[Vision2020] Health District HIV Gossip?

[Janesta Carcich]

I believe the HIPPA laws would protect the women in
question if there was a court case.

 Also, the Health Department is prudent in testing
those with known exposed risk first. Would you rather
they NOT ask, then say... the person who was put off
for a couple of weeks, have an intimate experience
with yet ANOTHER partner and possibly expose someone
else?  

Your other paragraph makes no sense. Someone would not
get charged if they didn't know they had HIV. From
what I understand, it is those who KNOWINGLY and with
DISREGUARD for their partner's safety do not tell them
of their status prior to.......

Using IV drugs? Jail for them is fine by me. IV, Meth
destroys lives and families.

Janesta
--- Tbertruss at aol.com wrote:

> 
> All:
> 
> I agree with Saundra that there are disturbing signs
> of abandonment of the 
> principle of innocent till proven guilty in the
> Mubita HIV case.  But given the 
> fact that numerous cases of death row inmates being
> proven innocent, after 
> they were found guilty in a court and sentenced to
> death, are on record in the 
> USA, should anyone be surprised?
> 
> Vision2020 is going far beyond insisting on public
> safety in the discussions 
> on Mubita's alleged conduct.
> 
> Those who are concerned about encouraging testing
> for HIV might consider the 
> impact of on those who are afraid to get tested of
> what seems like an attempt 
> to try and convict Mubita on Vision2020.  Would
> someone want a positive HIV 
> test to result in those who may have sexually
> contacted HIV from them coming 
> forward to file legal charges, resulting in their
> lives and conduct dissected on 
> a public list serve?  Yes, sharing a needle is a
> more certain method of 
> transferring the HIV virus than sexual relations in
> some cases, so anyone who finds 
> out they are HIV positive who uses IV drugs has this
> possible legal 
> ramification regarding allegations of knowingly
> engaging in conduct that can spread HIV. 
>  
> 
> The prosecutorial "climate" on Vision2020 does not
> encourage people coming 
> forward to be HIV tested.
> 
> I offer a few corrections and comments regarding
> some statements in this 
> discussion:
> 
> Saundra wrote:
> 
> Yes -- as far as *you* know with respect to *sex*. 
> To date, transmission
> via IV drug abuse (and if you think we don't have a
> problem with IV drug
> abuse in our area, I encourage you to further
> educate yourself) is more
> risky than unprotected heterosexual contact.
> 
> If what you imply (I'm not sure why you mentioned
> heterosexual contact and 
> left out homosexual contact) is that heterosexuals
> do not have anal sex, the 
> most risky means for HIV transmission by sexual
> conduct on average, sorry, wrong. 
>  Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, though often do
> not report this, for 
> obvious reasons. Gential/anal/oral lesions or sores
> increase the risk of HIV 
> transmission dramatically, providing a means for
> blood products to enter the body.  
> If someone has a healthy body with no sores or
> lesions, the odds of 
> transmission of HIV are reduced dramatically.  Anal
> sex on average has a higher 
> probability of sores or lesions or entry points for
> blood products than genital only 
> intercourse or oral sex between same or different
> sex couples.  And so, devout 
> lesbians (David Camden-Britton where are you?) are a
> very low risk group for 
> HIV.
> 
> Concerning this comment by Shelley below, something
> is wrong if the Health 
> District is releasing information to the public of
> any kind regarding who is or 
> is not being HIV tested at what time according to
> any criteria that might 
> identify or embarrass the individuals involved. 
> These tests should be conducted 
> with complete anonymity, with no information of any
> kind being made public or 
> otherwise disseminated to any gossip circles
> regarding any criteria used to 
> dictate who is tested or when they are tested.
> 
> This is a major disconnect for someone who
> ostensibly is attempting to 
> encourage HIV testing to post on Vision2020 that
> they know the order in which the 
> Health District is testing clients based on how high
> risk they are claiming 
> knowledge of who the clients had sexual relations
> with.  If it is true that the 
> local Health District was releasing ANY INFORMATION
> OF ANY KIND outside that 
> department regarding their testing of HIV clients
> (well, accept the fact they do 
> test for HIV), unless this involved law enforcement
> or the courts, they need 
> to change or enforce their polices ensuring total
> anonymity for HIV testing.
> 
> Shelley wrote:
> 
> No Saundra, this is incorrect. You can call Carol
> Morley at the Health 
> District and ask her. They had "kits" to test those
> at "high risk." Many people were 
> turned away with an appointment after they were
> counseled. The purpose of the 
> health clinic staying open last Thursday was
> strictly for the high risk 
> people that were in direct contact with Mubita as
> the Health Department had limited 
> kits. There were many people who showed up who had
> no contact with Mubita but 
> wanted tested. They were given appointments.
> ---------------------------------
> 
> Ted Moffett
> 


Janesta Carcich

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient, any distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of any applicable privilege.  If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the original transmission and its attachments.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com