Talk:Criminal transmission of HIV

It has been a while since a created an article. I need help fixing it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

i fundamentally disagree with the crux of this article

specifically the idea that these laws help prevent HIV infection. the fact globally, 'criminal transmission' accounts for less than 1% of HIV infection combined with the fact the vast majority of infections are through partners who are unaware of their status suggests to me, that as practical measure in disease prevention, this laws are next to useless, and do little more than provide a false sense of security. what we know prevents infection is education eg, condoms and prep, effective and early medication, and destigmatisation - things in many parts of the world is sadly lacking, USA included AMassiveGay (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As long as you got the proper sources, you can write an effectiveness subsection that disputes these laws. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

i do not edit articles. aside from im uncertain how to fit that in and to be relevent, i found my last attempt to edit something was a painfully frustrating experience of folk not justifying reverts or even looking at my rational for making changes. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. How about this, you give me sources for your claim, and I'll make an edit about it. I can try fitting something in. Even if it's not much information, I can try fitting into the opening paragraph. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

the less than 1% appears to be a misreading on my part, but there is this Criminal laws fail to deter transmission of AIDS virus which also affirms my statement on education, there is 91% of HIV Passes From Those Unaware They’re Infected or Not in Care, Fall in HIV among gay men could spell end for Britain's epidemic, say experts and Massive drop in London HIV rates may be due to internet drugs which corraborates my point about medication and prep. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the information. Hope I remember to incorporate that information. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Thank you very much; it can't be understated. I've written the section. Any additional comment? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

the 'just HIV?' is such a weak argument

while i fully agree that just criminalising HIV is probably all kinds of double standard, the examples given are plainly just ridiculous. MRSA is fucking everywhere. its just idiotic to 'criminalise' it in a similar manner. its only a problem if you are immunocompromised which is why already sick people get it and die in hospitals, where deliberate or negligent transmission would be met prosecution. the flu comparison is equally ridiculous, the 60% mortality rate refers to one specific strain. the usual rate is about 0.1%. and how would you even enforce such laws with flu? you'd have to quarantine huges swathes of the population every winter. ebola comparisons are similarly idiotic. it is only in some parts of africa. every (very few) case outside of there involves someone who has returned from those parts, and if symptoms are shown, quarantined. its not enough of an issue to require any new legislation. as the 'icky' factor that get brought up continually with these things, just fuck off with that. how about the sheer fucking terror of an incurable and until recently fatal disease. a disease that devastated the gay community and others, the scars of which are only just starting to fade. these laws are ineffective for disease prevention and just heap on much unwanted stigma, but lets not downplay how devastating HIV/AIDS was, and still is in many parts of the world. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is a double standard, now a good compromise might be just restrict it to people who are completely know they have HIV/AIDS and intentionally spread it to others. A person should have the right to know if their potential sex partner is infected, the same should apply to other diseases. This compromise may reduce stigma (not saying if it would work or not, not a psychologist here) and protected people from infections. This is an emergency action notification broadcast at the order of --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

why do you even need a law at all? In the UK, it is all done via existing laws - gbh and the like. specific laws targeting HIV, as i said , do nothing but heap on the stigma and not much else. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Integrating HIV criminal laws into conventional laws

I get the concern of these laws leading to the stigma of HIV infected people. So to prevent stigma and protect people from the intentional spread of infectious disease, modify and integrate said laws into current public safety laws. Plus not making it specific to HIV. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

eeeugh, existing laws already do this. anything targeting HIV specifically is both unneeded and discriminatory. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

This article is blatantly dismissive of any benefits of these laws, and this talk section is even worse, it supports the legalisation of knowingly spreading hiv, an occurrence that is sadly common enough to warrant a law about. if you look into many DARK places on the internet, you find groups dedicated to spreading stis like Hiv. And to clarify, htis isn't about homophobia or any other debatedly connected topic, this is about preventing people from knowingly infecting others with a disease that can easily change the course of thier life ^{— Unsigned, by: 153.107.193.203 / talk}