[Vision2020] Health District HIV Gossip?

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

All:

I applaud your efforts to encourage HIV testing.  

I do not mean to "single you out" or attack you personally.

I will explain again what my point was about "Health District Gossip?"  Note 
the question mark, which indicates I am not sure who was doing the 
"gossiping," if indeed we are discussing an example of gossip, because I am not sure 
where you got the info you posted about who was being tested on the night in 
question.

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.
----------------------------------

The comment made above, which I have not verified, makes the claim that last 
Thursday night the health clinic stayed open "strictly for the high risk 
people that were in direct contact with Mubita."  Anyone going to the clinic that 
night as a client, or observing anyone entering or leaving that clinic from the 
road, or driving anyone to the clinic, or just riding along as a passenger 
with someone going to the clinic, after reading your comments that Thursday 
night the clinic was open "strictly for the high risk people who were in direct 
contact with Mubita," could easily deduce information that should remain 
private, unless someone choses to make it public, that they may have had sexual 
contact with Mubita.  I am assuming that the clinic does not take the level of 
extraordinary precautions to guard the identity of who enters and leaves the 
clinic that would prevent other clients at the clinic, or those in or near the 
parking lot by the clinic, from identifying people using the clinic.  If this is 
not true, then my objection is rather weak.

Can you see how I was led to conclude your comment might jeopardize the 
privacy of some involved in the Mubita case?

As I stated, I don't know if the information you presented in the quote above 
is correct, or if your source for this information is the Health Dept.  If 
the source for your information is someone at the Health Dept., I don't think 
the Health Dept. should release the time and date of a testing situation that is 
focused, in your words, "strictly for the high risk people who were in direct 
contact with Mubita," due to how it may reveal to others that those who went 
to the clinic that night were sexual partners with Mubita.

Its as simple as that, and like I said, if there are extraordinary 
precautions to keep clients identities private near and at the clinic, so others cannot 
observe who is entering or leaving or waiting inside the clinic, then my point 
is rather weak.

The Health Clinic may be set up differently than it was when I was HIV tested 
there.  When I had my HIV test there, there were no extraordinary precautions 
to hide my person from being identified by others who were visiting or even 
just driving by the clinic (It's amazing how in a small town people learn what 
sort of car you drive, what bumper is bent or light smashed up, and can thus 
identify someone driving their car even from a distance!). But there was no 
major HIV scare in our area at that time either, that I knew of.

I will answer this one other point you made in reply to my comment below:

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?

You replied:  
    
I cannot believe you would say that anyone on this list would "dissect" an 
individual for a positive HIV reading. 
    
This is not what I said.  I said that if someone gets an HIV test, and it is 
positive, they open themselves up to serious potential legal trouble resulting 
from having a sex life, and indeed Mubita has been dissected on Vision2020, 
not just for a positive HIV test, of course, but for the alleged crime of not 
informing his sexual partners when he knew.  Consider that as far as I know 
there is no verification that Mubita has passed the HIV virus to anyone at this 
date.  And as far as I know you can be convicted of a crime for not informing a 
sexual partner you are HIV positive when you know this fact, even if no HIV 
infection was ever passed.

If you are HIV positive and know this fact based on a medical test, and one 
person reports to the police that they had sexual relations with you without 
you informing them, charges can be brought, even if there is no proof that 
indeed you had sex with the person complaining, nor proof that you did not inform 
them that you are HIV positive.

Mike Tyson was convicted of rape solely on the testimony of his accuser.

Even if they do inform someone they are HIV positive before sex, the person 
they had sex with can still report the incident and claim they were not told.  
Maybe they forgot, maybe they have a personality disorder, or maybe they just 
want revenge.  These cases happen.  Latah County once had a man in jail for 
rape based on testimony from a women who later recanted their story and admitted 
they made it up.

Can you understand now why I wrote:

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?  

I do not agree with the very popular practice in the USA of trying legal 
cases in the media, or on list serves, for that matter.  I guess there is no way 
to stop this, without some serious regulation, but I think this practice does a 
disservice to the overall fairness and fundamental principles of justice of 
our legal system.  It places prosecutors and judges in the position of being 
pressured by public opinion to render verdicts the public wishes, rather than 
the verdicts the facts and law dictate.  And in extreme cases, it turns justice 
into a soap opera mockery of our legal system.

I have no problem whatsoever with widely reporting in numerous media that a 
person who is HIV positive based on verified medical testing is facing charges 
of having sexual relations without informing their partners, even though this 
could unfairly ruin someone's life when the charges are false!  Sometimes 
ensuring public safety can mean harming an individual's reputation unfairly, but 
this possibility emphasizes the value of trying to maintain the "innocent till 
proven guilty" principle.  I also have no problem with keeping such a person 
confined somehow, with adequate legal counsel and access and respect for human 
rights, of course, till the danger they may represent to the public is 
assessed, and they are convicted and sentenced or determined to be innocent.

But what has been occurring on Vision2020 does not demonstrate respect for 
the fundamental principle in our legal system that an accused is innocent till 
proven guilty in a court of law.

Anyway, you are assuming I am making arguments and taking positions on 
HIV/AIDS I am not making or taking in some of your comments in reply to my posts on 
this subject.  I responded to two issues you raised above, which is more than 
enough for one post that is already too long for the "sound bite" preferences 
of many Vision2020 readers.

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051220/d9d4db24/attachment-0001.htm