hello,today is a day i will never forget...my daughter has discovered she has herpes.
After sleeping with an african footballer some 21 or so days ago WITHOUT protection, (you know what its like when you get caught in the moment and either dont have one or in the heat of the moment you are not expecting to take it that far yet succumb?
well,its a pity. im hoping that her STD appointment topmorrow and in the following two months wont discover the dreaded big one AIDS.
You know, im fortunately i managed to counsel her through today quite well though initially quite angry with the guy that gave it to her(fortunatly it could only be the one guy and she has seen him since that night so rang him today)as she had no one to talk to regarding the surprise and discomfort/fear, as on a sunday ther are no surgeries open and any how i happened to know that a STD clinic is the place that handles these incidents.
YOU know it stinks, people are able to have sex with others still in this day and age and get away with passing on infectious diseases. Id like to start a campaign for putting a law in place to fine people heavily who pass on ANY STD to another .
this ought to prompt people to have regular STD's and act responsibly. as otherwise they would face large fines...
Believe me its no fun feeling /carrying/fearing erruptions of herpes, let alone the stigma attatched and the fact that its not talked about ie: you dont tell your girlfriends or your mother (usually) you only share such news with intimate partners (if one is a decent person).
Therefore ought not this be policed every other crime is what do you think?
Would you consider a campaign to enforce Fine's against those whom pass on STD's a good cause?
consider the save in health costs and further spreading of the virus!

mariah. I agree that there should be a legal responsibility for those who have STD's to be punished if they know about it and pass it on to another. The problem of course will be that people won't check themselves so that they cannot be held responsible as they will be able to say that they didn't know. So many people just don't care what happens to others.

At the same time, whether it was the heat of the moment or not, your daughter should have been more careful. It is a pretty big risk to take and unfortunately she is paying the price.

I believe that there isn't enough education in relation to sexually transmitted diseases so as to make people really understand just how much of it is out there and how you are playing with fire every single time you make the choice to take a chance.

The consequences can be devastating as I am sure your family would agree. But certainly the person who passed on the disease shouldn't be allowed to be so irresponsible and not be punished.

Interesting idea. There have been a lot of cases in the media lately of people knowingly spreading AIDS. You can get charged for that:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1174300780

Not sure about punishing people who spread it unknowingly. I guess if you have unprotected sex with a few different people over a short period without getting yourself checked out, maybe you should get done for reckless endangerment. However then you would have to charge people who screw around, regardless of whether they actually spread anything. The privacy implications are pretty nasty, and it would probably be unworkable, and a witch hunt.

Plus, if the person spreading it is unaware they have it, then you could argue that the person who catches it is just as much responsible for the spread of the disease.

I suspect the only practical approach is to educate people to look after themselves.

Also, a 'no fault' style investigation may work better than charging people. People will want to chase the disease down to everyone who might have caught it, but are more likely to clam up if there is a legal risk for them.

Maybe they should be able to issue orders forcing people to get themselves tested if a carrier has pointed the finger at them as another potential carrier.

I think people have a legal right to medical privacy. I sucks the big one that your daughter contracted herpes, but thankfully that one doesn't mean the end of the world for her. All it means is that she is going to have to honest with future partners and that can for some be an issue on whether they'll want to be with her because of the perceived icky factor. People with herpes can have a normal sex life. I believe there can be potential issues with childbirth during an 'attack'.

I don't think there's should be a legal responsibility for diseases that aren't potentially life threatening. We are ALL warned of it when sex ed starts at school, and we are ALL taught what to do to minimise the chances of contracting these diseases...unfortunately it only takes one of those 'heat of the moments'.

"I don't think there's should be a legal responsibility for diseases that aren't potentially life threatening."

Does that include knowingly spreading the disease?

OK you can call the AIDS hotline through the Albion Street Clinic 02 9332 9600. After hours, the recorded message will give you the emergency after hour’s number, which will link you to the Prince of Wales Hospital.

In Queensland it is the Roma Street Clinic but I don't know if they have an emergency 24 hour hotline.

Your number one concern after possible exposure is not vengeance; you want to minimise the chance of sero-conversion.

If you are in this situation of possible exposure, you must call the closest hospital community health or STD clinic ASAP, or the 24-hour hotline.

This is because your daughter could be taking protease inhibitors and anti retrovirals as a chance to stop sero-conversion. They call this the PEP program. It apparently can work as a last emergency step prevention for infection. But there is no guarantee.

The "window" period between possible contact and sero-conversion is 3 months. So you could get a false positive this week. Within the next few months, she could still sero-convert. In this time, she could still be eligible for PEP, just in case.

Just a handy tip for you from the Saint.

Sorry, above re-PEP and window period I said "false positive", a meant "false negative". +++God Bless+++

saintfletcher
just spoke to my daughter and the PEP drug only works BEFORE your blisters erruptfor the first time.
She diddnt know she had blisters B4 this(duh)
the guy she slept with had no sores or blisters (possibly a silent carrier) he had himself tested also today(at least they are staying in contact and doing the right thing re going to get tests at appropriate clinics etc)
mabye i misunderstand you,i think you are saying take the PEP straight after unprotected sex?as a preventative
unfortunatley her blisters appeared exactly at the time expected_21 days after contact is the window period
i still feel strongly that the onus is on the carrier always
a big responsability, but it musnt be irked. Imagine irking other health responsabilities like driving safely. Why is this kind of driving any different And sure if you forget to put your seat belt on in a car you will suffer the damage. (yes own fault) yet the driver needs to face his part also.
And own up to their own contagious bodies and be a responsible carrier.

freediver~ knowingly, or intentionally?

'Knowingly?', then my opinion doesn't change. P.R.O.T.E.C.T.I.O.N, and Q.U.E.S.T.I.O.N...and don't jump in the sack on 'first date'. Get some trust going. Is it worth it not to?.

'Intentionally?', then you 'should' have a case for assault, or something similar to assault.

But minimise the chances by being smart. The original author's daughter is a prime example of "it can happen".

What is the difference between knowingly and intentionally? That distinction would just have people stand up in court and say yes I had unprotected sex and yes I knew I was spreading the disease but no I didn't actually intend to spread the disease I just wanted to have sex.

hello freediver, i happen to be the origional POST master
i also interpret knowingly as intentionaly
-what else can it be
im presuming that OLDER bodies as mine would either have herpes or know better by now, as in wait awhile and/ or use protection
young people dont all have these skill
some may but its certainly not even a half of them
Im presuming this 'Law' imposing a fine would protect the generations from here on.
As my daughter has Herpes already she cant go back.
We could as intelligent adults protect those to come.
If a law and a fine /record were to be put in place it would be no different to the protection type laws we already feel appropriate to enforce as humans.
And, so what if it has consequences for those that then choose to go behind such a law, whats new? there will always be law breakers and when caught they have to pay the penalty.
Lets clean this mess up (Herpes) or at least for now stop its spread.
this isnt a third world country.

"im presuming that OLDER bodies as mine would either have herpes or know better by now, as in wait awhile and/ or use protection

Not always. You could be a 'carrier' with no symptoms.

"Im presuming this 'Law' imposing a fine would protect the generations from here on.

I think if it were possible to rid our society completely of certain diseases (as has happened with a couple) it would warrant more extreme action. Maybe it's possible for AIDS, but herpes may not justifiy it.

"If a law and a fine /record were to be put in place it would be no different to the protection type laws we already feel appropriate to enforce as humans.

One difference: a far more significant invasion of privacy.

freediver
do you really feel/think that humans are going to be that responsible, my understanding of us all is we need limits/boundaries even as we grow up and especially when we are 'grown up' as its in our nature to push our limits.(tangle with death)
i can only imagine that the embarrasment and stigma, the 'dirty' aspect prompts us (humans) to want to keep this type of information to ourselves. My opinion of that would be 'grow-up' because if youve got it youve got it there aint much you can do_and anyway, there's got to be millions with it and there is probably even support groups. Why are we as educated people still so shallow and selfish/ concerned about myths or what 'others' think?

Intentionally~ Having sex with the intention of infecting them for whatever sicko reason.

Knowingly~ Knowing you have an STD but still having sex without informing your partner. They too, can caught up in the "heat of the moment". They may not tell them out of immaturity and/or embarrassment. Possibly they thought they weren't infectious at the time.

Without trying to sound unsympathetic. I get tired of people blaming others for their own misfortunes. The original poster's daughter got infected through immaturity, ignorance, apathy...fricken bad luck, whatever. In the end there is no one to blame but themselves. Infringing on more rights isn't gonna make it better.

Would it be possible for a plaintiff to make the distinction between intentionally and knowlingly in court? To me that sounds like only charging people for speeding if they actually intended to have a crash.

Well, I ain't going round in circles, my friend. This is online opinion isn't it?. You got mine.

If you can't see the difference between my point of intentionally infecting someone with an STD, and knowingly having but unintentionally infecting someone then my input ends here.

Good luck with your campaign.

Thanks Sig
unknowingly is even more clutsy, like leaping into the ocean before you can swim. Even if it is nknowingly there will be a shocking rebound affect on the one who passed the STD. Im sure all could appreciate that an evening call that points out youve just given someone an STD could be one of the most upsetting calls you ever get, and from there on the origional carrier has to accept they are Hep. posative anyway.
Sad you think its OK for any person to have unprotected intimate encounters without making first an effort to make sure they have a clean bill of health.

I said exactly the opposite. Don't root on the first date. Get to know them and trust them. You yourself said your daughter got caught up in the 'heat of the moment'. How was she gonna be saved by changing legislation to MAKE people disclose their medical information?. I'd suggest the vast majority of people who get infected do so on the first date. How will your idea's help them?. Would you suggest you don't go out on a date without having someone pass a medical?, or when 'you' 'pick up' at the pub, how are you gonna test them?.

My missus and I got medically tested before we shagged. I have no issue with it, so long as it's volunteer...unless there's some circumstances for criminal prosecution. If your partner refuses to get it done before you have sex with them, don't have sex...move on before you get attached.

"If you can't see the difference between my point of intentionally infecting someone with an STD, and knowingly having but unintentionally infecting someone then my input ends here.

Of course I can see the difference, but the law can't.

Not quite seasonal
But you MIGHT like to disseminate -at THE appropriate time.

ThE English HEaLTH SERVICE IS VERY CLEVER
AND TO BE CONGRADULTULTeD ON THIS,

http://www.archimediadesign.com/website/3_animation/COI/COI-12-STIs/