Supreme Court set to rule on duty to disclose HIV to sex partners

OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada will issue a ruling today on whether it is a crime for people with extremely low levels of HIV to withhold that fact from their sex partners.

OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada will issue a ruling today on whether it is a crime for people with extremely low levels of HIV to withhold that fact from their sex partners.

The Supreme Court will be ruling on two separate cases, from Manitoba and Quebec, essentially updating its landmark 1998 ruling on the subject.

Some critics argue the old ruling is outdated because of medical advances since then in treating the virus that causes AIDS.

The court ruled 14 years ago that people with HIV must inform their partners of their condition, or face a charge of aggravated sexual assault, which carries a maximum life sentence.

Interveners in the case say advances in HIV therapy have resulted in people able to live long lives with minuscule levels of virus that are almost impossible to transmit.

Prosecutors from both provinces have argued that HIV carriers have a duty to inform their partners regardless of the risk, so they can make an informed decision.




Browse

Supreme Court set to rule on duty to disclose HIV to sex partners

  1. Vaccines for hepatitis B were distributed by the WHO and developed by Litton Bionetics in Uganda during the reign of Idi Amin.

    They were also developing biological warfare agents at the same time.

    The vaccines were distributed in two populations: Africa and in the New York homosexual population, places where AIDS first became established. AIDS has bovine leukemia and visna virus for its parents.

    Draw your own conclusions about deliberate or accidental on AIDS and ebola…

  2. Why not just quarantine everyone with AIDS?

    That would be the logical choice in epidemiology.

    Political correctness is going to get a lot of people killed.

    • Sure! And let’s lock up everyone who refuses the flu shot.

        • You’re right, it’s not. It is far more contagious; the average person is at greater risk of dying from contact with someone who has influenza than from someone with HIV.

          So by applying the rules of epidemiology, we should at the very least be quarantining everyone with flu symptoms – and arguably all those who refuse flu shots as well, as they are deliberately opening themselves up to contagion and to becoming vector points themselves.

          In Canada, we have about 8000 deaths per year from the flu, and less than 100 per year from AIDS. The average Canadian is thus 80 times more likely to die from the flu than AIDS in an average year. From an epidemiological perspective, therefore, it makes more sense to quarantine everyone with symptoms and everyone who refuses a flu shot than to lock up everyone with HIV.

          But of course my original comment was a sarcastic snipe to point out the ridiculousness of your original statement. You are basically saying that people with HIV should be locked away for the rest of their lives, on the off chance they give someone else the disease.

          There is certainly an argument to be made to continue to charge those who have unprotected sex &/or fail to notify their partners of their HIV status, but full quarantine is unnecessary. It would be less cruel to take them out back and shoot them than to lock them away for years because they contracted this disease.

          Give your head a shake.

          • AIDS is a natural filth cleansing mechanism of nature.

            Your filthy, unnatural practices breed it.

          • Let’s see… I’m a heterosexual male who was faithfully married for twenty years, who has had a very limited number of partners and always practices safe sex with new partners.

            Please identify which of my practices are filthy and unnatural… serial monogamy, perhaps?

            I don’t have – or even know – anyone with HIV. But I do have gay friends, and I find your comment pathetic. What a sad, little, hate-filled man you are!

          • The difference between a Canadian cowboy and a Texas cowboy…

            They both see a cow with it’s head stuck in the fence.

            The Texas cowboy runs over and rapes the cow and turns to the Canadian cowboy and asks if he wants some….

            The Canadian cowboy runs over, sticks his head in the fence, drops his pants and says “o.k.”

          • Ah, so you’re into bestiality! Can’t say I’m surprised…

          • You got your head in the fence…

          • And you’re the one who prefers humping cows…

          • Say “moo” for me…

          • Anyway… if you want to go back to sensible debate, let me know. If you want someone to follow you down your rabbit hole and trade nonsensical comments, I suggest you seek out EmilyOne. You and she ought to get along famously.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *