HIV status is a private medical matter. Everyone or anyone may be positive for Hepatitis viruses, HIV, or other blood and body fluid diseases and not know it, or not want to know it, or not care they are positive. It's your responsibility to protect yourself if you use needle drugs or have sexual contact to use universal precautions, just as health professionals and others have done for decades.
Criminalizing HIV status, releasing names of people who are HIV+ and are "dangerous", or criminalizing transmission of HIV just discourages people from getting tested.
trishcuit
Posted on: 08/11/2011 14:23
If the person has a criminal record of violent crimes or history of any activity where blood or certain body fluids may mingle then yes. The system has protected perpetrators for too long out of sensitivity to their rights, at the expense of victims.
However your average HIV positive person is entitled to privacy.
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 08/16/2011 06:59
As with many of these polls I have a problem giving a yes or no answer. These are not issues that are black and white.
In this case, I do not believe it is necessary to release the identity of the illness. However, identifying the individual as a community risk is understandable and necessary if the individual is unwilling to take the steps necessary to protect others.
It does not matter whether the person has HIV, hepatitis, or any other highly communicable disease - it is the individual's behaviour that puts people at risk.
BethanyK
Posted on: 08/22/2011 09:30
I agree LB. If the person is considered a risk to the public and ONLY then would I agree anything should be released and then not naming the specific disease would be a fair compromise.
Comments
arachne
Posted on: 08/10/2011 14:09
HIV status is a private medical matter. Everyone or anyone may be positive for Hepatitis viruses, HIV, or other blood and body fluid diseases and not know it, or not want to know it, or not care they are positive. It's your responsibility to protect yourself if you use needle drugs or have sexual contact to use universal precautions, just as health professionals and others have done for decades.
Criminalizing HIV status, releasing names of people who are HIV+ and are "dangerous", or criminalizing transmission of HIV just discourages people from getting tested.
trishcuit
Posted on: 08/11/2011 14:23
If the person has a criminal record of violent crimes or history of any activity where blood or certain body fluids may mingle then yes. The system has protected perpetrators for too long out of sensitivity to their rights, at the expense of victims.
However your average HIV positive person is entitled to privacy.
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 08/16/2011 06:59
As with many of these polls I have a problem giving a yes or no answer. These are not issues that are black and white.
In this case, I do not believe it is necessary to release the identity of the illness. However, identifying the individual as a community risk is understandable and necessary if the individual is unwilling to take the steps necessary to protect others.
It does not matter whether the person has HIV, hepatitis, or any other highly communicable disease - it is the individual's behaviour that puts people at risk.
BethanyK
Posted on: 08/22/2011 09:30
I agree LB. If the person is considered a risk to the public and ONLY then would I agree anything should be released and then not naming the specific disease would be a fair compromise.