Thorny legal issues in case of HIV in marriage - CA to weigh privacy right

[Kadie]

CALIFORNIA
Thorny legal issues in case of HIV in marriage
State's top court to weigh privacy right, liability for harm
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, April 4, 2006


The California Supreme Court will sift through the ruins of the marriage of an AIDS-infected couple today to decide what information partners must tell one another about past high-risk sexual activity.

At a hearing in Los Angeles, the court will look into the legal consequences of a woman's claim that her husband -- a healthy person, by all outward appearances and his own assurances -- infected her with HIV.

snip...
One question the court will address is how much one spouse, or unmarried partner, is entitled to know about the other's sexual past as a safeguard against infection. Another is whether a partner who was unaware of his condition can be held responsible for infecting his mate if his past practices or health condition should have given him cause for concern.

The case has given rise to some unusually blunt language in written arguments to the court. In particular, a lawyer for the wife, identified only as Bridget B., minced no words in arguing that she should have been told about her husband's past sexual contacts with men before she "decided to risk her life by having unprotected sex'' with him.

"This is not a hooker and trick in some back alley -- or a sordid affair in a cheap hotel,'' wrote attorney Roland Wrinkle. "This was a formal marriage. How can the state protect a wife's contractual and property status in dealing with her husband, yet not protect her life?''

more...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/04/BAG6MI2NG61.DTL

[sui generis]

1. yet another case of getting the gummint to babysit for you

If you're going to HAVE SEX with someone, much less marry them you should be prepared to ask those questions yourself and judge for yourself.

Why is it every time someone gets busted for not taking care of their own children, their own self, they want government oversight and babysitting?

It's just common sense in this day and age. If you really want to be sure, then get tested. You don't have to marry someone who refuses to get tested if you think it's warranted - that's your prerogative.

[skygazer]

2. Exactly

It has been standard operating procedure for me to insist that anyone I'm going to sleep with is tested - and I have been tested at the same time.

It's not rocket science.

[SoCalDem]

5. It's ultimately about trust..not government intervention

She could have demanded a test on Tuesday, and he checked out clean..and on Thursday he could get infected, and pass it on to her..

It "could" happen to ANY couple..married or not.. It;s about trust and fidelity..

Life's a gamble..

[Betsy Ross]

3. We got tested.

Practiced safe sex for 6 months until the second test. CLEAN! Well worth it for piece of mind and physical health. Happily married for 10 years. Any relationship that can't hold up for the 6 months isn't leading to a good marriage so it testing is a good test on that score too.

[JackBeck]

4. Another piece of lazy journalism.

You can't be "AIDS-infected". AIDS is a "diagnosis". I'm getting so sick of the media using the word "AIDS" as a scare tactic. A person is infected with a virus, in this case, HIV. That virus can lead to an AIDS diagnosis. An AIDS diagnosis occurs when one of the following three things happens: 1) An opportunistic infection, 2) CD4 cells drop below 200, or 3) CD4% drops below 14%. The current definition went into effect Jan. 1, 1993. It was created for two reasons: 1) to track how many people are in danger of being seriously ill due to HIV; and 2) so that someone whose immune system is seriously compromised can qualify for benefits.

Another common misconception is that someone with HIV or an AIDS diagnosis looks a certain way. I attribute this to how when the media finally got around to paying attention to the fact that thousands of people were dying in this country, they splashed images of gay men at the last stages of this infection. They usually had Kaposi's sarcoma (the purple lesions) and looked like they were wasting away. People living with HIV don't "look" sick. That's why I find: "a healthy person, by all outward appearances and his own assurances" an attitude that should have been left in the last millennium.