[Vision2020] Health District HIV Gossip?

[Shelly]

-------Original Message-------
 
From: Tbertruss at aol.com
Date: 12/19/05 23:33:12
To: CJs at Turbonet.com; sslund at adelphia.net; janestacarcich at yahoo.com;
vision2020 at moscow.com
Cc: thansen at moscow.com; deco at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Health District HIV Gossip?
 

All:

I applaud your efforts to encourage HIV testing. - Thank you. 

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. - please see again where I state where my information is
coming from. Would you like her phone number?

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. -
rest assured, this information came out AFTER, I REPEAT AFTER THURSDAY NIGHT
therefore, the complete annonymity DID take place. The clinic does take 
extraordinary precautions." 

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. - read the above! Make the call if you are so worried. Don't slam me
here, Ted. I am doing YOUR community a service. Unlike what you are doing.
Yes, I am angry. Yes, I am taking this personally. I will comment here, then
I am done with this nonsense.

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 you talk about "discouragement" to get tested?
HHHHEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLOOOOOO!!!!!! 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. You are absolutely
correct.

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. - not just one person in this case.
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. - again, not just one person.

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.  - Would you rather
they not inform the public? 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! 
Get real!  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.

Ted, I am sorry, but I refuse to have any other discussions with you
publicly. You bring out the worst in me and that is not what this is about.

Shelley Roderick
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051220/15f54c8d/attachment.htm