Recently I was dating someone who is HIV positive and, as is customary among consenting [gay] adults, sex was discussed ad nausium, the implications, the risks, the barriers and the potential outcomes of all possible scenarios. Under the influence of narcotics I allowed myself to engage in "at risk behavior, and thus began the discussion of responsibility. According to precedents in California judicial procedure if someone is aware of their seropositive status--that is, testing positive for HIV (VLC + 50 / TCC - 300)--and withold this information, they can be criminally prosecuted for gross endangerment, and, upon the death of the person whom they infect, can be prosecuted for NH1 (negligent homocide). However, the latter is rare, and the family is more likely to sue posthumously for wrongful death.
Considering that, in cases of transmission through sexual intercourse, HIV is transmitted between consenting and--most likely--educated individuals, does the seropositive party bare legal responsibility? Assuming the seropositive was not intentionally witholding information in an effort to propogate malfeasence, culpability is negated by the willingness of the counterpart, the party with seronegative status, to engage the former. As tragic as the disease is, a lack in courtesy cannot be considered tantamount to criminal neglegance.
Assuming the seropositive was not intentionally witholding information in an effort to propogate malfeasence, culpability is negated by the willingness of the counterpart, the party with seronegative status, to engage the former. As tragic as the disease is, a lack in courtesy cannot be considered tantamount to criminal neglegance.
It would seem to me that if a person was HIV Positive and was aware of that fact and then went onto have "at risk" sex with another party without informing them, it would constitute prima facie evidence of malfeasance. That goes well beyond the point of lack of courtesy to the point of, at a minimum, reckless endangerment.
It is the equivalent of pointing a revolver that they know to be half loaded at another party and pulling the trigger. The hammer might come down on an empty chamber and it might come down on a loaded chamber. If it happens to come down on a loaded chamber and the other party ends up hurt or dead, then the person who pulled the trigger is guilty of something pretty severe. It does not matter if the other party was willing to have the gun pointed at them or not.