Scandal @ Emory: Honors Student Caught Spreading AIDS

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
erin682 said:
Hey guys, if anyone is intersted in the details of the case and not the current debate, I'm in the atl and this guy has been on the local news the past couple days for his 2nd offense. He pled guilty to all of his charges and then the victims asked the judge to minimize any jail time he might serve (the max was 10 years!). The judge gave him two years jail time with 2 years probation to be served continuously with his sentence for the first conviction which had the same sentence.

We do have this law that you must inform anyone you sleep with if you are HIV+ whether its two men or a man and a woman or whatever. The fact that he is gay has nothing to do with it. The unusual thing about it is that this law is like never enforced, right up there with the sodomy laws (which as far as I know we still have and are usually only used in rape cases as an additional charge to throw at a rapist).

I'm surprised the max jail sentence is only 10 years!! HIV is a deadly weapon and using it knowingly is just like using a gun -- only a slower death. Wow.

Members don't see this ad.
 
MedicineBird said:
I'm surprised the max jail sentence is only 10 years!! HIV is a deadly weapon and using it knowingly is just like using a gun -- only a slower death. Wow.

Couldn't you then start charging anyone that spreads diseases?

What about people that spread mono or genital warts, both of which lead to cancer?

Why is there no sentence for them?
 
OSUdoc08 said:
Couldn't you then start charging anyone that spreads diseases?

What about people that spread mono or genital warts, both of which lead to cancer?

Why is there no sentence for them?

You're so caught up in the fact that this is HIV that you repeatedly miss the big picture. You can't seem to get one simple concept through that thick (albeit spongey and no doubt intelligent) brain of yours. The concept? Intent. This guy was a 4th year med student. There is no excuse for what he did. There is no way you can convince me he wasn't aware of the moral responsibility he has to inform intimate partners of the risk involved in this sort of activity. He EVEN LIED ABOUT IT to one of the guys (i.e. "are you disease and drug free" --> and he said yes, LIAR)

If you spread something knowingly and/or maliciously like that, you deserve to go to JAIL. I think that's fair judgment, even if you spread something like mono or the flu. Okay so maybe the law wont enforce such a thing, but there's a certain moral law that, in my opinion, supercedes the one written in the book.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
crazy_cavalier said:
You're so caught up in the fact that this is HIV that you repeatedly miss the big picture. You can't seem to get one simple concept through that thick (albeit spongey and no doubt intelligent) brain of yours. The concept? Intent. This guy was a 4th year med student. There is no excuse for what he did. There is no way you can convince me he wasn't aware of the moral responsibility he has to inform intimate partners of the risk involved in this sort of activity. He EVEN LIED ABOUT IT to one of the guys (i.e. "are you disease and drug free" --> and he said yes, LIAR)

If you spread something knowingly and/or maliciously like that, you deserve to go to JAIL. I think that's fair judgment, even if you spread something like mono or the flu. Okay so maybe the law wont enforce such a thing, but there's a certain moral law that, in my opinion, supercedes the one written in the book.

Since when is lying a crime?

Ever heard of freedom of speech?

It's not like he was "sworn in."
 
OSUdoc08 said:
Since when is lying a crime?

Ever heard of freedom of speech?

It's not like he was "sworn in."

WHAT?! Our resident voix de Dieu has forgotten the 9th commandment! :eek:
 
OSUdoc08 said:
Since when is lying a crime?

Ever heard of freedom of speech?

It's not like he was "sworn in."

Lying isn't a crime as long as you don't jeopardize the health of someone else or put them at serious risk for harm. When that happens, yes lying is a crime. It's called fraud.

Freedom of speech is alright, but there are reasonable limits. I'm reminded of that guy who convinced various people to commit suicide; that freedom of speech bullcrap didn't hold water in his case, and it shouldn't.

Oh and he was sworn in. Emory has a white coat ceremony doesn't it? Don't they usually recite the hippocratic oath at those things? Anyway, he had a moral and social responsibility as a scholar of medicine.
 
crazy_cavalier said:
Oh and he was sworn in. Emory has a white coat ceremony doesn't it? Don't they usually recite the hippocratic oath at those things? Anyway, he had a moral and social responsibility as a scholar of medicine.

BEAUTIFULLY PUT :thumbup: :love:
 
crazy_cavalier said:
Lying isn't a crime as long as you don't jeopardize the health of someone else or put them at serious risk for harm. When that happens, yes lying is a crime. It's called fraud.

Freedom of speech is alright, but there are reasonable limits. I'm reminded of that guy who convinced various people to commit suicide; that freedom of speech bullcrap didn't hold water in his case, and it shouldn't.

Oh and he was sworn in. Emory has a white coat ceremony doesn't it? Don't they usually recite the hippocratic oath at those things? Anyway, he had a moral and social responsibility as a scholar of medicine.

Does this apply to you when you are off duty?

Not legally.
 
MrBurns10 said:
So, no one's answered my question yet...is this changing anyone's mind about attending Emory Med, or at least your interest in it?

This certainly made me reevaluate my reasons for applying there. I want to be under an administration that has my best interest at heart. If this story is in fact accurate and Emory did expel a student without a concrete reason, it is not a place I would feel comfortable for the next four years. I want to be at an institution that values integrity and honesty.
 
OSUdoc08 said:
Does this apply to you when you are off duty?

Not legally.
It doesn't matter that this individual was a doctor in training and had taken the Hippocratic Oath; the same standard would hold for ANY person. Having taken the Oath just makes this case that much more abhorrent. Sure immoral acts don't always make it to court, but when someone's life is put at risk it most certainly should.
 
MrBurns10 said:
It doesn't matter that this individual was a doctor in training and had taken the Hippocratic Oath; the same standard would hold for ANY person. Having taken the Oath just makes this case that much more abhorrent. Sure immoral acts don't always make it to court, but when someone's life is put at risk it most certainly should.

Good. So we agree that these acts were morally wrong.
 
OSUdoc08 said:
Good. So we agree that these acts were morally wrong.
True, but what you seem to be saying is that he shouldn't have had to tell his partners if he didn't want to. And that's what I disagree with. The law is there to protect people, even if it means someone is legally obligated to divulge personal information to his partner.
 
MrBurns10 said:
True, but what you seem to be saying is that he shouldn't have had to tell his partners if he didn't want to. And that's what I disagree with. The law is there to protect people, even if it means someone is legally obligated to divulge personal information to his partner.

I just don't see how a law can be made about divulging information about one specific disease, but not another.

As a healthcare provider, or a sex partner, you should assume your partner could be carrying an infectious disease, and take precautions accordingly. You can't place zero responsibility on the victim here.

As a physician, do you ask your patient if they have HIV, and then decide to wear gloves accordingly? No.

Yes, what he did was wrong, but the legality is questionable.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
OSUdoc08 said:
I just don't see how a law can be made about divulging information about one specific disease, but not another.

As a healthcare provider, or a sex partner, you should assume your partner could be carrying an infectious disease, and take precautions accordingly. You can't place zero responsibility on the victim here.

As a physician, do you ask your patient if they have HIV, and then decide to wear gloves accordingly? No.

Yes, what he did was wrong, but the legality is questionable.
Name one other STD that, for now, leads to certain death. Yes herpes is incurable, but very few (if any?) actually die from it. Sure, mono can lead to cancer...but very rarely; look around you...what can't lead to cancer? HIV is the only STD where it's 100% certain the person who has it will die from an AIDS-related complication. Of course scientists could discover a cure within the next 15 years and save this guy's partner had he actually contracted the disease, but that's all very hypothetical. Knowingly giving someone HIV or lying about it so they're exposed repeatedly can definitely be just as dangerous, albeit more slowly, as using a gun, as another poster pointed out.

But I do agree with you that you can't place zero responsibility on the victim. Personal responsibility does come into play and he's certainly not inculpable, but that also doesn't imply that this guy shouldn't have to serve time for his actions.
 
MrBurns10 said:
Name one other STD that, for now, leads to certain death. Yes herpes is incurable, but very few (if any?) actually die from it. Sure, mono can lead to cancer...but very rarely; look around you...what can't lead to cancer? HIV is the only STD where it's 100% certain the person who has it will die from an AIDS-related complication. Of course scientists could discover a cure within the next 15 years and save this guy's partner had he actually contracted the disease, but that's all very hypothetical. Knowingly giving someone HIV or lying about it so they're exposed repeatedly can definitely be just as dangerous, albeit more slowly, as using a gun, as another poster pointed out.

But I do agree with you that you can't place zero responsibility on the victim. Personal responsibility does come into play and he's certainly not inculpable, but that also doesn't imply that this guy shouldn't have to serve time for his actions.

Two Words: Magic Johnson
 
OSUdoc08 said:
Two Words: Magic Johnson

You know, it's not like he had a small fortune lying around, and the luxury of getting treatment from the top specialitists. :rolleyes:

He might have "contained" it and maybe his T-cell levels have stabilized, but I doubt he'd live very long if he went a couple days without the bottles upon bottles of meds he has to take.

As for the average John Doe, who happens to be someone with no or inadequate health coverage, those two words don't mean anything...
 
OSUdoc08 said:
Two Words: Magic Johnson
1) Magic Johnson is not "cured"; it's been 15 years since he was diagnosed with HIV and he's doing very well, and he might even have his antibody count so low it's almost undetectable. But that does not imply he is cured.
2) Even assuming he was or will be cured, that would be 1 case out of millions. One very rich case out of millions. Unless you would have the money for all the best drugs in the world or are extremely lucky, AIDS is unfortunately inevitable.
3) Hopefully one day a cure will become available. But for now, HIV is more deadly than most weapons.

Aside from that I don't quite see your point, but okay.
 
crazy_cavalier said:
You know, it's not like he had a small fortune lying around, and the luxury of getting treatment from the top specialitists. :rolleyes:

He might have "contained" it and maybe his T-cell levels have stabilized, but I doubt he'd live very long if he went a couple days without the bottles upon bottles of meds he has to take.

As for the average John Doe, who happens to be someone with no or inadequate health coverage, those two words don't mean anything...

Yup, but that disproves the 100% theory.
 
OSUdoc08 said:
For you to say Baylor College of Medicine and UT-Southwestern aren't research-oriented would be a mistake.

baylor undergrad and BCM have NOTHING to do with one another, except for history.
 
OSUdoc08 said:
Thanks for violating the terms of service.

Good luck to you.

we're all shakin' in our boots
:laugh:
 
OSUDoc's advice for how to prepare for medical school:

"Drink as much alcohol and get laid as much as possible."


....
 
Goose-d said:
baylor undergrad and BCM have NOTHING to do with one another, except for history.

We were talking about conservatism vs. liberalism. The relation is irrelevant.

They are related in the fact that Baylor undergraduates often get automatic interviews at Baylor College of Medicine.
 
dr.z said:
I'm just curious. What percentage of people with mono or genital warts develop cancer?

HPV:

It causes nearly all cases of cervical cancer, which the American Cancer Society estimates will affect an estimated 10,370 women in 2005, killing about 3,710.
 
jeffsleepy said:
How reliable is this source? I ask because there are quite a few grammatical errors and you don't see that in the major newspapers.

Yeah...this was written in a very tabloid type style, and it was completely biased...it seemed like they have a whole section that's dedicated to bashing emory and grady...and there were no sources from the other side...anyway, I went to undergrad at emory, and while it definitely had its problems, I find it hard to believe that the story is exactly how they portrayed it in these articles.
 
OSUdoc08 said:
Couldn't you then start charging anyone that spreads diseases?

What about people that spread mono or genital warts, both of which lead to cancer?

Why is there no sentence for them?

Your arguments are just ridiculous. Just because one disease has a law like this doesn't mean that all have qualities that merit the same kind of law. The reason that a law like this exists for HIV and not for mono or whatever is because the potential for harm is much greater. It's kind of like the mandatory reporting of child abuse by physicians.
Plus, how often do mono or genital warts lead to cancer compared to how often HIV leads to death?

Why are you even posting in here? Why don't you go bug people in the allo forum for a change?
 
tacrum43 said:
Your arguments are just ridiculous. Just because one disease has a law like this doesn't mean that all have qualities that merit the same kind of law. The reason that a law like this exists for HIV and not for mono or whatever is because the potential for harm is much greater. It's kind of like the mandatory reporting of child abuse by physicians.
Plus, how often do mono or genital warts lead to cancer compared to how often HIV leads to death?

Why are you even posting in here? Why don't you go bug people in the allo forum for a change?

It's simply something to think about, and a different viewpoint. If you disagree, then so be it. There's no reason to become hostile.

Let me give you an analogy:

HPV is to rape

as

HIV is to murder

No death with rape, but should we still not punish them?
 
OSUdoc08 said:
Let me give you an analogy:

HPV is to rape

as

HIV is to murder

No death with rape, but should we still not punish them?
Just when I thought your counterarguments couldn't make less sense...
 
Be careful interpreting what you read. If you really believe that Emory would consider allowing Carriker back, then you probably shouldn't apply. I was in his class, and there is no way the administration endorses any of his behavior.

He violated not only civilian law but also the ethical standards of the profession and is now serving time. Do you really believe a top medical school would take him back? Whatever source implied such is wrong. If you want the real story, then talk to someone in Emory's administration. You could even call the executive dean, Dr. Bill Eley. Ask him if he would allow Carriker back.

It's frustrating to see the name of my medical school, one I'm proud to have attended, wronged by the misinformed. Emory is a great medical school. Our graduates match at strong programs and go on to have fulfilling careers. That one student engaged in criminal activity on his own time in no way reflects on the medical school.

As a new member of the Emory alumni association I'd be the first to tell you that any medical school that would consider taking him should be dissolved. Anyway that's my two cents. I'm sure the school won't have trouble filling next year's class with strong applicants.

best,
MAC Man
Emory class of 2005
 
OSUdoc08 said:
Even if you have unprotected anal sex with an HIV+ person, only a fraction of the people would actually contract the virus.

Just so we are clear, 99/100 is a fraction, technically.

OSUDoc08 has definitely regressed since entering medical school. Specious arguments, flawed logic, blatant hypocrisy and gay bashing have all come to play in his posts on this thread.

Bravo.
 
OSUdoc08 said:
It's simply something to think about, and a different viewpoint. If you disagree, then so be it. There's no reason to become hostile.

Let me give you an analogy:

HPV is to rape

as

HIV is to murder

No death with rape, but should we still not punish them?

Hostile? I think you're the one who is being hostile. In fact, I would say you are frequently hostile in your posts.

As for your analogy...there just aren't words. I want to like shake you and yell "HELLO?!!!". :wow:
 
Idiopathic said:
Just so we are clear, 99/100 is a fraction, technically.

OSUDoc08 has definitely regressed since entering medical school. Specious arguments, flawed logic, blatant hypocrisy and gay bashing have all come to play in his posts on this thread.

Bravo.

I was referring to the amount of people that contract HIV from intercourse----not the number of people who contract AIDS from HIV.
 
OSUdoc08 said:
I just don't see how a law can be made about divulging information about one specific disease, but not another.

As a healthcare provider, or a sex partner, you should assume your partner could be carrying an infectious disease, and take precautions accordingly. You can't place zero responsibility on the victim here.

As a physician, do you ask your patient if they have HIV, and then decide to wear gloves accordingly? No.

Yes, what he did was wrong, but the legality is questionable.

Although I don't agree with some of your earlier thoughts in this post, you make a good point. We tend to put all of the blame on these situations on the infected person, even though the sex was consensual. It takes two to tango.

CrazyPremed
 
OSUdoc08 said:
We were talking about conservatism vs. liberalism. The relation is irrelevant.

They are related in the fact that Baylor undergraduates often get automatic interviews at Baylor College of Medicine.

Haha trust me, Baylor College of Med is liberal (because most of the students went to UT and Rice). And the undergrad has nothing to do with Baylor University, if anything it is Rice Medical School nowadays. If you want a more conservative school, look at UT-H, which is more moderate than Baylor (we are mainly Aggies, and the good-looking ones at that) but still pretty liberal.

Any time you are in a major city, the school is going to be liberal. Maybe Salt Lake City is the exception, but I can't think of a major city that is considered conservative (and thus would have a conservative med school).

Also, just because Magic Johnson has controlled his HIV by taking every antiviral known to man with his millions doesn't mean he is cured of it. The HIV law relates to the fact that you knowingly infect someone with a virus that will kill them. Whether it kills you in 5 years or 25, well, that depends on other factors, but in either case, you've knowingly sentenced someone to die-- you just don't know when.

And mono and warts dont kill you... that is why there is no law :rolleyes:

Also, Im not quite sure I believe the links at this point. They seem more like a blog than an actual newssource. Ill wait til the AJC picks up more of this story before casting judgement. But if you think about it, if Emory acts rationally, they will be distancing themselves from this as much as possible. And they have no reason to act irrationally in this case.
 
Fantasy Sports said:
Any time you are in a major city, the school is going to be liberal. Maybe Salt Lake City is the exception, but I can't think of a major city that is considered conservative (and thus would have a conservative med school).

You'd be surprised -- I know I was! I really worried about choosing UofU over UW in Seattle thinking there would be a lack of open minded thinkers here. While it's not the hub of diversity SLC is actually chided by the rest of the folks in the state as being a den of liberals. THANK GOD! The mayor holds anti Bush rallies and everything. All that AND the best snow on Earth! In fact the University of Utah is the only place in the state to acknowledge and offer benefits to same sex partners. :thumbup:

Thank you for finally pointing out the huge difference between HIV and other STDs. And for the record HPV and EBV do not CAUSE cancer. They are correlates - not causes. In addition, we can treat cancer. It does not carry the same death sentence as HIV. This notwithstanding I do agree that it is still abhorrent to knowingly and willfully transmit any disease to another.

OSUdoc (and others) are absolutely right in that it takes 2 to tango and sex partners should practice good judgement but the case is about a bald faced lie told by a trusted member of society with potentially lethal results.
 
OSUdoc08 said:
We were talking about conservatism vs. liberalism. The relation is irrelevant.

They are related in the fact that Baylor undergraduates often get automatic interviews at Baylor College of Medicine.

Your such an idiot :rolleyes: First off Baylor students don't get any automatic interviews at BCM, and more over Fantasy Sports is right in that BCM is much more related to Rice now than Baylor. Furthermore, the place is not some overtly conservative institution that you seem to make it out to be...and let me now speak for UTSW, which I attend, and I assure you it is not conservative either. Sure the cities of houston and dallas are conservative, but as has been pointed out most academic institutions are liveral. It is certainly no coincidence that the most intelligent among us adopt similar political poisitions. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. Oh and if you advocate the no sodomy law, do you equally accept that under said law sodomy is anything other than vaginal sex, and thus you can't have oral sex with your wife? Or anal either? Or should it only apply to gay people? You are such a douche :idea: It is unbelievable that we debate such pointless topics in the year 2005! everywhere you look, idiocy abounds. I think Oklahoma is the perfect fit for you. :thumbup:
 
Alexander Pink said:
Your such an idiot :rolleyes: First off Baylor students don't get any automatic interviews at BCM, and more over Fantasy Sports is right in that BCM is much more related to Rice now than Baylor. Furthermore, the place is not some overtly conservative institution that you seem to make it out to be...and let me now speak for UTSW, which I attend, and I assure you it is not conservative either. Sure the cities of houston and dallas are conservative, but as has been pointed out most academic institutions are liveral. It is certainly no coincidence that the most intelligent among us adopt similar political poisitions. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. Oh and if you advocate the no sodomy law, do you equally accept that under said law sodomy is anything other than vaginal sex, and thus you can't have oral sex with your wife? Or anal either? Or should it only apply to gay people? You are such a douche :idea: It is unbelievable that we debate such pointless topics in the year 2005! everywhere you look, idiocy abounds. I think Oklahoma is the perfect fit for you. :thumbup:

Before you go calling people idiots, perhaps you should spell and grammar check your own post.
 
tacrum43 said:
Before you go calling people idiots, perhaps you should spell and grammar check your own post.
*sigh*

Dr. Pink is so right.

(Why do I gotta be Dr. Pink?)

(It's better than Dr. Brown! That's like practically Dr. ****!)
 
Alexander Pink said:
Your such an idiot :rolleyes: First off Baylor students don't get any automatic interviews at BCM, and more over Fantasy Sports is right in that BCM is much more related to Rice now than Baylor. Furthermore, the place is not some overtly conservative institution that you seem to make it out to be...and let me now speak for UTSW, which I attend, and I assure you it is not conservative either. Sure the cities of houston and dallas are conservative, but as has been pointed out most academic institutions are liveral. It is certainly no coincidence that the most intelligent among us adopt similar political poisitions. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. Oh and if you advocate the no sodomy law, do you equally accept that under said law sodomy is anything other than vaginal sex, and thus you can't have oral sex with your wife? Or anal either? Or should it only apply to gay people? You are such a douche :idea: It is unbelievable that we debate such pointless topics in the year 2005! everywhere you look, idiocy abounds. I think Oklahoma is the perfect fit for you. :thumbup:

:thumbup:
 
Alexander Pink said:
but as has been pointed out most academic institutions are liveral. It is certainly no coincidence that the most intelligent among us adopt similar political poisitions.
Haha this was exactly my point...only you had the guts to actually say it :) :thumbup:

I should have told my interviewers that my major weakness was that I get into arguments with conservatives too often.
 
Tallulah said:
Yeah...this was written in a very tabloid type style, and it was completely biased...it seemed like they have a whole section that's dedicated to bashing emory and grady...and there were no sources from the other side...anyway, I went to undergrad at emory, and while it definitely had its problems, I find it hard to believe that the story is exactly how they portrayed it in these articles.


Type in the name of the defendent and you get confirming stories that aren't written with such bias. The facts seem to be that an Emory medical student who knew he was HIV positive had consensual sex with multiple partners without revealing his status.

At first, I was like, yeah, he deserves to go to jail. And a good portion of me still thinks that-- it's completely and totally selfish to go out and consciously infect other people with a deadly disease.

But there's another part of me that is thinking, "but the men he had sex with know about HIV, they know there is a possibility of contracting the disease when you engage in these types of activities with other people." It's the same as in healthcare-- you wear gloves and take universal precautions with every patient because you simply don't know.
 
Alexander Pink said:
Your such an idiot :rolleyes: First off Baylor students don't get any automatic interviews at BCM, and more over Fantasy Sports is right in that BCM is much more related to Rice now than Baylor. Furthermore, the place is not some overtly conservative institution that you seem to make it out to be...and let me now speak for UTSW, which I attend, and I assure you it is not conservative either. Sure the cities of houston and dallas are conservative, but as has been pointed out most academic institutions are liveral. It is certainly no coincidence that the most intelligent among us adopt similar political poisitions. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. Oh and if you advocate the no sodomy law, do you equally accept that under said law sodomy is anything other than vaginal sex, and thus you can't have oral sex with your wife? Or anal either? Or should it only apply to gay people? You are such a douche :idea: It is unbelievable that we debate such pointless topics in the year 2005! everywhere you look, idiocy abounds. I think Oklahoma is the perfect fit for you. :thumbup:

I live in a small city in the south and most of the time when I argue with conservatives I am totally outnumbered.....so anyway, anyone who would be inclined to assume that silence meant apathy or something, I totally agree with this post. :thumbup: :thumbup:
 
MadameLULU said:
Good Lord. This is such a *pathetic* call because obviously they are typing errors :rolleyes:

Well whatever. Gang up on me if you want.
 
Top