Minn. Supreme Court sides with HIV-positive man

Aug 21, 2013 Full story: Seattle Post-Intelligencer 42

This undated photo provided by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office in Minneapolis shows Daniel James Rick, who is HIV-positive.

Full Story
Sheldon

Alexandria, VA

#22 Aug 23, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is that he knowingly spread HIV to an uninflected person... Allegedly, this man did tell his partner, but decided to have risky unprotected sex anyway. That is negligent.
It is not negligence. The term comes from neglected to perform a duty. Rick's duty was to disclose. Having disclosed, it was up to D.B. to decide whether to have sex with Rick. Not up to Rick to refuse to have unprotected sex with D.B. D.B. assumed the risk. And again, from the story, we don't know that D.B. was uninfected when he had unprotected sex with Rick. For all we know, D.B. may have been in the habit of having unprotected sex with dozens of strangers and Rick was the only person who disclosed to him and therefore D.B. chose to pin the blame on Rick.

D.B.'s seroconversion is the result of his own negligence, not Rick's. Rick fulfilled his duty to disclose, therefore no negligence on his part. And there can be no negligence where the injured party assumed the risk. At least in this case, there was either contributory or comparable/comparative negligence which would serve to mitigate or eliminate any negligence on Rick's part (which I maintain there was none).

I fault your analogy as well. This is less like giving someone poison and more like a straight couple having unprotected sex. Maybe, just maybe, Rick gave D.B. a lifetime responsibility. If D.B. could prove "paternity", he might, perhaps, maybe be able to sue Rick CIVILLY, rather than prosecute him CRIMINALLY, for health benefits (the equivalent of child support). There is no justification for a criminal prosecution/conviction here. Rick might be facing other criminal charges, of which he is still innocent, but maybe he prefers barebacking. As long as he's only barebacking with others barebackers AND he discloses his status, or if it's a bareback sex party where it's simply assumed that the participants are either HIV+ or HIV+ friendly, as apparently D.B. was, there is no liability since everyone involved has assumed the risk.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#23 Aug 23, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Suppose I give you a long-acting carcinogen ... say ... plutonium.
Am I any less a murderer?
Compare the cases against Big Tobacco, and the people of Hinkley, CA. vs PG&E.
If I take it willingly that would only make you an accomplish to my suicide.

What part of shared liability do you have a problem with?

And again, I ask, is part of your religious order's dogma to condemn someone for a crime that never occurred?

The other man did not die. Yet you want the first guy charged with homicide!

I'm having serious doubts about your moral compass now.

I'm HIV+. I make it public knowledge.

From your logic I should face charges of murder every time I have consensual informed sex.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#24 Aug 23, 2013
accomplice not accomplish.

sorry folks

My anger over being so betrayed by someone I once admired got the best of me.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#25 Aug 23, 2013
Sheldon wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not negligence. The term comes from neglected to perform a duty. Rick's duty was to disclose. Having disclosed, it was up to D.B. to decide whether to have sex with Rick. Not up to Rick to refuse to have unprotected sex with D.B. D.B. assumed the risk. And again, from the story, we don't know that D.B. was uninfected when he had unprotected sex with Rick. For all we know, D.B. may have been in the habit of having unprotected sex with dozens of strangers and Rick was the only person who disclosed to him and therefore D.B. chose to pin the blame on Rick.
D.B.'s seroconversion is the result of his own negligence, not Rick's. Rick fulfilled his duty to disclose, therefore no negligence on his part. And there can be no negligence where the injured party assumed the risk. At least in this case, there was either contributory or comparable/comparative negligence which would serve to mitigate or eliminate any negligence on Rick's part (which I maintain there was none).
I fault your analogy as well. This is less like giving someone poison and more like a straight couple having unprotected sex. Maybe, just maybe, Rick gave D.B. a lifetime responsibility. If D.B. could prove "paternity", he might, perhaps, maybe be able to sue Rick CIVILLY, rather than prosecute him CRIMINALLY, for health benefits (the equivalent of child support). There is no justification for a criminal prosecution/conviction here. Rick might be facing other criminal charges, of which he is still innocent, but maybe he prefers barebacking. As long as he's only barebacking with others barebackers AND he discloses his status, or if it's a bareback sex party where it's simply assumed that the participants are either HIV+ or HIV+ friendly, as apparently D.B. was, there is no liability since everyone involved has assumed the risk.
I completely disagree. I think a person with HIV has the responsibility to take reasonable precautions to safeguard the health of others and to completely ignore that responsibility is negligence. I don't care whether or not he disclosed his status, nor whether his partner knew and yet still decided to have risky unprotected sex anyway. In my view, if the latter is true, then they should both be held accountable.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#26 Aug 23, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
I completely disagree. I think a person with HIV has the responsibility to take reasonable precautions to safeguard the health of others and to completely ignore that responsibility is negligence. I don't care whether or not he disclosed his status, nor whether his partner knew and yet still decided to have risky unprotected sex anyway. In my view, if the latter is true, then they should both be held accountable.
I'm trying to figure out what you just wrote.

You start off by saying you completely disagree that there is a shred responsibility.
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
I completely disagree. I think a person with HIV has the responsibility to take reasonable precautions to safeguard the health of others and to completely ignore that responsibility is negligence.
Then you say:
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care whether or not he disclosed his status, nor whether his partner knew and yet still decided to have risky unprotected sex anyway. In my view, if the latter is true, then they should both be held accountable.
Pick a lane honey!

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#27 Aug 23, 2013
oops

"shared responsibility"

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#28 Aug 23, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I'm trying to figure out what you just wrote.
You start off by saying you completely disagree that there is a shred responsibility.
<quoted text>
Then you say:
<quoted text>
Pick a lane honey!
My whole point is that people should take reasonable precautions to prevent the spread of HIV and especially so when an individual knows already that he or she has it. To act so recklessly as to spread the disease to uninfected people, even if the other person knows it, is to commit a crime, and so are those who willingly become infected. I think "vectoring" describes pretty well exactly what that kind of behavior is, and it should be illegal. For sure, mistakes happen. People have risky sex with other people who should not be trusted, but at least in the case when an infected person lies about his or her status or does not disclose it and yet still has risky sex, the blame lies squarely on that person for not acting responsibly. I'm not going to blame a victim who decided to have risky sex with somebody claiming to be HIV-.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#29 Aug 23, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>If I take it willingly that would only make you an accomplish to my suicide.
What part of shared liability do you have a problem with?
And again, I ask, is part of your religious order's dogma to condemn someone for a crime that never occurred?
The other man did not die. Yet you want the first guy charged with homicide!
I'm having serious doubts about your moral compass now.
I'm HIV+. I make it public knowledge.
From your logic I should face charges of murder every time I have consensual informed sex.
No diving without a wetsuit. EVER.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30 Aug 23, 2013
DNF wrote:
oops
"shared responsibility"
There is no such thing. Two separate individuals. Two separate actions.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#35 Aug 24, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing. Two separate individuals. Two separate actions.
Two people having consensual sex is two separate actions?

Really?

My friend you are starting to sound like Kimare and Brain G!

I am not and have not been saying that the HIV+ person doesn't have a responsibility to disclose. I believe they do.

But until HIV testing becomes mandatory or until people accept the responsibility they have to protect themselves instead of insisting someone else do it fore them, we are stuck with laws that give the irresponsible ones who have unprotected sex special rights.

NONE of you who are getting on my case would ever say that a person getting into a car with a drunk driver is an innocent victim.

And as I said before, I am appalled that someone I considered wise and compassionate would condemn someone for a crime they never committed. Snyper you were dead wrong to claim that the Mr. Rick is guilty of negligent homicide.

I don't care if you are just trying to stir the pot or not.

Making such a statement shows me that you are not the man I thought you were. I'd expect something like that from Pepper, Kimare, Brian G and nearly any other troll, but you?

And to send me an e-mail to try to JUSTIFY condemning someone for something that DID NOT occur shows me how duplicitous you can be.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#36 Aug 24, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing. Two separate individuals. Two separate actions.
Best wishes in your future endeavours.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#37 Aug 24, 2013
Sheldon wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not negligence. The term comes from neglected to perform a duty. Rick's duty was to disclose. Having disclosed, it was up to D.B. to decide whether to have sex with Rick. Not up to Rick to refuse to have unprotected sex with D.B. D.B. assumed the risk. And again, from the story, we don't know that D.B. was uninfected when he had unprotected sex with Rick. For all we know, D.B. may have been in the habit of having unprotected sex with dozens of strangers and Rick was the only person who disclosed to him and therefore D.B. chose to pin the blame on Rick.
D.B.'s seroconversion is the result of his own negligence, not Rick's. Rick fulfilled his duty to disclose, therefore no negligence on his part. And there can be no negligence where the injured party assumed the risk. At least in this case, there was either contributory or comparable/comparative negligence which would serve to mitigate or eliminate any negligence on Rick's part (which I maintain there was none).
I fault your analogy as well. This is less like giving someone poison and more like a straight couple having unprotected sex. Maybe, just maybe, Rick gave D.B. a lifetime responsibility. If D.B. could prove "paternity", he might, perhaps, maybe be able to sue Rick CIVILLY, rather than prosecute him CRIMINALLY, for health benefits (the equivalent of child support). There is no justification for a criminal prosecution/conviction here. Rick might be facing other criminal charges, of which he is still innocent, but maybe he prefers barebacking. As long as he's only barebacking with others barebackers AND he discloses his status, or if it's a bareback sex party where it's simply assumed that the participants are either HIV+ or HIV+ friendly, as apparently D.B. was, there is no liability since everyone involved has assumed the risk.
People who have unprotected sex are negligent. They are ducking personal responsibility. The legal term is "Comparative negligence" or "Contributory negligence".

Another factor that hasn't been addressed is the fact that we now give HIV meds as prophylaxis when people have unprotected sex or may have been exposed in some other way.

I have a nice who thought she might have been exposed. This was back in the late 90's and they gave her HIV meds.

I also notice no one has brought up Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP)

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/pr...

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#38 Aug 24, 2013
sorry "niece" not "nice"

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#39 Aug 25, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Two people having consensual sex is two separate actions?
Really?
My friend you are starting to sound like Kimare and Brain G!
I am not and have not been saying that the HIV+ person doesn't have a responsibility to disclose. I believe they do.
But until HIV testing becomes mandatory or until people accept the responsibility they have to protect themselves instead of insisting someone else do it fore them, we are stuck with laws that give the irresponsible ones who have unprotected sex special rights.
NONE of you who are getting on my case would ever say that a person getting into a car with a drunk driver is an innocent victim.
And as I said before, I am appalled that someone I considered wise and compassionate would condemn someone for a crime they never committed. Snyper you were dead wrong to claim that the Mr. Rick is guilty of negligent homicide.
I don't care if you are just trying to stir the pot or not.
Making such a statement shows me that you are not the man I thought you were. I'd expect something like that from Pepper, Kimare, Brian G and nearly any other troll, but you?
And to send me an e-mail to try to JUSTIFY condemning someone for something that DID NOT occur shows me how duplicitous you can be.
Yes they are two individual sets of motivation, volitions and actions. Two individual responsibilities.

There is no such thing as "shared responsibility". That is an illusion that has caused no end of irrational problems.

NO DIVING WITHOUT A WETSUIT, no matter how much the bug-hunter may beg.

Perhaps the best descriptor may be vehicular-manslaughter-while-u nder-the-influence ... of hormones.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#40 Aug 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
NO DIVING WITHOUT A WETSUIT, no matter how much the bug-hunter may beg.
Exactly!!!
Sheldon

Alexandria, VA

#41 Aug 25, 2013
Nice as a motto, not as a matter of criminal law.

But we could argue this until everyone is blue in the face and no one's opinion is going to change. I will never agree that an HIV+ person has a duty to refuse to have unprotected sex with someone after having disclosed his HIV status. And I would lend support to anyone facing criminal jeopardy in that situation. We do not infantilize people simply because we disagree with their judgment or the risks they choose to accept.

I would be deeply offended if you decided to substitute your judgment for mine simply because you disagreed with my choice, freely made, with another fully informed, mentally competent, consenting adult.

But, I suppose that's the crux of the disagreements over abortion, sodomy, medical marijuana, assisted suicide and same-sex marriage. Add unprotected sex with HIV+ people to the list. None of which should be criminally prohibited in my view.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#42 Aug 25, 2013
HIV transmission is one of the most preventable occurrences of any communicable disease on the planet.

Any ideological rationalizations that ignore the public health dimension of irresponsible behaviors are just that, rationalizations of social atavism.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#43 Aug 25, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>People who have unprotected sex are negligent. They are ducking personal responsibility. The legal term is "Comparative negligence" or "Contributory negligence".
Another factor that hasn't been addressed is the fact that we now give HIV meds as prophylaxis when people have unprotected sex or may have been exposed in some other way.
I have a nice who thought she might have been exposed. This was back in the late 90's and they gave her HIV meds.
I also notice no one has brought up Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP)
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/pr...
Very good, but consider the logistics involved in arranging such for every innercity street hooker.

Definitely a high-end solution to a down and dirty problem.
Normal Hetero Dude

United States

#44 Aug 25, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is that he knowingly spread HIV to an uninflected person. To make an analogy, what if I handed you a glass of apple juice, told you to drink it, and I told you it was poisoned, but you did it anyway? I'm sure if that were the case there would be charges of some sort. Allegedly, this man did tell his partner, but decided to have risky unprotected sex anyway. That is negligent. It is not the sex act itself nor a question about consent, but rather, it's about him not taking personal responsibility nor considering the health of his partner or that of the public. That is why he is a criminal. People who act that way are a danger to public health, and for that matter, if his partner knew what he was doing (like drinking poisoned apple juice) so is he. Such would be analogous to committing suicide, and believe it or not, attempted suicide IS a crime.
Queers should be rounded up and sent to a concentration camp for the sake of the normal decent people in this world!!!

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#46 Aug 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
HIV transmission is one of the most preventable occurrences of any communicable disease on the planet.
Any ideological rationalizations that ignore the public health dimension of irresponsible behaviors are just that, rationalizations of social atavism.
You mean like blaming those infected and expecting no responsible behavior on the part of the uninfected?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Morgellons - What I believe it really is (Oct '12) 9 min Please dont do it 99
Should the U.S. Do More to Address the Ebola Ou... 20 min Follow the money 178
Pronation: Not To Blame For Injuries? 1 hr Wisdom 3
Small businesses have even more credit-card rea... 1 hr Tonya 7
CO2 Alzheimer's Link (Aug '12) 2 hr LarGE 109
Social Security disability approvals decline (Dec '13) 2 hr jax23willis 85
Linking care to the community 2 hr lizzybowen 2
Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) 3 hr hmm 6,112
0529624688 massage in Ajiman sharjah (Jan '14) Thu Mani 74
More from around the web