is this "nuanced" enough for you? I'm afraid that I don't find the more common responses unreasonable, though some of them wouldn't work. The guy is, at best, a moral imbecile, but his incapacity to act morally isn't a good argument for keeping him around.
If society were properly set up, there would be decent ways to handle the problem. It isn't. Even in that case, however, he would be under forcible quarantine...possibly with other people who were willing to be quarantined together with him.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @04:47AM
If this man lets his partners know his HIV status before they have sex, then the court shouldn't be able to order him to stop having sex. If he doesn't, then somebody could probably press charges against him.
What if his partners are bug chasers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing_and_giftgiving)?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fnj on Monday September 15 2014, @12:04PM
It is attempted murder whether or not he notifies the victim. Think. Even if you are terminally ill and engage someone to kill you by shooting you in the head before you suffer too much, that person is still guilty of murder. That is why, even if you choose assisted self death by less guesome means, enlightened laws are necessary to ensure that is not a criminal act.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @02:46PM
HIV isn't a death sentence anymore if you can afford the antivirals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2014, @05:27PM
"...if you're rich" being the operative phrase. HIV is still a death sentence for the poor, especially in the US where going bankrupt due to medical bills is an extremely common occurrence, and so many people are actively fighting to ensure that others can't get healthcare and to strip away the first babysteps taken in providing everyone with healthcare. Contrary to the disgusting popular belief, the poor do deserve to live.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday September 15 2014, @07:16PM
Even in that case, HIV is caused by a virus that has a very high rate of mutation. Don't depend on the treatments that work today to continue working. They are under strong evolutionary pressure to evolve a way around the treatment...and there are a HUGE number of individual entities being subjected to that pressure.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday September 15 2014, @03:23PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes [wikipedia.org]
Warning: One of the most disturbing articles I've read on Wikipedia.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:44PM
I suppose selling cigarettes is attempted murder too?
(Score: 2) by fnj on Monday September 15 2014, @12:06PM
Sorry, it's not that simple. A mentally ill imbecile who embraces being infected with a gruesome disease is in all likelihood going to then be a danger to others.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Monday September 15 2014, @08:10AM
In Australia there was a similar case of an HIV positive man willfully infecting others.
The parliament saw fit to draft a specific law to deal with this instance.
http://www.livingpositivevictoria.org.au/living-with-HIV/HIV-law [livingpositivevictoria.org.au]
There have been some recent calls to retract the law as it is seen as potentially increasing stigma and as far a I know it has only been used once.
This article has some interesting discussion about these dimensions referring to the UK experience:
http://m.jme.bmj.com/content/28/3/160.full [bmj.com]
Overall, it's a tricky issue, on the one hand it's understandable that we don't want to find the courts impotent when there is a real threat. Yet these cases are truly rare so the law also has to strike the right balance considering the broader issue of criminalisation of illness which could be a slippery slope indeed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fnj on Monday September 15 2014, @11:58AM
Oh come now. It's not having the illness that is criminalized. It is the willful attempted murder. There is nothing tricky about the issue whatsoever. The sociopath is committing attempted murder whether or not this law exists.