TED Talks - Shereen El-Feki: How to fight an epidemic of bad laws

  • metta

    Posts: 39092

    May 30, 2012 6:08 AM GMT
    Shereen El-Feki: How to fight an epidemic of bad laws

  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    May 30, 2012 1:46 PM GMT
    certain things in this are spurious. not that i don't agree with her on most points, but context is important. take for instance the interview with nick rhoades. rhoades was, unfairly-- i agree-- sentenced to 25 years in prison as a class b felon for having sex with another man and not disclosing his status as a positive man. yes, rhoades used a condom, and, yes, rhoades had an undetectable viral load. does that mean he didn't break a law in my book? if you're hiv-positive, regardless of your viral load and protection, you owe it to your sexual partner to disclose your status whether or not your partner asks, whether or not the risk is statistically insignificant. i say this as a negative person who has had protected relations with people who disclosed their positive statuses to me. so while 25 years is egregious, and being labeled as a sex offender for life is unjust, to say that there isn't a basis for a law isn't correct. after all, i think it was a quarter of the people who were prosecuted in iowa with this law did actually transmit the virus.
  • Guycicle

    Posts: 228

    Jun 01, 2012 2:13 AM GMT
    Does Iowa have legally mandated STI screenings?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 12:44 AM GMT
    I just watched this and thought it was great. The part about why we have harm reduction was really good - I'll be using this as supplementary teaching material for my public health/health promotion unit.
  • dfrourke

    Posts: 1062

    Jun 21, 2012 12:04 AM GMT
    I respectfully disagree with a part of what Calibro states as there is a lack of shared responsibility in "disclos[ing] your status whether or not your partner asks".

    I agree from a humanistic and community point of view that reducing the chances that I infect someone else is my responsibility, but it is also the other person's responsibility not to become infected. These decisions are two sides of the same coin.

    We know (as a community) how to prevent HIV exposure and infection. The statement I highlight values one decision/expection (disclosure) over another (preventive steps and precaution). One person's decision not to disclose can not be weighed lighter or heavier than another person's decision to not use a condom. By placing value over one, we risk judgement and moral stigma which is the entire point of this presentation.

    These laws do nothing but perpetuate fear. I ask:

    How do I produce proof that I disclosed?
    (it becomes one person's word over another)

    How do we then hold individuals accountable who are HIV positive and infecting others, but never go find out their status because of fear?
    (then we are only punishing those who are possibly informed and punishing them for doing the right thing - knowing their status)

    The laws were passed at a time when the country feared HIV/AIDS and frankly, had very little information about it.

    Time for a change and new approach.

    - David icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 12:24 AM GMT
    dfrourke saidI respectfully disagree with a part of what Calibro states as there is a lack of shared responsibility in "disclos[ing] your status whether or not your partner asks".

    I agree from a humanistic and community point of view that reducing the chances that I infect someone else is my responsibility, but it is also the other person's responsibility not to become infected. These decisions are two sides of the same coin.

    We know (as a community) how to prevent HIV exposure and infection. The statement I highlight values one decision/expection (disclosure) over another (preventive steps and precaution). One person's decision not to disclose can not be weighed lighter or heavier than another person's decision to not use a condom. By placing value over one, we risk judgement and moral stigma which is the entire point of this presentation.

    These laws do nothing but perpetuate fear. I ask:

    How do I produce proof that I disclosed?
    (it becomes one person's word over another)

    How do we then hold individuals accountable who are HIV positive and infecting others, but never go find out their status because of fear?
    (then we are only punishing those who are possibly informed and punishing them for doing the right thing - knowing their status)

    The laws were passed at a time when the country feared HIV/AIDS and frankly, had very little information about it.

    Time for a change and new approach.

    - David icon_wink.gif



    Realjock really needs to implement a voting system. You get my +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 4:45 PM GMT
    dfrourke saidI respectfully disagree with a part of what Calibro states as there is a lack of shared responsibility in "disclos[ing] your status whether or not your partner asks".

    I agree from a humanistic and community point of view that reducing the chances that I infect someone else is my responsibility, but it is also the other person's responsibility not to become infected. These decisions are two sides of the same coin.

    We know (as a community) how to prevent HIV exposure and infection. The statement I highlight values one decision/expection (disclosure) over another (preventive steps and precaution). One person's decision not to disclose can not be weighed lighter or heavier than another person's decision to not use a condom. By placing value over one, we risk judgement and moral stigma which is the entire point of this presentation.

    These laws do nothing but perpetuate fear. I ask:

    How do I produce proof that I disclosed?
    (it becomes one person's word over another)

    How do we then hold individuals accountable who are HIV positive and infecting others, but never go find out their status because of fear?
    (then we are only punishing those who are possibly informed and punishing them for doing the right thing - knowing their status)

    The laws were passed at a time when the country feared HIV/AIDS and frankly, had very little information about it.

    Time for a change and new approach.

    - David icon_wink.gif


    To Add:

    Where are the laws laws for other infectious diseases?