tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post4102501920439591890..comments2023-10-07T22:37:49.244+13:00Comments on The Hand Mirror: Using HIV as a weaponkatyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15742280289613450293noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-44279173186028229302009-06-23T12:04:17.019+12:002009-06-23T12:04:17.019+12:00OK, so he's not technically a murderer because...OK, so he's not technically a murderer because no-one has **yet** died. But with 30 more people coming forward, there's unlikely to be a magic bullet for all of them - anti-virals only work with recent infections.<br /><br />I agree that this is not a health issue; it's a criminal issue. But it's not true that people have a moral obligation to disclose health problems. Someone who's infectious has a moral obligation to prevent their infection spreading (I believe that many gay men routinely now use two condoms for this reason), but if they don't need to disclose to do that they shouldn't have to. <br /><br />Life is risky; we all take risks all the time. What we all can do is try and find out how to reduce those risks and act accordingly. If this attitude became more common, it might help to break down the appalling blame culture that seems to run so much of public debate.M-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18409916623998907121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-13986678305492248982009-06-23T00:48:16.721+12:002009-06-23T00:48:16.721+12:00Shoot,
this entire thread is one of those situat...Shoot, <br /><br />this entire thread is one of those situations where I'm fascinated by the procedural intricacies and mechanics involved, but really have to try to avoid the broader picture or I become really glum.<br /><br />A bit like the physics of weapons.AWickennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-84858336026112480312009-06-22T20:18:13.381+12:002009-06-22T20:18:13.381+12:00*nods* :(
I've spent most of my disability ad...*nods* :(<br /><br />I've spent most of my disability advocacy time on mental illness not intellectual disability, but there are parallels in terms of the state's response (which is why I was aware of this case at the time).<br /><br />It is not at all unusual for mentally ill people to be charged with crimes they are obviously not culpable for, it's a mechanism to hold them until a CTO or other treatment plan can be sorted out. So I'm not particularly surprised his was charged with criminal nuisance.<br /><br />It's rarer, however, to follow through with the case. I'd guess they did it because he was non-compliant and they had some hope that he might take it seriously if he went to court (HIV is a more abstract concept than Police and court and jail, so their hope isn't entirely unreasonable) *sigh*<br /><br />There are huge issues around culpability, consent and similar concepts for people with intellectual disability (more so that mental illness where the state's first response is always to medicate into passivity) as intellectually handicapped people can and do make genuine decisions from a very different reference point than the rest of us.<br /><br />I should have said that at least his later confinement was managed by a very reputable provider of services to the mentally ill, with a small service provision to the severely intellectually handicapped. I have some hope that his last few years were as good as they could reasonably have been.Anitahttp://www.kiwipolitico.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-8206829177843523042009-06-22T19:13:36.710+12:002009-06-22T19:13:36.710+12:00That is heartbreaking in so many awful ways. I do...That is heartbreaking in so many awful ways. I don't get how he could be deemed culpable enough to be charged with criminal nuisance, when he was also confined on the grounds that his intellectual disability prevented him from fully understanding his situation. I don't have a problem with the confinement aspect if it was needed to protect the health of the public (and the circumstances were decent and humane), but it doesn't seem to fit with the criminal responsibility part.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06076244041878300351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-8154095740198927882009-06-22T18:14:36.859+12:002009-06-22T18:14:36.859+12:00I finally managed to dig up a story from 9-10 year...I finally managed to dig up a story from 9-10 years ago which I could only half remember. I think this story has every possible kind of awful, sorry.<br /><br />In 1999 an Christopher Truscott HIV positive intellectually handicapped man who had worked as a prostitute was found guilty of four counts of criminal nuisance for failing to disclose his status to men he had unprotected sex with. <br /><br />He was then locked up under the old legislation used to confine TB patients because his intellectual disability gets in the way of him understanding the situation, and he would continue to have undisclosed unprotected sex if left free. He managed to escape six times, going back to places he had found sexual partners in the past.<br /><br />He was describe in the media as terminally ill in late 2004.<br /><br />On the one hand it looks like we have legislation that works (although awkwardly).<br /><br />On the other, a whole bunch of men had unprotected sex with an intellectually handicapped man incapable of understanding the risk he was taking. One killed him by infecting him with HIV.Anitahttp://www.kiwipolitico.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-51845940745373707152009-06-22T17:54:39.841+12:002009-06-22T17:54:39.841+12:00I'm not a lawyer, my main skill is that I can ...I'm not a lawyer, my main skill is that I can find my way around databases :)<br /><br />I can grab the case report for <i>R v Mwai</i> and make it available if people are keen. It's pretty easy reading. <br /><br />A quick summary tho. Mwai was HIV positive and had unprotected sex with a number of women, one of whom contracted HIV, another was diagnosed with HIV but may have contracted it from someone else.<br /><br />He was found not guilty under s201 (Infecting with disease) because his actions were not wilful in that he didn't appear to fully understand that he had HIV and/or what HIV was and/or that unprotected sex could infect someone. <br /><br />He was found guilty under s188(2) (reckless disregard for the safety of others causing grievous bodily harm) for the woman who contracted HIV.<br /><br />He was found guilty under s145 (criminal nuisance) on each of 5 counts (one for each of the five named women he had unprotected sex with). The judgement appears to be that having unprotected sex when HIV positive <i>without disclosing the HIV status</i> breaches the duty of care.<br /><br />He was sentenced to 5 years for the GBH plus one count of criminal nuisance (for the woman infected) and 6 additional months for each of the other criminal nuisance charges.Anitahttp://www.kiwipolitico.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-90222581736107794562009-06-22T17:14:24.813+12:002009-06-22T17:14:24.813+12:00Are you a legal type, Anita? If so, can you give ...Are you a legal type, Anita? If so, can you give a run-down of the Mwai case for lay people?<br /><br />And does anyone have an opinion on whether the Crimes Act is actually up to the task of dealing with HIV - or is new legislation needed? I guess that yet another complexity of a case like this is that we don't know what the end result will be of HIV infection for Mills' victims. It's possible that some will die, making Mills a murderer - but that could be many years in the future. All of the victims will suffer a huge loss in their quality of life, but for some it will be greater than others - and a lot of the suffering they experience may be to the prejudices of other people, rather than because of their HIV status. <br /><br />I noticed (with horror) that some 30 more people have come forward for HIV tests in relation to the Mills case - the damage he's caused could be much further reaching.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06076244041878300351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-30166882155676266202009-06-22T16:56:11.148+12:002009-06-22T16:56:11.148+12:00A Brookers... :)
Adams on Criminal Law says, of s...A Brookers... :)<br /><br /><i>Adams on Criminal Law</i> says, of s201<br /><br />It is not enough that the causative act was deliberate. “Wilfully” means that the accused intended to cause or produce the disease, and recklessness is not sufficient: R v Mwai [1995] 3 NZLR 149; (1995) 13 CRNZ 273 (CA), at p 152; p 277; compare CA20.26. As to whether a disease may constitute grievous bodily harm under s 188, see CA188.02.Anitahttp://www.kiwipolitico.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-88864439441132936542009-06-22T16:35:14.848+12:002009-06-22T16:35:14.848+12:00I'm pretty sure there has been at least one ot...I'm pretty sure there has been at least one other person charged with this sort of thing within NZ - an African bloke, from memory, in the late 90s. Anybody remember that? Anybody know what he was charged with?DPF:TLDRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06372937855256319716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-85777337184920171982009-06-22T16:27:48.840+12:002009-06-22T16:27:48.840+12:00Ahh, legislation.govt.nz, how you whittle away my ...Ahh, legislation.govt.nz, how you whittle away my hours...<br /><br />Okay, given the lack of a death (so far) from the actions of Mr Mills, murder is out as a charge.<br /><br />Crimes Act 1961 maximum sentences: <br />s201 Infecting with disease = 14 years.<br /><br />s188 Wounding with intent = 7 years for "reckless disregard"<br /><br />s173 Attempt to murder = 14 years<br /><br />SO:<br /><br />at a wild guess attempted murder is not an easy, as he can argue that he didn't intend for anybody to die from AIDS (it's treatable).<br /><br />Same length penalty for infecting with disease, so it's not a material difference to him, BUT the Crown needs to prove he *intended* (wilfully) each specific person to contract the disease. It probably also has a case history going back to TB etc, so might not have been tested in a while (just looking at the act here, not case law).<br /><br />Hence the fallback position of "wounding with reckless disregard". 7 years, but it's a catch-all if the primary s201 charge fails, is my guess.<br /><br />And the case hasn't been tried yet, BTW, so he might have a reasonable defence.AWickennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-27575169274931438702009-06-22T15:34:34.013+12:002009-06-22T15:34:34.013+12:00I don't believe we should have any less compas...I don't believe we should have any less compassion for people who get HIV through unprotected sex. I never said that.<br /><br />But Cactus obviously believes that to be true that's why I mentioned it.<br /><br />And Hugh get over yourself. Saying we should have compassion for people with HIV has nothing to do with rape. I was merely trying to say that a comment of "who cares" is cruel.<br /><br />I never said shit about people having the "right" to have sex.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-19125117761295670952009-06-22T13:00:11.163+12:002009-06-22T13:00:11.163+12:00Paul, I don't appreciate either your willful m...Paul, I don't appreciate either your willful misreading of what I've written, or the sarcasm of your comments. If you don't like the posts, don't read them, and if you can't manage to comment in good faith or with a respectful tone, don't comment.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06076244041878300351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-19206739188392022582009-06-22T12:27:18.888+12:002009-06-22T12:27:18.888+12:00No-one has died yet, so far as you know. And yippy...No-one has died yet, so far as you know. And yippy-yi-yi-yay, medication may be able to prevent his victims getting AIDS.<br /><br />This is not a health issue. There are some who pass on HIV unwittingly, despite all the public health messages. But Mills is not one of them; he treated his multiple sexual partners as meat. I expect he wanted to infect them. <br /><br />Greg Louganis had a moral responsibility to tell the medics he was HIV positive and they had a similar responsibilty to keep his confidence. I have little sympathy for people who endanger the lives of those who are helping them.<br /><br />I think there are better causes than this one you could fight; although, given the recent 'lets be culturally sensitive to South African rapists' post, I am beginning to wonder what the Hand Mirror will come up with next.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024440694895271805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-54254814692801387192009-06-22T11:59:10.423+12:002009-06-22T11:59:10.423+12:00Mills isn't a murderer - no one has died from ...Mills isn't a murderer - no one has died from his actions, and medication may be able to prevent the people he's infected from developing AIDS. That's not to downplay the seriousness of what he's done, but I don't think it will help his victims psychologically to be thought of, or think about themselves, as necessarily having a death sentence.<br /><br />The Greg Louganis case isn't the same legally, or in terms of transmission risk, but at the time it happened, risk transmission wasn't well understood (I'm not sure it is now, either). The public perceived Louganis had a moral responsibility to let people know about his HIV status, and he later conceded this - but he was afraid to meet what he thought was his responsibility at the time. <br /><br />The point I was trying to make here is just a public health one: if people feel likely to be persecuted by a public that doesn't understand HIV risk properly, then they'll be less likely to be upfront about their health status. It's not a good thing (and it doesn't necessarily explain Mills' behaviour), but it's just how it is. <br /><br />And Cactus Kate makes the very fair point that insisting on safe sex doesn't necessarily protect your partner from HIV, given the condom failure rate. If we want people to be that honest about their personal business, we need a society that's well-informed about HIV/AIDS transmission, and not inclined to treat HIV like they should be in leper colonies.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06076244041878300351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-37941804911440854142009-06-22T10:37:43.264+12:002009-06-22T10:37:43.264+12:00The Greg Louganis case is not relevant. All medica...The Greg Louganis case is not relevant. All medical and nursing staff should treat every patient as if they have a blood-borne disease. That's called 'universal precautions' and if it's followed staff protect themselves, as well as protecting patients from any diseases that they themselves might be carrying.<br /><br />This man is a murderer. He didn't have to disclose his status - all he had to do was insist on safe condom use, and refuse to have sex with people who didn't want to comply. And to protect themselves, all they had to do was refuse to have sex with him if he wouldn't comply.<br /><br />Of course there will be victim-blaming, but let's face it - they took the risk, which they probably judged as small, and it didn't pay off. They do bear some responsibility, which will transmute to blame in some people's eyes.M-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18409916623998907121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-81399489658326861602009-06-21T15:51:18.954+12:002009-06-21T15:51:18.954+12:00I agree with everyone today :)
I agree that judgi...I agree with everyone today :)<br /><br />I agree that judging the culpability of the person with HIV and then having compassion in reverse proportion is not how we should be.<br /><br />But I also agree with Anonymous' original criticism of Cactus Kate's comment. Why should we care? Because they're human beings and we feel empathy.<br /><br />Being diagnosed with HIV is beyond awful on so many levels, giving up on ever having sex (and the intimacy and comfort that it can bring) would be another piece of sadness and exclusion. <br /><br />It doesn't matter than sex isn't a right, every loss of possibility is a loss.Anitahttp://www.kiwipolitico.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-36518203858424013742009-06-21T14:38:58.611+12:002009-06-21T14:38:58.611+12:00Anon, I appreciate that you're arguing for sho...Anon, I appreciate that you're arguing for showing compassion for people with HIV, but I think that it's a mistake to go down the road of implying that people deserve more or less sympathy depending on how they got the virus. It's bloody awful, whether you get it from breastmilk or sex. <br /><br />That's a different issue from how people with HIV go on to treat their sexual partners - but if we imply people who've contracted HIV through sex are less deserving of compassion, we make it more likely that they'll be ashamed or afraid to be honest with their sexual partners.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06076244041878300351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-28099232508691875392009-06-21T14:25:01.365+12:002009-06-21T14:25:01.365+12:00Anon, the ability to have regular sex is not gener...Anon, the ability to have regular sex is not generally considered a right.<br /><br />See rape, etc.DPF:TLDRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06372937855256319716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-49929931014610488622009-06-21T13:21:36.756+12:002009-06-21T13:21:36.756+12:00"Obviously this will eliminate most of the se..."Obviously this will eliminate most of the sex they will ever have, but who cares?"<br /><br />Um it's not their fault they have HIV. Why have you got so much vitriol for people with HIV? You can be born with it you know. You can get it nursing. <br /><br />There are heaps of people with HIV who didn't get it through unprotected sex.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-69517841647375660282009-06-21T10:25:20.603+12:002009-06-21T10:25:20.603+12:00If my partner was HIV positive I'd certainly w...If my partner was HIV positive I'd certainly want to know, because of the possibility of condom failure - no matter how safe the sex was. I'd assume most people would feel the same way. Should it be a criminal offense not to tell someone of your HIV status though? It's an important aspect of informed consent, but the corollary of it would be HIV positive people declaring their status in any situation where transmission is possible. <br /><br />I'm vaguely thinking of Greg Louganis, when he cracked his head on the diving board, but didn't tell the people patching up his wound that he was HIV positive. Morally, he should have - but it was hard not to feel sorry for the guy, who was under media scrutiny at the time, and would have been terrified of persecution by the media and public. <br /><br />Admitting to being HIV positive certainly would cut back a person's casual sex encounters, although not necessarily sex in a long-term relationship. But one of the many sad things about this case is that it may produce a knee-jerk fear reaction against HIV positive people, reminiscent of the 80s. That takes the attention of the public away from supporting people with HIV and managing risk of transmission while still enjoying a sex life.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06076244041878300351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-82895045146627148952009-06-20T20:19:27.837+12:002009-06-20T20:19:27.837+12:00Oh for goodness sake...this guy deliberately and i...Oh for goodness sake...this guy deliberately and intentionally and with forethought and planning attempted to infect HIV into others.<br /><br />You shouldn't hate him for being gay/bisexual or whatever he is. He should be despised for being a murderer, albeit slow painful deaths.<br /><br />Condoms fail and therefore the failure rate means every HIV positive person must tell their partner they are HIV positive. Anon 10.41pm therefore is incorrect.<br /><br />Obviously this will eliminate most of the sex they will ever have, but who cares?<br /><br />My comment originally was that now this creep's name has been made public, having HIV is the least of his problems.Cactus Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136331420768264938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-67024147362183591522009-06-20T14:02:25.874+12:002009-06-20T14:02:25.874+12:00I'm with Fairfacts Media on this one. There is...I'm with Fairfacts Media on this one. There is no complexity here: if he knew he was HIV Positive and he practised unsafe sex, then he is no different from a poisoner.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024440694895271805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-64752981653054716782009-06-20T12:56:20.085+12:002009-06-20T12:56:20.085+12:00Cactus Kate, I couldn't really let the comment...Cactus Kate, I couldn't really let the comment about physical violence stand - but feel free to repost the rest of the comment.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06076244041878300351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-69647067158222130632009-06-20T11:17:43.639+12:002009-06-20T11:17:43.639+12:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Cactus Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136331420768264938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-57519946363901760962009-06-20T10:46:49.868+12:002009-06-20T10:46:49.868+12:00Thanks for the link Christina - will follow that u...Thanks for the link Christina - will follow that up.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06076244041878300351noreply@blogger.com