Should Victims Receive Compensation for 'Surprise STDs'?
SodaHead News
2012/06/07 18:57:51
|
|
|||||
|
481 votes
|
|
44% | |||
|
601 votes
|
|
56% | |||
A 49-year-old Oregon woman found a little bit of respite this week when the court awarded her a whopping $900,000 as compensation for contracting herpes from a 69-year-old man on their fourth date. According to the L.A. Times, the jury decided the woman was only "25% responsible" for contracting the STD because the man failed to tell her that he had it before they had sex.
Randall Vogt, attorney for the plaintiff, explained, "He was 69, my client was a very attractive 49. My argument to the jury was he just wanted to sink his hooks into her." There were also suggestions of battery ("aggressive consummation"), which made it impossible for her to put a condom on him, and she was able to give evidence that she had not had the STD prior to the encounter. They met on eHarmony. Do you think it's fair to grant the unknowning recipient of an STD legal compensation?
Randall Vogt, attorney for the plaintiff, explained, "He was 69, my client was a very attractive 49. My argument to the jury was he just wanted to sink his hooks into her." There were also suggestions of battery ("aggressive consummation"), which made it impossible for her to put a condom on him, and she was able to give evidence that she had not had the STD prior to the encounter. They met on eHarmony. Do you think it's fair to grant the unknowning recipient of an STD legal compensation?
It's called: If you play, you pay.
On the other hand, if the scumbag knowingly had herpes
and gave it to her intentionally. He should be brought up
on charges.
Because it's a felony to infect someone with an STD
on purpose.
It would be interesting to know how long they knew each other "in person", before consummating their relationship. It kind of sounds like they were BOTH trying to "put the hooks" into each other. She with an older sugar daddy, & he with younger "fresh flesh". They're probably both losers, but not knowing anymore information, it's hard to make a solid decision on the subject.
But, hey. It's what the education system (and insane settlement amounts like this) have trained us to be.
Better living through pharameuticals and litigation. It seems to be the New American Dream.
I don't understand how so many people keep touting personal responsibility for her while in effect absolving him.
BUT knowing you have a disease and withholding that information from someone you're intimate with (4 dates or 4 years married) increases the risk of infecting that other person to near 100%. Withholding that knowledge is a premeditated act. I think that should be punished more than just calling the guy a scumbag.
And who knows, maybe if courts start holding people responsible for their actions if they have an STD in this fashion then maybe that risk of getting infected will go down as the bad guys that cause the risk are held to account. Then we could actually start stemming the spread.
Just a few thoughts. But basically from what I read from you her punishment is the STD (somewhat rightly for her mistake) and his punishment is being called a poopyhead (although you have to actually pull that out of some people). That doesn't sound equitable to me.
That she didn't ask doesn't matter, considering that point. That he could have easily said no.
The point is that he had the information and withheld it. He did not have to wait to ask her to volunteer it did he? At any point he could have told her. Knowing that he had an STD he could have been prepared with condoms to use, correct?
People need to take responsibility for their own decisions. That applies to EVERYONE. Everyone includes the man in this situation. He made a series of bad choices too. And his choices were based on clear and direct knowledge he had that she didn't.
If you are going to hold everyone responsible for their actions then that logically must apply to him as well. Her punishment for her mistakes is a lifelong STD. His punishment for his mistake is a lighter wallet.
If we look at the situation as a whole, a flood of new lawsuits on this issue may start affecting sex and risktaking in a new way. The foundational problem with sex these days, with variable risk factors, is the selfish slimeballs who have STDs and concea...
That she didn't ask doesn't matter, considering that point. That he could have easily said no.
The point is that he had the information and withheld it. He did not have to wait to ask her to volunteer it did he? At any point he could have told her. Knowing that he had an STD he could have been prepared with condoms to use, correct?
People need to take responsibility for their own decisions. That applies to EVERYONE. Everyone includes the man in this situation. He made a series of bad choices too. And his choices were based on clear and direct knowledge he had that she didn't.
If you are going to hold everyone responsible for their actions then that logically must apply to him as well. Her punishment for her mistakes is a lifelong STD. His punishment for his mistake is a lighter wallet.
If we look at the situation as a whole, a flood of new lawsuits on this issue may start affecting sex and risktaking in a new way. The foundational problem with sex these days, with variable risk factors, is the selfish slimeballs who have STDs and conceal them to get what they want. And the disease spreads wider and wider. If we start legally holding them responsible for their actions then they may think twice of taking advantage of people and exposing the disease to a broader public.
The problem with that idea I see is that I think some people enjoy the fact that STDs exist as a punishment for people who make mistakes or don't live up to their morality. People want to see loose men and women punished and don't particularly care about the liars that enable the spread, people I'd consider much worse. A story like this boils down to calling her a slut while completely ignoring his role. And if you truly are a "personal responsibility advocate" then taking that point of view is hypocritical.
I get on my Honda TRX450R ATV everyday knowing that it is a danger decision to get on it. They sell them legally everyday knowing they are dangerous and kill people everyday. So I wear protection to minimize the risk, knowing that there is (STD's, hint hint) dangers out there. But if I do get into a wreck and loose a leg or arm or something I can't sue the company that made it because I was warned of the possible danger (we are all warned of the possible dangers of unprotected sex). Now, if there was a defect in the manufactures material then we can sue. But we are all aware there is moral, ethical and PHYSICAL defects in human beings so we are ...
I get on my Honda TRX450R ATV everyday knowing that it is a danger decision to get on it. They sell them legally everyday knowing they are dangerous and kill people everyday. So I wear protection to minimize the risk, knowing that there is (STD's, hint hint) dangers out there. But if I do get into a wreck and loose a leg or arm or something I can't sue the company that made it because I was warned of the possible danger (we are all warned of the possible dangers of unprotected sex). Now, if there was a defect in the manufactures material then we can sue. But we are all aware there is moral, ethical and PHYSICAL defects in human beings so we are all aware of the dangers having unprotected sex. You and her sound as if you two are not aware of the dangers associated with unprotected sex(??????), even my 11 year old know that. The responsibility falls on you to protect yourself from people/predators like that man. Waiting for the other person to disclose everything about themselves is just not reality (once again it falls on you to protect yourself). Its just dumb, immature, irresponsible for anyone to have unprotected sex acting blind to the dangers (especially after only the 4th date), sound like suicide if you ask me. And for our courts to rewarded her for being dumb, stupid and irresponsible for her own life, what message does that send to our kids or any other adult??? She better thank God she didn't get AIDS or HIV or some other deadly disease because she didn't use protection. The message about the dangers of AIDs/HIV, STD's, etc. has been in mainstream America for as long as I can remember, so why's she acting brand new, like a new born that doesn't know any better?? She played Russian roulette and lost, that's her own fault. And for him I hope his di** falls off I don't condone what hes done to her or any other person but I would say to her and anyone else that has unprotected sex, you get what you get so don't through a fit, lol I learned that in elementary.
But to your strawman. You take your risk and thats a cute faulty comparison. But you answer the question yourself. That the man KNOWINGLY hid his "defect" is akin to the manufacturer knowingly selling you a bike with faulty breaks. And as you said, then you can sue.
But like all the typical people on here you prattle on about her. He has his own level of personal responsible. He too knows that sex is dangerous, he choose to have sex without protection. But he had an added layer. He knew had had a high priority of passing along an infection. His responsibility includes avoiding transmission. He made his choice on that count and he now pays the price.
She made a bad choice and has an STD for life.
He made a bad choice and has a lighter wallet.
Things are fair and balanced.
And from a long term view a...
But to your strawman. You take your risk and thats a cute faulty comparison. But you answer the question yourself. That the man KNOWINGLY hid his "defect" is akin to the manufacturer knowingly selling you a bike with faulty breaks. And as you said, then you can sue.
But like all the typical people on here you prattle on about her. He has his own level of personal responsible. He too knows that sex is dangerous, he choose to have sex without protection. But he had an added layer. He knew had had a high priority of passing along an infection. His responsibility includes avoiding transmission. He made his choice on that count and he now pays the price.
She made a bad choice and has an STD for life.
He made a bad choice and has a lighter wallet.
Things are fair and balanced.
And from a long term view anyone with a brain should realize that holding bad people to punishment for stuff like this will lower the risk of danger in sex as people know they may have to face consequences for exposure.
Or maybe you don't want to lower risk factors because you want people punished for not sharing your morality.
You are right, you should be able to eventually trust someone enough to have sex but do you really want to take that chance??? And if you are feeling that comfortable to have unprotected sex then you should feel comfortable enough to ask them to be tested before having unprotected sex for there safety as well as yours, not absurd but mature/responsible. If not then you are taking your life in your own hand once again. And "YES" people should be in fear of having unprotected sex we have been telling our kids that for years because of STD's/HIV and unwanted pregnancies. Are you stupid or the next AIDS victim?? Well hopefully you can get a lot of money from the guy/girl who gives you AIDS because "THEY SHOULD HAVE TOLD YOU", hahahaha and hopefully you can enjoy the money before you died (it would have been easier just to protect yourself). I have had sex with more women then I can count on my hands and toes and I have ...
You are right, you should be able to eventually trust someone enough to have sex but do you really want to take that chance??? And if you are feeling that comfortable to have unprotected sex then you should feel comfortable enough to ask them to be tested before having unprotected sex for there safety as well as yours, not absurd but mature/responsible. If not then you are taking your life in your own hand once again. And "YES" people should be in fear of having unprotected sex we have been telling our kids that for years because of STD's/HIV and unwanted pregnancies. Are you stupid or the next AIDS victim?? Well hopefully you can get a lot of money from the guy/girl who gives you AIDS because "THEY SHOULD HAVE TOLD YOU", hahahaha and hopefully you can enjoy the money before you died (it would have been easier just to protect yourself). I have had sex with more women then I can count on my hands and toes and I have never had an STD, so you go right ahead enjoy your compensation/money all you want I will enjoy my STD free body. Prevention, Prevention, Prevention, why take the chance????
I do feel sorry for the women who contracted STD's, just because she got awarded $900,000 doesn't mean shes will actual get the money, but we all know that she sure DID get an STD. It would have been easier for her to be responsible and care about own her life and just to use protection.
Sorry I don't like the message you are conveying to our/my children, that it is OK not to protect yourself because you could get paid if they give you something.
I will ask you this, would you rather have $900,000 and STD's or an STD free body???
If you chose the money well then we know where you stand "with the cash".
If you chose STD free body.
Well the only way to stay Free of STD's if you are having sex is by PROTECTING YOURSELF, not hoping for the best!
Good Luck!!
Best statement so far that I have read here.
Been some good ones but this one is. . .
Just for reference: condoms are not 100%. Just because one didn't break didn't mean you didn't catch anything.
Most people (esp. teenagers and young adults) aren't going to follow this advice. But you're absolutely correct. Abstinence is the best method of prevention. And sex ed class really doesn't do justice to the risks (at least, it didn't while I was in school).