Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
113 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52759372]Even this reclassification doesn't mean you won't get punished for it, and they give some reasons why they did it in the OP. As well, it's also very inconsistent to keep the old law as other illnesses are not treated the same. For blood banks, it really depends on how good they are at testing. I don't see too much of a reason to be viciously outraged.[/QUOTE]
As I said earlier, it's disgraceful that not all life threatening viruses are treated the same.
In my opinion, [I]knowingly[/I] transmitting any virus that will permanently destroy a person's life should be a felony.
They're done the exact opposite thing they should've here.
watch this shit eventually lead to another HIV/AIDS outbreak if things go unchecked (spoiler alert: they will), nice going jerry brown you fucking kooky dolt
Because I see people asking why, or implying that this is "feel good legislation", here is what the goal is supposed to be
[QUOTE]SB 239 will make it more likely that people will get tested for HIV and seek treatment, by removing stigma. Criminalizing health conditions harms public health. Criminalizing HIV makes it less likely people will get tested. If an HIV infection occurs, we need to make sure that people have access to healthcare.
[/QUOTE]
At the moment, knowledge that you are carrying HIV is the key requirement for prosecution to go forward on felony charges. This creates a situation where it's better for a person who might have HIV to not get tested, which leads to further spreading, intentional or otherwise.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52758517]What are doctors saying about this?[/QUOTE]
Can't find any doctors, but research shows that HIV-specific laws have negligibable to negative impact on the spread of HIV, so most HIV advocates (baiscally all of them) agree with lowering criminal penalties.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52758517]Can HIV blood be put into circulation? (for lack of a better word) [/QUOTE]
No, California requires all donated blood to be tested, and will not accept donations from people with HIV.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52758517]Are there any protective measures in place by hospitals to make sure it can't be accepted?[/QUOTE]
Yes
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52758517]What is the risk of contracting HIV this way? (I'd imagine it's 100% yeah you're fucked)[/QUOTE]
The chances of actually getting a blood transfusion containing HIV ranges from one in 1.5 million to one in two million in the United States, depending on studies. Chances of infection from that blood is probably 100% but I'm not a doctor and I can't find sources on that.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52758517]Can [U]potentially[/U] HIV blood be circulated across the USA or does it not leave Cali?[/QUOTE]
Not sure on how blood donations cross state borders.
[QUOTE=rb2kk;52760406]watch this shit eventually lead to another HIV/AIDS outbreak if things go unchecked (spoiler alert: they will), nice going jerry brown you fucking kooky dolt[/QUOTE]
Knowingly infecting others with DNA has happened a handful of times in the past 30 years. But even if you think it's a common problem, many states don't have any HIV specific laws on the book whatsoever, and many states that do consider it either a misdemeanor or a sentence enhancement.
Sources:
[url]http://www.snopes.com/is-california-gov-positive-people-blood/[/url]
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/false-headline-hiv-blood-donation/[/url]
[url]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10461-014-0724-0/fulltext.html[/url]
[editline]8th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52756338]God help anyone who has to receive a transfusion when in California. Imagine getting your life ruined because some selfish prick decided not to disclose the fact that they have HIV[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AkujiTheSniper;52756359]I hope to God I will never need an emergency transfusion.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52756371]There should be a travel advisory if people want to go to California now. "If you get injured and need a blood transfusion, you risk having to spend thousands of dollars on medicine, or possibly getting a death sentence"
Honest to god
[/QUOTE]
Just because intentionally donating infectious blood is going from a felony to a misdemeanor (which is still more than the penalty in some states) doesn't mean the blood isn't going to be tested.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52756421]I wonder what the CDC would have to say about this.[/QUOTE]
Historically the CDC has called for states to [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html"]re-examine criminal HIV laws[/URL].
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52759389]
Other illnesses aren't permanent diseases that require a drug cocktail to be constantly taken (and not a day missed). Other illnesses don't destroy your immune system to the point of non functioning. The "other diseases" your referring to, don't kill you.
If HIV were "just another disease" then we wouldn't have given a flying fuck about the epidemic of it. Its not, its flat out deadly if not treated, and treatment costs a fuckload of money (and lowers your lifespan anyway).[/QUOTE]
"Not a day missed" missing a day isn't a death sentence. It comes down to the drug being taken how much of a problem that is.
There is much worse that can be spread to somebody than HIV. Give me HIV over prions, rabies, perhaps some forms of MRSA, herpes B, etc..
And of course, this doesn't address the other reasons given for changing this law such as getting people to be more honest and likely to get professionally tested. This could actually result in FEWER HIV infections in the long-haul.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52756327]People with HIV, no matter how they got it, should [I]always[/I] disclose their condition, and should NEVER give blood.
Holy fuck California is a state of morons[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I voted against Brown knowing he was a clusterfuck...but I didn't know he was this retarded. Brown, Weiner(asshole who pushed the bill) and anyone who signed it need to be held liable for any damages caused to anyone who gets infected with HIV. Hell, make them pay for any victims treatment.
If I were a paranoid, controversy-spouting madman, I'd almost say this was an intentional decision to increase the chance of more people contracting HIV and, subsequently, sell more HIV medications that are essentially a lifelong payment plan to the pharmacies that politician probably lobby behind.
That's [I]if[/I] I were a paranoid, controversy-spouting madman. I honestly think it's just Cali being complete morons.
[QUOTE=Eva-1337;52760798]If I were a paranoid, controversy-spouting madman, I'd almost say this was an intentional decision to increase the chance of more people contracting HIV and, subsequently, sell more HIV medications that are essentially a lifelong payment plan to the pharmacies that politician probably lobby behind.
That's [I]if[/I] I were a paranoid, controversy-spouting madman. I honestly think it's just Cali being complete morons.[/QUOTE]
Do not attribute to malice what could easily be attributed to stupidity.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52756530]Meanwhile, thousands of vulnerable individuals will be exposed to HIV because predators decide to use the law as an excuse to not share their condition, which will lead to many people contracting HIV, or worse, developing AIDS.[/QUOTE]
At the moment people aren't getting tested so they can avoid the "knowingly" part of the law, which I'm not sure is any better.
Don't they test blood when it's donated?
I would hope that blood isnt just donated, stored, and distributed based on what the donor fills out on a form...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.