County Health Officials Get Court Order To Stop Hiv-Infected Man

[seaguy]

To stop a man with HIV who has infected eight other people in the last four years, public health officials have sought court enforcement of its order requiring him to attend counseling and treatment sessions.

 

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024509443_hivorderxml.html

[btm2bbred]

King County public health policy seems pretty enlightened -- try to get the man to get counseling and treatment sessions.

 

However, he's done it before and fallen off the HIV wagon--so I have doubts that it may be effective.

 

The readers' comments seem to be along the lines of lock him up and throw away the key--a somewhat unenlightened position.

[seaguy]

I live here in Seattle but can't think of anyone I know with those initials.  I'm guessing he is usIng the "Don't ask Don't tell" policy but they did not give enough information to be sure.  If that is what is going on I am sympathetic to the 8 guys he has pozzed but then not that sympathetic because they should have asked if otherwise they might as well have been bug chasers.  That said I don't think it is right to do what he did.  There are going to be naive, less educated people, young guys who are inexperienced or have a rosy view of everyone so they will just assume someone would surely tell them they had HIV before fucking them bareback.  I don't think it is fair for someone to not disclose when they are poz.  It's people like AO who do what he has done that create and perpetuate all the shit that people with HIV experience when trying to meet other guys.  Like they say one bad apple ruins it for the whole bunch.

 

King County is fairly progressive but the Seattle Times tends to be conservative hence the comments on their site which I noticed they had closed already probably due to the nastiness of the ones already left.  Personally I don't think counseling will do jack shit for this guy.  But we shall see maybe it will if he has some mental issues or something.  There are plenty of mentally ill people in this state that need help.  Our supreme court just told the state they can't warehouse people waiting for a bed to open at a psychiatric facility in the hospitals anymore so the state is scrambling to get more psych beds before the court holds them in violation of its ruling.  Its scary cause mentally ill people out in the streets are ticking time bombs we have had people stabbed and murdered because someone with mental illness just snapped.  They fall through the cracks.  Hopefully this guy gets the help he may need cause if not they are gonna have to do something the public won't stand for letting this guy continue to give others HIV like he has done to 8 so far.

[slowfuck]

We have no way to know whether the eight were happy to take the risk, which could well be the case. The ill informed comments come from fearful people who assume there's always a victim and perpetrator when that's not necessarily the case. The issue seems to be that the guy doesn't want, or feel motivated, to take his meds, and the 'state' wants him to take them so that he doesn't infect more people.

Edited September 12, 2014 by slowfuck

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

I am doubting those 8 were "happy to take the risk". Those 8 reported AO by name. Those not reported, and surely there are some, would have told health workers "I don't know". Now most of us here realize that county health could get DNA typing done and learn of others, but that was not reported in the article. The article stated they named AO. Likely there are unidentified individuals.

I personally find what AO is doing to be sociopathic. If it weren't HIV, it would be something else. Sadly his behavior has the effect of making lives of other Poz guys more difficult.

Another takeaway though is that this underscores why and how more wide communication and availability of PrEP could be a social game changer...

[rtpbbcub]

We have no way to know whether the eight were happy to take the risk, which could well be the case. The ill informed comments come from fearful people who assume there's always a victim and perpetrator when that's not necessarily the case.

It seems to be more that, as a whole, we are taking away the right to choose for ourselves. At least as far as criminalization states are concerned, it isn't that one has a right to not get infected (which means one would have autonomy and responsibility regarding their choices, as in an HIV positive partner who fails to disclose or takes intentional effort to infect another against their knowledge or will and does so (seroconversion occurs), but otherwise an HIV negative person could equally choose to become infected), so much as it comes from the position that infection is always illegal, if a person knows they are HIV positive to start with.

What I'm getting at, is that the whole onus is on the HIV positive person. Much as the same as, for comparison, we view statuatory rape. Whether an underage person consents or not is irrelevant, they have no right to consent.

Regardless of ones feeling on bug chasing or gift giving, is there a sound basis to tell someone that they cannot choose for themselves whether or not to have sex with a partner thwy know to be HIV positive, whether it is for the express intent of infection or just indifference. States are frequently saying yes, even when transmission of the virus fails to occur, no one has the ability to (as an HIV negative partner) make that decision. The problem is, it gets turned into the issue of the HIV positive partner who "needs help" (or a lynch mob, gas chamber, psychiatric counseling, etc.)

What it doesn't become is anything to do with the HIV negative partner and whether or not they have any fore knowledge of the situation. They are an automatic victim in need of support and understanding, not of their choices or indifference to making them, not of the responsibility for ones own health, not of the sex they consented to, but of their "feelings" toward the demon who tried to infect them. It's utter nonsense. Nonsense, unless you start from the position that people do not have a choice.

Who needs anti-sodomy laws so long as we can just lock up all the poz ones, based on the notion that their own community will throw them to the wolves so long as they keep buying the narrative that they need not have responsibility for any part of their sexual experience, so long as they are HIV negative, because it's the poz guys fault, because you can't consent to infection.

[Guest thehammerman]

Here's an interesting news report, which states: "A Seattle judge has ordered an HIV-positive man to stop spreading the disease and to seek treatment after he infected eight people in four years."

 

Reported in the British news. Here's the link:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29168782

 

(I thought the heading was bizarre - as the court has ordered the man to stop the virus! If only things were that simple).

[cam1972]

This story is a prime example of why stealthing, lying about your status or simply not disclosing it is better kept in fantasy land. No one is a winner in the end. Including us, the poz guys who don't do those things. Makes us look bad. But I feel for the ones infected by the coward. Not something anyone deserves.

[seaguy]

Here's a report on this story that the local CBS affiliate station did http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/king-county-prosecutors-say-hiv-positive-man-conti/nhKpd/

[pjaco]

This story is a prime example of why stealthing, lying about your status or simply not disclosing it is better kept in fantasy land. No one is a winner in the end. Including us, the poz guys who don't do those things. Makes us look bad. But I feel for the ones infected by the coward. Not something anyone deserves.

I fully share your viewpoint.

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

It seems to be more that, as a whole, we are taking away the right to choose for ourselves. At least as far as criminalization states are concerned, it isn't that one has a right to not get infected (which means one would have autonomy and responsibility regarding their choices, as in an HIV positive partner who fails to disclose or takes intentional effort to infect another against their knowledge or will and does so (seroconversion occurs), but otherwise an HIV negative person could equally choose to become infected), so much as it comes from the position that infection is always illegal, if a person knows they are HIV positive to start with.

What I'm getting at, is that the whole onus is on the HIV positive person. Much as the same as, for comparison, we view statuatory rape. Whether an underage person consents or not is irrelevant, they have no right to consent.

Regardless of ones feeling on bug chasing or gift giving, is there a sound basis to tell someone that they cannot choose for themselves whether or not to have sex with a partner thwy know to be HIV positive, whether it is for the express intent of infection or just indifference. States are frequently saying yes, even when transmission of the virus fails to occur, no one has the ability to (as an HIV negative partner) make that decision. The problem is, it gets turned into the issue of the HIV positive partner who "needs help" (or a lynch mob, gas chamber, psychiatric counseling, etc.)

What it doesn't become is anything to do with the HIV negative partner and whether or not they have any fore knowledge of the situation. They are an automatic victim in need of support and understanding, not of their choices or indifference to making them, not of the responsibility for ones own health, not of the sex they consented to, but of their "feelings" toward the demon who tried to infect them. It's utter nonsense. Nonsense, unless you start from the position that people do not have a choice.

Who needs anti-sodomy laws so long as we can just lock up all the poz ones, based on the notion that their own community will throw them to the wolves so long as they keep buying the narrative that they need not have responsibility for any part of their sexual experience, so long as they are HIV negative, because it's the poz guys fault, because you can't consent to infection.

I need to acknowledge you raise excellent points. Now more than ever neg guys can (at least in USA) access PrEP and become responsible for their own health. The article though seems pretty fair and balanced to reflect your views. They were careful to not cast the shadow on all Poz people. Moreover, they reflect that individuals have rights to take risks. So it was clear AO, the subject in the article stealthed 8 known people.

Now please understand I personally agree that nowadays neg people can bareback and avoid HIV. But also understand that many of us here are unusually enlightened where the general, public reader of this newspaper article most likely are no so enlightened. That is what I meant in my post a few posts back about (unfair) pressure on Poz guys. The public will react in a "Poz = bad" when the greatest majority of Poz people are not the problem.

Most infections come from individuals who are unaware if their HIV status (and I acknowledge they could be if they tested frequently enough commensurate with their sex practices). I believe a fraction of new (unexpected) infections come from sociopaths such as AO. Past all this are the gifter / chaser people who are wise enough to tell the public health worker that they were at a party, or such, and took multiple loads from individuals they don't know. The public reader of newspaper articles will not understand this. And this is the crux of my disdain for AO. I don't care that he gifts. I care that he intentionally infects others deceiving them. To my way of thinking this ranks up there with theatre shooters, drunk drivers (that being a significant problem here in Wisconsin where the rights of drunk drivers trump their victims). I would jail him in a heartbeat not because he is Poz, but because he is a sociopath.

Edited September 13, 2014 by JizzDumpWI

[BiAggieGuy]

If the 8 people had been chasing, or fucking him despite his status, they likely wouldn't have reported him.  The odds are he was telling them he was negative with the intention of pozzing them.

 

The latter is wrong regardless of whether or not the bottom is willing to take the risk.  One should be honest about their status if asked.  However, if the bottom doesn't ask or it is an anonymous hookup such as a bathhouse, then that falls on the bottom for first of all not asking, and second taking anonymous loads from total strangers.

[bottompigboi]

I wasn't there, so I'll never know for sure....but based on what I know of human nature, I'd tend to believe that he didn't disclose....and if that's the case......that's really fucked up to do to someone ....

While, yes, the other partners had personal responsibility, it's still wrong

[rawTOP]

Our contry has a long history of quarrentine. Here in NYC there's North Brother Island. Typhoid Mary was kept there for a while. At least they're not contemplating quarrentine.

 

Unlike some of the diseases of the past - HIV takes two for transmission. I still believe the neg person should be the primary one responsible for their own health. Poz folk's only responsibility (IMHO) is to answer truthfully when asked.

[wood]

I am doubting those 8 were "happy to take the risk". Those 8 reported AO by name. Those not reported, and surely there are some, would have told health workers "I don't know". Now most of us here realize that county health could get DNA typing done and learn of others, but that was not reported in the article. The article stated they named AO. Likely there are unidentified individuals.

I personally find what AO is doing to be sociopathic. If it weren't HIV, it would be something else. Sadly his behavior has the effect of making lives of other Poz guys more difficult.

Another takeaway though is that this underscores why and how more wide communication and availability of PrEP could be a social game changer...

Bingo.  

 

This underscores how stealthing really should just remain a fantasy.  I'm all for sexual fun, but do you want your name in the news or in jail to do it? 

 

There is lots of guys out there to have sex with that don't care, pick one of those.  

 

On a sidenote I guess washington doesnt have any laws regarding HIV transmission, otherwise I am quite sure the guy would have been in jail. 

Our contry has a long history of quarrentine. Here in NYC there's North Brother Island. Typhoid Mary was kept there for a while. At least they're not contemplating quarrentine.

 

Unlike some of the diseases of the past - HIV takes two for transmission. I still believe the neg person should be the primary one responsible for their own health. Poz folk's only responsibility (IMHO) is to answer truthfully when asked.

 

Ehh I cant agree with that, its 50/50.  

 

the neg person should always ask, and the HIV+ person should always be upfront and truthful, especially when its in a one on one hookup situation.  Bathhouses and sex parties are a different situation