On Demand
When Is Spreading Illness a Crime?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Regan Hoffman editor-in-chief of POZ and poz.com, talks about why she thinks people who spread the HIV virus should not necessarily go to jail. Her memoir, I Have Something To Tell You, will be released by Simon & Schuster in September.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
Miss Regan should be ashamed. Everyone who knowingly spread the disease should go to to jail. She is not suit to be editor in chief of POZ any longer. I am HIV positive and very saden with the message she's giving out.
Miss Hoffman, her opinion resembles of a person who is intoxicated.
The issue is spreading the disease deliberately, health organizations are trying to eradicate diseases not to bolster these diseases. There is no question that Miss Hoffman she is on the wrong side.
If you can legally prove knowledge and malicious intent...and someone actually gets AIDS as a result; yes, you are a murderer in the first degree. That much shouldn't even be controversial.
Of course this is murder. Intention or not.
Knowably spreading HIV is like bioterrorism.
Instead of the WMD being weaponized at tip of a missile - it is weaponized in the murderer's genitals.
I see the reasonable doubt argument though - we need a better way to prove the source of infection.
What does "intentional" mean? How does one determine criminal intent? This has always been a problematic approach to prosecution.
if those who were without knowledge of their HIV status and transmit, are not held accountable...
seems to encourage people to NOT get tested. it seems to invite reckless/negligence in this regard.
ignorance is bliss?
this woman's argument is crazy.
What does Regan Hoffman think about disclosing HIV positive test results in the case of a "false positive"?
For instance, many people who participate in HIV Vaccine clinical trials test HIV positive but are not infected with the HIV virus.
If someone spreads the disease "intentionally", why is it not mentioned that the person may be suffering from AIDS dementia?
err - knowingly.
In Canada, if you test positive, you must be notfified of your status and therefore there is no excuse for not disclosing. If you disclose or use protection, you are mitigating your risk of committing a crime. However, if you choose not to disclose and more important DO NOT use protection, that is when you become criminally libel. If you genuinely do not know your status and/or you take necessary precautions, then criminal charges should be off the table. Yes, the other person should insist on protection, but it is the ultimate responsibility of the person who HAS the disease from stopping it. Unfortunately stupidity is not the issue. We do not blame a rape victim for stupid behaviour that might incite the crime, we cannot do that with any other criminal act.
I work with rape victims. I've had two cases recently where the victim was HIV positive. One told the assailant(s), the other did not.
The one victim was gang raped and she was afraid to tell the men she was positive (during the act) because she worried they would be so angry that they would kill her if she disclosed. She was THEN afraid to tell the police officer that she withheld this information and so she told the officer that she disclosed. Ironic that SHE was afraid SHE would go to prison.
Is there a law addressing disclosure during sexual assault?
In the case of spreading a virus on one's way to work, or something similar, at worst this would be negligence or reckless endangerment, and obviously is not comprable to someone INTENTionally spreading a deadly disease with the goal of infecting someone.
Brian, you need to discuss the difference between American and Canadian laws regarding the transmission of HIV and the different requirements to disclose status under the law.
HPV is not parallel with HIV! By your guest’s accounting, there are 1.2 million Americans infected with HIV; the CDC estimates nearly 50% of all adults will contract HPV at some point in their lives. It is fair to gustimate there are more living Americans unaware they have HPV than there have been HIV cases in America. There is no such thing as a benign case of HIV or AIDS. The stigma of HIV/AIDS is a huge stumbling block in testing and really attacking the disease, but let’s not minimize the impact it has on society and the lives of people who are HIV positive.
HIV treated individuals can disseminate the virus--but whether or not that virus through continued passage will be atenuated an inflicted immunity is not known
the person who has HIV or AIDS has a responsibility to allow the person they are sleeping with to choose if they want to take the risk or not. it's unfortunate but this is a deadly disease that can be easily prevented from spreading.
Your guest is being too simplistic and knowingly-naive about this.
So how about in a rape case? If a rapist does not know he is positive and during the rape transmits the desease, should he be convicted of rape & murder?
Most of these comments favor strict litigation of spreading HIV.
I'm curious of how they and Hoffman would feel about people who "intentionally" spread HIV when both people are consenting to paritipate in spreading the infection. For instance, in the case of people who are sometimes referred to as "bug chasers"
Yes, incarcerate women & men who do not knowingly innoculate their children, they benefit from the herd while putting their children at risk through ignorance. I am being a little flip of course, but the media spotlight around the threat of arrest might at least bring to light and debunk some of the silly myths that are out there about vaccinations and have the public focus on the data and evidence.
I believe that Ms. Hoffman's point is not about whether or not the people who knowingly spread HIV should be prosecuted...MORE that she is urging EVERYONE to be RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES. If you have unprotected sex you are courting HIV...PERIOD. Assuming that someone will tell you/be honest/know their HIV status is not wise...Get tested. Protect yourself.
Rick, before you make an alarmist comment about “bug chasers” plotting to spread the disease like terrorist with biological weapons, I think you need to explain what one is.
As incomprehensible as it may seem, there are fatalist out there (the bug chasers) who feel that they’re bound to get HIV sooner or later and that living with HIV no big deal, so they opt for sooner by being sexually reckless in an attempt to become infected. As horribly misguided and misinformed as they are, they are making a personal decision.
I’ve met several sexually active HIV positive people who go out of their way to make sure their partners are NOT chasers and practice safe sex religiously. They seem the most frustrated with chasers and having to constantly explain being positive, even with current treatments, is no way to live.
And if anything Rick, the bigger problems are so called condom fatigue (people frustrated with having to practice safe sex, so they don’t use condoms) and sexually active youths who don’t remember the ‘80s and ‘90s.
I wish Ms. Hoffman had come out more strongly for routine HIV testing. She buried her comment in a statement about protecting people against stigma. Yes, this is crucial, but new infections are increasing. The strongest HIV confidentiality protections in the country have not protected NY from remaining the epcienter of the epidemic. We must try something different. She had the public mike, I wish she had used it to emphasize this. I believe that routine testing will reduce stigma, increase dialogue and ultimately reduce new infections.
Voter from Brooklyn, I appreciate your opinion. I did not intend to make an alarmist comment. I asked a question and invited opinions.
However, my comment would be that I don't see much of a difference among people who unknowingly and knowingly contract HIV, from a public health perspective. This discussion with Hoffman raised the issue of "intent" and I felt like there was another way in which to frame that discussion on the intent of spreading HIV.
Intent is THE key question. If someone maliciously uses his/her body as a bio-weapon against others, they should be locked up. One could use the standard of, say, using a car as an assault weapon. Accidentally hitting a jaywalking pedestrian is not the same as gunning the engine and running down your ex. The difficulty of proving malice aforethought would (rightly) limit convictions to those rare, extreme cases such as the one being discussed.
It seems that again the issues of stigma and fear are not acknowleged. Fear and discrimination - or worse - are routinely the damaging residue of an ignorant or uneducated society.
Criminilization (or the threat of) affects disclosure on any level. As Regan says, people who "do bad things" intentionally, should be accountable for their actions. ... Read MoreHowever, that threat and fear also keeps HIV positive individuals from seeking care/services and other individuals from getting tested and receiving accurate and appropriate education and information.
As an HIV positive man, I believe that we need to be leaders in dispelling the myths about exposure and addressing the 'real life' challenges around disclosure.
I understand where you’re coming from Rick, but let me tell you… as someone who has tried, there is no reasoning with a chaser.
I do agree the guest should have focused more on testing. I believe in, from what I’ve gathered is, the unpopular approach of universal testing. Sigma is the reason people seem to be against it, and that is a serious and very real concern, but I don’t see how anything can be done by saying it’s ok to hide your head in the sand when it comes to a disease like this. Ms. Hoffman’s approach of personal responsibility and treating everyone you’re sexually involved with as if they are positive while being woefully ignorant of your own status or being within your right not to disclose it because there’s a stigma (and it takes two to tango) seems at odds. (Not her words, but my interpretation of her words.) Her constant comments about criminalizing people instead of what it really was, criminalizing the deliberate actions of those people, reinforces my interpretation.
I wonder... since when, the fact i am living with a health condition makes me responsible for the poor choices of others.
I am responsible for my health and for not trying to hurt others BUT if i am hiv positive and you will prosecute me for not disclosing...then i will require you are prosecuted too for putting your own life in risk knowingly.
So if in case of a new infection there is one person to blame, both of them should be blamed. The one who knowingly of being hiv poz had unprotected sex and the one who don't knowing other's peron status agreed to have unprotected sex KNOWING he/she was putting his/her life in risk.
Yayo,
Read a box of condoms, or for that matter, read the box of any barrier based device used for safer sex; none claim to be 100% effective. That means it is still possible to contract HIV, even when using a barrier. The only 100% effective way to prevent sexual transmission of HIV is celibacy. Short of that, it would be not to have sex, even safer sex, with anyone who is HIV positive. In the United States, roughly 1 in every 300 people are HIV positive. In other words, .39% of all Americans are HIV positive; that’s just over one third of one percent. That is the flaw in your argument. Either everyone should be under constant suspicion (spouses have been known to contract HIV from a partner they thought they were in a monogamous relationship with) or the onerous is on the person, that one in 300, that knows their status to disclose. Now, you and I both know many serodifferent couples have extremely fulfilling sex lives, but informed consent is at the core of their relationships.
Voter it is sad for me that people are still not well educated about the effectiveness of condoms, the only way they are not effective is if you use them wrong, if so... it is not condoms fault but yours. Please GET EDUCATED.
Information consent is one thing, the fact that you use it to justify careless behaviour and blaming that on me or other hiv poz is another thing... and this last one is one thing I WONT ACCEPT.
You want to have sex? then assume YOUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR HEALTH AND YOUR OWN RISKS.
Yayo,
I haven’t blamed you for anything. The simple facts on condoms are, even at 99% effectiveness, they are not 100% safe. Tears and holes can happen as well as spillage; this can be due to misuse. Even if one fails, the odds of contracting HIV, barring direct contact with the blood stream is still low on a 100% scale. Even less for the active partner; however, low chance doesn’t mean no chance. That is why I said the onerous is on the person who knows their status to disclose. I know that opens someone who is positive up to rejection and worse, but even someone who is negative and believes they are being safe, could feasibly become infected.
Unless they have changed recently, some manufactures even specify the listed effectiveness of their product is only for vaginal intercourse. This is because the manufacturers realize there are additional risk to using the product orally or anally.
Serodifferent relationships are possible, relatively safe, and sexually fulfilling, but you have to be realistic.
Voter, believe me... you are really not educated about condoms. I prefer you get educated about them first and then touch the topic.
Another point is the fact that you are leaving another detail apart.... the fact that many people who have sex with others don't know their status... therefore... does not matter if someone discloses or not, everyone should be presumed in risk when it comes to sex. I find strange how people haven't realised we are in different era right now... we are not in the past when "normal sex" included you and your partner... nowadays "normal sex" includes the use of condoms, ALL the time. Welcome to the reality.
If you are using disclosure to avoid the fact that everyone should be using condoms nowadays... then you are not being realistic. wake up to the new world we live in.
Yayo,
Since you’ve said I’m uneducated, educate me.
I’ve noted condoms are 99% but not 100% effective, that makes me uneducated. I’ve noted manufacturers in their literature only make that claim for vaginal intercourse, not oral or anal, that makes me uneducated. I’ve noted that transmission risks are relatively low for the receptive partner and even lower for the active partner (if there is no tissue damage), that makes me uneducated. I’ve advocated for serodifferent sexual relationships, that makes me uneducated. I’ve acknowledged people misuse condoms leading to failure, that makes me uneducated. And… I think this is the reason you’re upset is, I’ve said that if someone knows their status, and it is positive, they should disclose it to their prospective partner (or not lie if asked), even when having barrier based sex, because it is the responsible thing to do. I guess that’s what makes me uneducated in your eyes.
Normalcy is protecting yourself at all times, regardless of relationship status or degree of sexual contact, but it is also being open and honest with your partner. Sound like you don’t want to have this responsibility, so you can feel “normal”.
Voter, actually what makes you uneducated in my eyes is the indirect affirmation that there is no way of having a save life with me. You keep on emphatizing your wrong idea that condoms are not safe... implying that if someone find a poz person, shouldn't have sex, shouldn't fall in love with him/her cause they will never be safe. And that's so in the past.
I have heard people like you thousand times... it is the excuse people use to hide their internal interest of keeping us away, but i am sorry for you... i wont be away, i am alive and i am still here around you... first you should learn to fight the disease not the people suffering it, and second you better learn to use condoms well cause situation has already changed and it won't go back.
If someone ask me about my status no matter what i answer the other person is OBLIGATED TO PLAY SAFE since we would be engaging in casual sex. Or what if i say i am poz then you will run away cause you believe condoms are not 100% safe? and if i say i am not poz then you go directly running into raw sex without even guessing if i am window period or if i have gonorrhea, hpv, hcv, etc etc etc and then blame me if you got something?. The point is not about disclosure or not, if i am drunk if you ask me i might not even be able to realise what i am talking about...
THE POINT, is that with or without disclosure you have use condoms 100%. You want to use disclosure like an excuse for not using condoms and that's not possible just nowadays. We are in other times now, and you better accept it.
And you shouldn't dare to question me if i feel normal... cause you don't know what normal really is. Normal is being a person who knowing that having sex is a risk with whoever you meet, play safe all the time despite disclose happens or not.
There is no other person in this world more responsible for keeping you safe, healthy and alive... than YOU. If you fail to do it, why others should be blamed?
I can't believe people are actually suggesting a rape victim needs to tell her assailants. Of course not.
The law needs to be clear that an HIV+ individual who knows their status having consensual UNPROTECTED sex with a partner SHOULD BE charged with pre-meditated attempted murder, whether or not the sex partner is ever infected.
Ms. Regan just appears to have reached the end of her rope and a point in her life where she's considering the "no tell" policy and it seems best if she can garner support for this being a legally sound practice.
Thanks for sharing this conversation with us. Personal Responsibility has to be the greatest incentive for personal choice. Empower with education and compassion. Please let's not spread the fear and judgment. Be well.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.