Accused of infecting drunken woman with HIV

Rebecca Borg

Jun 11th 2009, 10:48

If two persons haven't agreed to have sex and one pushes themself on the other without the other's consent this is called rape. Whether it happens in a house full of people or in private makes no difference.

The statement in this articles causes some confusion: "The officer said that according to the statements made to the police by the victim and her boyfriend, she and the alleged rapist were both drunk and she thought he was her boyfriend. Although the act might have been consensual because of her state of intoxication, she knew he was HIV positive and would never have consented had she been sober." - The statement says, "she thought he was her boyfriend". That markedly goes to show the sex was not consensual.

I admire the woman who reported this rape. It is she who has to face the consequences of this, emotionally, medically, physically. With the lack of adequate crisis support systems in place here in Malta, I honestly wish her good luck with finding the support she needs.

As for the man who raped her, he needs to know that his behaviour is unacceptable anywhere in the world.

Reuben Micallef

Jun 11th 2009, 09:24

In a country where anything regarding sex is almost a taboo(sex education ,condoms etc etc) there is still alot to be done.Also values play an important part ,when it comes to sex the attitude sex now think about the consequences later seems to prevail.
Another point to ponder about......what if instead of a Briton(assuming he is white) it was someone with dark skin.......wouldnt we be hearing that these people are just a disease carrying lot...but since its not a black or an immigrant.......

Dr Savior Tortell Pisani

Jun 11th 2009, 00:42

The simple fact that HiV keeps spreading, is testament to the fact that some HiV+ people are either ignorant of their condition or they are RECKLESSLY PERSISTING with their sexually promiscuous lifestyles (or sharing hypodermic needles). Protease Inhibitors only work when the disciplined patient adheres to therapy religiously. Additionally resistance to such therapy is already appearing in gay communities and as such there can NEVER be a guarantee of safety for any sexual partner sharing sex or needles with HiV positive people.

So judging from many unfortunate cases I’ve witnessed so far, I see no other solution than to impose a legal obligation on all those carrying the deadly virus to carry a (discretely concealed) tattoo and implantable electronic tag that can be used to warn the unsuspecting would-be sexual partner of the imminent danger.

I'm also working hard 2push for legislation that will render all sexual relations illegal 4people carrying HiV or other life threatening, incurable, sexually transmissible disease.
Bluntly speaking, anyone who disagrees with such measures is necessarily in favour of murder! This is not 2stigmatise but to SAVE LIVES &eradicate HiV for the benefit of all.

james muscat

Jun 10th 2009, 22:16

@michael cassar...it is called a condom

Roderick Bugeja

Jun 10th 2009, 21:02

A person put at risk of acquiring HIV cannot have a blood test done for HIV before at least 3 months in view of a 90-180 day window period to confirm the result. That is, a person cannot know whether s/he has been infected with HIV before this period, otherwise the test could lead to a false-negative result. This can be confirmed with the Genito-Urinary (GU) clinic at Boffa Hospital (21227981) Thus my question: irrespective whether it was rape or not - can a person be charged for willingly infecting someone with HIV before blood tests confirm whether the victim had been infected or not? On the other hand, if after just a few days a blood test shows a positive result (i.e. infected with HIV), then it is highly likely that the victim had been infected with the virus from previous penetrative sexual activities (or from sharing an infected syringe-needle, for example, in drug abuse). Can someone familiar with public health legislation please illuminate me regards my question above?

anthea preston

Jun 10th 2009, 14:09

This is another of the dangers of alcohol abuse that should be more widely acknowledged. Honestly, getting so drunk that she thought it was her boyfriend she was getting intimate with - what an amount she must have consumed. In Britain the damages awarded to such "victims" are reduced as it is deemed that they are responsible in part for not being in a fit state to take adequate care of themselves. Also, I note the article says that the alleged rapist is charged with infecting the woman with HIV - there is a three month window for the testing of HIV! It is not possible to detect with any certainty in this short period of time even with the latest medical technology!

Fabian Borg

Jun 10th 2009, 13:12

Just a question.
What was the boyfriend of the victim doing while the act was being consumed ?
He should be responsable for the incidents happening to his girlfriend unless this was just a one night stand and there was no moral responsability between them.

Nigel Lawrence

Jun 10th 2009, 11:10

So intoxicated, she didn't know WHO she was having sex with? A sad reflection of modern day human morality.

Michael Neville Cassar

Jun 10th 2009, 10:33

I am sorry for the victim,But how about protecting other victims from the infected ones. It is high time that some form of protection is done towards others.