Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / July 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Disclosure and Atlanta, GA

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
GMCarter - 17 Jul 2005 20:45 GMT
Here's an interesting article that lays out the issues quite cogently.
George M. Carter

**
> Associated Press
> 16 July 2005
> http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=62865
>
> Accused HIV spreader puts Atlanta's gay community on edge
>
> ATLANTA -- Garry Wayne Carriker was a fourth-year medical student with a
> charming style that he worked to his advantage around the city's bustling
> gay scene.
>
> But just months after he would have graduated from Emory University
> Medical School, Carriker's career is on hold as he sits in jail, awaiting
> trial on sex-crime charges that have put Atlanta's gay community on edge.
>
> His crime? Police say the 26-year-old knew he had the HIV virus but went
> ahead with unprotected consensual sex with another man without warning
> him. And then, when Carriker was released on bond in March, he was
> arrested on similar charges in a nearby county. Twice.
>
> Carriker's case is one of the first in Georgia prosecuted on charges of
> knowingly transmitting the HIV virus through consensual sex. It brings the
> state into the vortex of an ongoing legal debate that pits a growing
> public health crisis against the bounds of privacy.
>
> Prosecutors have dusted off a rarely used Georgia law to charge Carriker
> with felony reckless misconduct, which could keep him in prison for 10
> years.
>
> "It's like shooting bullets into the crowd," said Atlanta attorney Adam
> Jaffe, who is arguing a civil lawsuit against Carriker. "Eventually
> someone's going to get killed."
>
> Some activists argue that criminalizing HIV discourages people at risk
> from being tested and cripples prevention efforts.
>
> "From a public health perspective, the most important thing is that both
> sexual partners, not just the HIV-positive one, take responsibility for
> preventing infection," said Joel Ginsberg, interim director of the San
> Francisco-based Gay & Lesbian Medical Association. "Criminal prosecution
> could undermine public health if it discourages testing."
>
> Carriker had been dating John Withrow for five months when he revealed to
> him in April 2004 that he had the virus that causes AIDS, according to
> incident reports.
>
> Citing a little-known statute that makes it a felony for not disclosing
> one's HIV status, a distraught Withrow was turned down by several
> reluctant attorneys before prosecutors in tight-knit suburban Fayette
> County, where Withrow lives, decided to press charges.
>
> "The reason I came forward to file a complaint was to stop him from
> victimizing someone else," said Withrow, who said he has not yet tested
> positive for the virus.
>
> Carriker posted bond, but since then, two other men, both in Atlanta's
> Fulton County, have claimed Carriker had unprotected sex with them and
> failed to disclose his HIV status. Superior Court Judge Johnnie Caldwell
> Jr. revoked Carriker's $5,600 bond and now he faces three counts of felony
> reckless conduct.
>
> Prosecutors must now prove that Carriker knew he had HIV during the
> alleged relationships and did not warn his partners he was infected.
>
> Carriker, a 2001 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, could not be
> reached for comment. His attorney in the Fayette charges, George Sparrow,
> did not return repeated telephone calls over two weeks. Clay Collins, who
> is representing Carriker in the Fulton cases, would not comment on the
> case, aside from saying it is "on track" and could be tried in September.
>
> Carriker's arrest sent a jolt through Atlanta's vibrant gay community. The
> city's Midtown section, where many gays party in clubs, is where two of
> the alleged victims say they met Carriker. One concerned activist launched
> a Web site devoted to the case that, until recently, posted Carriker's
> photo, listed the clubs he frequented, and urged visitors to get tested if
> they were involved with him.
>
> Withrow's attorneys say the case is a reminder that gay men who believe
> their lovers knowingly exposed them to the virus have legal recourse.
>
> "They don't want to go to police and tell them they had unprotected sex,"
> said Tom Nagel, one of Withrow's attorneys. "I'm sure it's happened many
> times before, but people aren't comfortable going into a police department
> telling a bunch of big burly guys with guns."
>
> Nagel turned to a rarely used statute in Georgia, which is one of 28
> states with specific laws that make it a crime for HIV-infected people to
> purposefully expose others to the disease, according to the American Civil
> Liberties Union.
>
> Between 1986 and 2001, there were only 316 criminal HIV prosecutions in
> the United States, said Zita Lazzarini, who directs the health law
> division at the University of Connecticut's School of Medicine. In
> contrast, tens of thousands of sexual assault cases are filed every year.
>
> Lazzarini and two other scientists pored over HIV data for four years to
> try to link legislation criminalizing HIV exposure to a decrease in
> incidents. The result: "It is hard to say that these random prosecutions,
> which happen somewhat rarely, are going to change what people do around
> the country or in a particular state," she said. The culprits, she said,
> "don't realize it's a law, they don't think they'll get caught and they
> don't think they'll get punished."
>
> What irks some gay activists is the tacit _ and perhaps deadly _
> assumption that Carriker's case brings to light. Many in the gay
> community, Ginsberg said, assume that if one partner doesn't ask if the
> other is HIV-positive, then he is willing to run the risk of infection.
>
> HIV apathy is no news to national gay groups, some which have aggressively
> worked to compel at-risk populations to be proactive in protecting
> themselves. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation has run a series of ads
> targeting gays who assume their partners aren't infected just because they
> aren't volunteering their HIV status by asking "How do you know what you
> know?"
>
> Ginsberg said this kind of attitude makes both parties culpable.
>
> "It's fuzzier than simply walking into a crowded area and shooting a gun,"
> he said. "The infected should, of course, be responsible, but the partner
> shouldn't be infallible, either."
>
> Others say forcibly disclosing one's HIV status is a privacy breach. And
> the legislation's one-size-fits-all nature, which in many states makes no
> distinction between protected and unprotected sex, allows some prosecutors
> to abuse the statute's intent, said Lazzarini, who co-authored "HIV and
> the Law."
>
> To Al Dixon, the Fayette assistant district attorney who is trying the
> Carriker case, it's a clear-cut moral issue.
>
> "If you're going to have a sexual relationship with someone, they have the
> right to know whether you have HIV," he said. "That's the only privacy
> issue I can think of."
Jordi - 17 Jul 2005 21:48 GMT
> Here's an interesting article that lays out the issues quite cogently.
> George M. Carter
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
>>Accused HIV spreader puts Atlanta's gay community on edge

A ggogle search threw up this one:

Three Dollar Bill   

Bug off
Richard Burnett

I first wrote years ago that if you deliberately infect yourself with
HIV (i.e. a bugchaser), then you deserve to die. As you can imagine,
people went absolutely ballistic.

"Who are you to play God?" one irate reader wrote me.

But if I've said it once, I've said it a million times: If you
deliberately infect yourself with HIV - or, worse, knowingly infect
others with HIV - then who the f.ck are you to play God?

I have every right to ask that question because HIV criminals are making
all of our lives a living hell, and it's going to get worse in the
coming days as governments and authorities worldwide wonder how to
manage gay life and the spiralling costs of gay healthcare.

Don't believe me? Take a look at recent events.

On September 18, 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled a Newfoundland
man, Harold Williams, who had unprotected sex with a woman for a year
after finding out he was HIV-positive, was guilty of attempted
aggravated assault. The only reason he wasn't found guilty of aggravated
assault is because his "victim" was "likely already HIV-positive."

That same year, on October 14, an Inner London Crown Court jury in
England found Mohammed Dica, 38, guilty of causing "biological" grievous
bodily harm after he infected two lovers with HIV.

On April 20, 2004, a Montreal man - Navrumbwa Djamali, 47 - was found
guilty of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of sexual
assault after he had unprotected sex with three women without telling
them he was HIV-positive. He was sentenced to 11 years in jail.

On July 8, 2004, the NYC Wall Street Sauna was shut down after
undercover inspectors from the health department reported seeing more
than 30 acts of "high-risk" sexual behaviour. Meanwhile, Los Angeles now
requires bathhouses to obtain health permits in a bid to help reduce HIV
transmission rates.

On November 8, 2004, Washington state resident Anthony Whitfield, 32,
was found guilty on 17 counts of first-degree assault with sexual
motivation when he deliberately exposed 17 women to HIV. He's going to
spend the next 130 years in prison.

Last month, on May 19, a Fayetteville, Georgia man faced numerous
charges after having unsafe sex without telling his male partners that
he is HIV-positive. Garry Wayne Carriker, 26, is expected to go to trial
later this year.

And on March 2, St. John's, Newfoundland native Jennifer Murphy, 31, was
arrested at CFB Borden and charged with two counts of aggravated assault
after allegedly engaging in unprotected sex with a soldier without
telling him she was HIV-positive. The sensational case rocked the
Canadian military and made national headlines, notably the Toronto Star
whopper, "Accused predator once a victim."

Why does this affect gay men when most of these cases involve heterosexuals?

Well, people are going to point fingers, and historically gay folks have
been a pretty convenient target. And gay bugchasers are making us all
look bad. A September 2003 New Orleans study reported more than 75 per
cent of HIV-positive people do not reveal their HIV status to casual sex
partners - which, quite frankly, isn't a big deal unless you have unsafe
sex.

But that survey isn't the one that concerns me. The survey that freaks
me out is a May 2005 Ipsos-Reid poll that reports 54 per cent of
Canadians with supplementary health programs believe that fat people and
smokers should pay higher benefit premiums.

Worse, the day will come when Canadians say they will no longer pay the
universal health care bills of bugchasers. Believe me, it's not that big
a jump. And who will stop the (straight) majority when they want to
exclude all homos?

No one, because the folks that will make us pay through the nose, and
ultimately with our lives, are the very people who don't believe they
should pay a high price for driving polluting SUVs.

In our democracy, we sign on to what is called a "social contract," in
which we all give up certain rights in order to provide law and order
and a level playing field for everybody. That social contract is
fragile, though, and when bugchasers throw it into chaos, someone will
pay a price.

I want to live. If you want to die - if you want to play God, spread HIV
and ruin other lives in the process - then do us all a goddamn favour
and put a f.cking bullet through your head instead.

http://www.hour.ca/columns/3dollarbill.aspx?iIDArticle=6313
GMCarter - 17 Jul 2005 22:22 GMT
>A ggogle search threw up this one:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>deliberately infect yourself with HIV - or, worse, knowingly infect
>others with HIV - then who the f.ck are you to play God?

Here's the crux of the issue.
DELIBERATELY infecting others.

That's more specific. That's indeed a sick and criminal thing to do.

So maybe, we can come to some kind of understanding? Hmmm...maybe.
Probably not.

        George M. Carter
chronic hydroponic - 18 Jul 2005 14:28 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote...
> His crime? Police say the 26-year-old knew he had the HIV virus but went
> ahead with unprotected consensual sex with another man without warning
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Francisco-based Gay & Lesbian Medical Association. "Criminal prosecution
> could undermine public health if it discourages testing."

I just knew they were going to whine about persecuting this poor man.
It's not his fault he buttfucked half of Georgia and gave them HIV,
it is the fault of his victims.  Now each of the victims can be
"counseled" (at $2500 a pop billed to the government) that it isn't
their fault at all, but rather the government's fault for not
educating them properly.

And in response to the final quoted paragraph, we wouldn't have to
worry about discouraging testing if it was MANDATORY.  And since we
refuse to quarantine people, prosecution on criminal charges seems
to be the only alternative we have to lock a.sholes like this up
so they can't hurt others.  Finally, this case is definitely unique
in that almost all other cases of this sort of prosecution were
against HIV+ men who infected women through heterosexual sex.  The
authorities seem to be refusing to go after gay men who infect
other gay men, as they would be accused of "homophobia" and
"intolerance" by righteous leftist groups such as the San Francisco
Gay & Lesbian Medical Association.

BTW, I wonder what SFGLMA offers as an alternative?  Perhaps spending
a few more trillion dollars on propaganda, that this 4th-year medical
student was simply uninformed about the danger he posed to others and
simply requires more "counseling?"  Oh, and a final thought would be
laws that prohibit disclosure of a person's HIV+ status; those are
enforced and if you KNEW someone had HIV and saw him going home with
someone for sex, warning that person would land YOU in jail, not him,
because you've violated his precious privacy.
GMCarter - 18 Jul 2005 16:28 GMT
>I just knew they were going to whine about persecuting this poor man.
>It's not his fault he buttfucked half of Georgia and gave them HIV,
>it is the fault of his victims.  

Naked, violent, hatred and discrimination!

Nope. In consensual sex, two people make choices.

If this guy said, "hey, I'm negative, don't need condoms!" to his
partner and they were fooled, they partly victimized, partly fools.

The rest of your vomit is the typical garbage I expect of you.

        George M. Carter
chronic hydroponic - 19 Jul 2005 01:25 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message...

>>I just knew they were going to whine about persecuting this poor man.
>>It's not his fault he buttfucked half of Georgia and gave them HIV,
>>it is the fault of his victims.  
>
> Naked, violent, hatred and discrimination!

And how exactly did I express "violence" in a newsgroup post?

> If this guy said, "hey, I'm negative, don't need condoms!" to his
> partner and they were fooled, they partly victimized, partly fools.
>
> The rest of your vomit is the typical garbage I expect of you.

Whatever, what do you suggest be done with this person?  How many
more trillions of dollars does the government need to spend to
properly inform *** 4TH-YEAR MEDICAL STUDENTS *** that HIV is a
deadly contagious virus and that they should wear condoms?  Yes,
his partners are fools, but he is still a criminal.  His act of
having unprotected sex with them without informing of his KNOWN
HIV+ status is a CRIME, but being stupid is not (yet) illegal.

Do I have to drag out Gaetan Dugas' (Patient Zero who infected
most of the original victims in the late 1970s) response to
doctors and scientists who told he had a deadly STD and to
abstain from sex?  He just laughed, bragged about his thousands
of sex partners, and told them it was THEIR problem and proceeded
to infect hundreds more before finally having the decency to die.
One story (unverified) is that after he was informed he would
pick up strangers, have sex with them, then afterwards would
point to his purple splotches and tell them that he had the "gay
cancer" and they now had it too.  My vomitous internet posts are
"violent," but committing actual mass-murder using a biological
weapon is not violent at all.
Jordi - 19 Jul 2005 01:48 GMT
> "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message...
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> having unprotected sex with them without informing of his KNOWN
> HIV+ status is a CRIME, but being stupid is not (yet) illegal.

According to the article it is illegal in Georgia, that seems to be why
Carricker is in the slammer.

> Do I have to drag out Gaetan Dugas' (Patient Zero who infected
> most of the original victims in the late 1970s) response to
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> "violent," but committing actual mass-murder using a biological
> weapon is not violent at all.

Yes this is the kind of behviour that *must* be stopped. But it seems to
be the extreme.

I am more concerned about those who know their status and go out and
have anonymous sex for personal self gratification and to hell with the
consequences for their partner/s.

Dugas' behaviour was like firing a weapon into a crowd while the latter
is more like Charles Cullen the "Killer Nurse" or Harold Shipman the
"killer doctor". Both equally lethal.
wilyretrovirus - 19 Jul 2005 01:50 GMT
>Do I have to drag out Gaetan Dugas' (Patient Zero who infected
most of the original victims in the late 1970s)

So, how many African green monkeys did Gaetan sodomize, before running to
NYC, Los Angeles and San Francisco to "start" the "AIDS epidemic".  
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 19 Jul 2005 18:41 GMT
>his partners are fools, but he is still a criminal.  His act of
>having unprotected sex with them without informing of his KNOWN
>HIV+ status is a CRIME,

Now and then even you are right.

Signature

David Canzi        "Upon blind faith they place reliance.
            What we need more of is science!" -- MC Hawking

Jordi - 19 Jul 2005 19:12 GMT
>>his partners are fools, but he is still a criminal.  His act of
>>having unprotected sex with them without informing of his KNOWN
>>HIV+ status is a CRIME,
>
> Now and then even you are right.

And so is this person:

Shirlene Cooper, 42, community organizer, New York City AIDS Housing Network

"If you know you have HIV and you pass it on to me, that is a crime,
sure as putting your hand on a gun and pulling the trigger. I would
definitely press charges. If you have HIV, you should do your best to
protect others. I didn’t get HIV by myself."
Brian Mailman - 19 Jul 2005 23:57 GMT
> Shirlene Cooper, 42, community organizer, New York City AIDS Housing
> Network... "I didn’t get HIV by myself."

No, but she certainly participated in the effort.  Something g'ma used
to say about the number of people needed to tango...

B/

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.