<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
I applaud your efforts to encourage HIV testing. <BR>
<BR>
I do not mean to "single you out" or attack you personally.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Shelley wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<B>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.<BR>
</B>----------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Can you see how I was led to conclude your comment might jeopardize the privacy of some involved in the Mubita case?<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
I will answer this one other point you made in reply to my comment below:<BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
You replied: <BR>
<BR>
<B>I cannot believe you would say that anyone on this list would "dissect" an individual for a positive HIV reading. </B><BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Mike Tyson was convicted of rape solely on the testimony of his accuser.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Can you understand now why I wrote:<BR>
<BR>
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? <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>