Posted on Jan 30, 2016
Should being HIV-positive AND having unprotected sex, when ordered not to, be punishable under the UCMJ?
168K
392
75
15
15
0
REPORT: WASHINGTON
Gavin B. Atchak’s commanding officer...ordered him to avoid unprotected sex after Atchak tested positive for HIV in 2011. The officer also directed Atchak, an enlisted man....to inform future sex partners that he carried the virus that can cause AIDS. Atchak disobeyed and engaged in unprotected oral and anal sex with...http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article57147868.html
Gavin B. Atchak’s commanding officer...ordered him to avoid unprotected sex after Atchak tested positive for HIV in 2011. The officer also directed Atchak, an enlisted man....to inform future sex partners that he carried the virus that can cause AIDS. Atchak disobeyed and engaged in unprotected oral and anal sex with...http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article57147868.html
Sexual Assault
UCMJ
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 50
0
0
0
Indulging in homosexuality while in the service is against the ucmj and is punishable by court martial especially spreading a deadly disease like hiv,not to mention disgusting!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
To be punishable under UCMJ for unprotected sex while knowingly being HIV positive would mean that the SM was not medically discharged and actively serving being HIV positive. That is a medical disqualification for enlistment and was grounds for an immediate medical discharge if tested positive, apparently not anymore?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No. It is proven that antiretroviral medication that reduces the viral load to undetectable levels in the blood makes it impossible for that person to pass it on sexually according to an international study following 58,000 condomless sex acts between mixed status partners resulting in ZERO transmissions.
HIV is primarily spread by people that do not know they are infected and have high viral loads.
HIV is primarily spread by people that do not know they are infected and have high viral loads.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
TSgt (Join to see) Who were these 29,000 non-infected individuals who agreed to have unprotected sex with infected individuals in the name of science?
(1)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Cpl Mark McMiller There wasn't 29,000 uninfected patners. The were approximately 1,800 couples coupled with one being positive aand the other one being negative. The couples were and still are part of the PARTNER study. The study follows these couples to track the real life risks involved in these activities which as stated earlier as resulted in ZERO transmissions.
It's an eye- opening fact and sadly brings to light the ignorance and stigma surrounding HIV by the public at large.
It's an eye- opening fact and sadly brings to light the ignorance and stigma surrounding HIV by the public at large.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
TSgt (Join to see) - Yea, that is eye opening. But if the public is ignorant, it's because our government health organizations, news media, and education system aren't doing their jobs.
Nevertheless, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if antiretroviral medication reduced the viral load to undetectable levels in the blood, that doesn't necessarily mean the virus is not transferred. It could just be that the virus was transferred but the viral load in the recipient is undectable due to the medication which was transferred along with the virus and the virus will show it's ugly head if that medication is flushed from the recipient's system. And once you have a virus, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of it.
So I would want to know and expect to be informed if I was about to have sex with someone who had any sexually transmittable disease. To not inform a potential partner is criminal. Therefore, the CO was correct to give the order and the infected service should be subject to punishment under the UCMJ for disobeying the order.
Nevertheless, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if antiretroviral medication reduced the viral load to undetectable levels in the blood, that doesn't necessarily mean the virus is not transferred. It could just be that the virus was transferred but the viral load in the recipient is undectable due to the medication which was transferred along with the virus and the virus will show it's ugly head if that medication is flushed from the recipient's system. And once you have a virus, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of it.
So I would want to know and expect to be informed if I was about to have sex with someone who had any sexually transmittable disease. To not inform a potential partner is criminal. Therefore, the CO was correct to give the order and the infected service should be subject to punishment under the UCMJ for disobeying the order.
(0)
(0)
SGM Billy Herrington
Undetectable viral load mean no virus. Therefore, no virus means no transmission. Also, for clarity, the medication doesn't transfer from person to person either.
The antiretrovirals attack the virus during phases of replication. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (nukes) protease inhibitors, integrase inhibitors, and non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (non nukes) are the most common combined together. Most first line treatment regimes are two nukes with an integrase. All of this depends upon resistance testing of the strain the infected individual has.
The PARTNER study has shown time and time again that transmission does not occur if on effective therapy and undetectable. It's a lack of knowledge in society. Have you noticed how there isn't much talk about HIV? Remember the posters from the 80's and 90's? They did fairly well at scaring the shit out of me and everyone else. They also led to the current stigma facing people living with HIV. The lack of knowledge is astonishing.
If medicine could ever figure out how to destroy the latent reserves that lie dormant they could erraticate the virus from a person.
I agree with you; someone should inform the other if they are HIV positive before a sex act. Criminal? I'd lean towards no. Where is the negative persons culpability? If anyone is having sex with different partners and not practicing safer sex then they are playing Russian roulette and have no one to blame but themselves.
I will agree that he disobeyed an order that was lawfully given by his commander. In the Army it's fully covered in AR 600-110 as far as what will happen once an SM is diagnosed.
The antiretrovirals attack the virus during phases of replication. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (nukes) protease inhibitors, integrase inhibitors, and non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (non nukes) are the most common combined together. Most first line treatment regimes are two nukes with an integrase. All of this depends upon resistance testing of the strain the infected individual has.
The PARTNER study has shown time and time again that transmission does not occur if on effective therapy and undetectable. It's a lack of knowledge in society. Have you noticed how there isn't much talk about HIV? Remember the posters from the 80's and 90's? They did fairly well at scaring the shit out of me and everyone else. They also led to the current stigma facing people living with HIV. The lack of knowledge is astonishing.
If medicine could ever figure out how to destroy the latent reserves that lie dormant they could erraticate the virus from a person.
I agree with you; someone should inform the other if they are HIV positive before a sex act. Criminal? I'd lean towards no. Where is the negative persons culpability? If anyone is having sex with different partners and not practicing safer sex then they are playing Russian roulette and have no one to blame but themselves.
I will agree that he disobeyed an order that was lawfully given by his commander. In the Army it's fully covered in AR 600-110 as far as what will happen once an SM is diagnosed.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It is a crime, isn't it considered pre meditated murder or attempted murder?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This indeed is and should be a criminal act, both for UCMJ and civilian law.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google