[DRAFT] Viral Burdens

[Candlewhisper Archive]

SECOND DRAFT:

TITLE:
Viral Burdens

VALIDITY:
Press freedoms. Adult

DESCRIPTION:
Celebrity footballer @@randommalename@@ recently exposed by right-wing tabloid The Daily Reflection as being HIV-positive, and having had unprotected sex with partners who were unaware of this.


OPTION 1
"The duplicity of this plague-carrier secretly spreading a potentially fatal illness disgusts me," asserts journalist @@randomfemalename@@, who uncovered this story by courting @@surname(1)@@ while pretending to be interested in him. "We've served the public good with our exposé, but the police should take this further. Anybody who has sex with someone while concealing their HIV status should be charged with attempted murder."

OUTCOME:
anyone who suggests videoing bedroom activities is probably an undercover journalist


OPTION 2
"My HIV status was a confidence to be held between me, my doctor, and a small number of trusted friends," refutes the footballer. "I'd been told that with the medical treatments, my viral load was so low that the risk of transmission was negligible, so there was no risk to any of my lovers. If anyone should be held accountable for their actions, it should be this newspaper, who breached my confidentiality."

OUTCOME:
secret lovers may be keeping more secrets than their partners know


OPTION 3
"This is all about miscommunication and lack of information," suggests Dr. @@randomname@@, a virologist. "What you need is a government campaign to educate people about AIDS and HIV more fully - things have changed a lot since the days when HIV was a death sentence, but there's been little dissemination of this information. If we can destigmatise all the STDs with public education, then maybe people will feel they can be open about any infections they've exposed to, and we can have a more honest and open society."

OUTCOME:
pick-up artists often tell people they have chlamydia

FIRST DRAFT:

TITLE:
Viral Burdens

VALIDITY:
Homosexuality legal, Press freedoms. Adult

DESCRIPTION:
Celebrity footballer @@randommalename@@ was proud to reveal to the press and the general public that he is homosexual, but he was not expecting that a week later right-wing tabloid The Daily Reflection outed him for something else entirely -- that he is HIV positive, and has had unprotected sex with partners who were unaware of this.


OPTION 1
"The duplicity of this plague-carrier secretly spreading a potentially fatal illness disgusts me," asserts heterosexual journalist @@randommalename@@, who uncovered this story by courting @@surname(1)@@ while pretending to be an interested gay man. "We've served the public good with our exposé, but the police should take this further. Anybody who has sex with someone while concealing their HIV status should be charged with attempted murder."

OUTCOME:
anyone who suggests videoing bedroom activities is probably an undercover journalist


OPTION 2
"My HIV status was a confidence to be held between me, my doctor, and a small number of trusted friends," refutes the footballer. "I'd been told that with the medical treatments, my viral load was so low that the risk of transmission was negligible, so there was no risk to any of my lovers. If anyone should be prosecuted, it should be this newspaper, who have invaded my privacy and caused me untold suffering."

OUTCOME:
secret lovers may be keeping more secrets than their partners know


OPTION 3
"This is all about miscommunication and lack of information," suggests Dr. @@randomname@@, a virologist. "What you need is a government campaign to educate people about AIDS and HIV more fully - things have changed a lot since the days when HIV was a death sentence, but there's been little dissemination of this information. If we can destigmatise all the STDs with public education, then maybe people will feel they can be open about any infections they've exposed to, and we can have a more honest and open society."

OUTCOME:
pick-up artists often tell people they have chlamydia

OPTION 4
"You know in my country, we don't even have HIV," comments the ambassador from the highly religiously conservative nation of Althaniq. "That's because there, homosexualtity is illegal, and thus HIV cannot be transmitted. If you get rid of the gays, AIDS is gone."

OUTCOME:
bigots believe that scientific evidence is just so gay

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So, I'm aware that we have VODAIS in the issues already, which is a metaphor for AIDS as it once was - a terrifying and fatal viral infection.

I don't want to use VODAIS here, as you can never know what order issues will be received in. It'd make no sense to describe it as a treatable condition here, and then have it be a deadly epidemic later. This way, VODAIS remains a terrifying STD that kills, while this one becomes closer to where AIDS is now.

The thing here is that this issue is largely about the stigma of HIV, and it thus works best if we talk about it directly, by it's own name.

Also, by being about AIDS, this issue will then turn the VODAIS issue into not being about AIDS any more, but to being about a different virus that is a bit like AIDS was back in the 1980s. I don't think it's good for NS to be part of the perpetuation of this idea of AIDS being a deadly incurable infection, which is how 168 is framing and presenting it. Subtly, that's contributing to the stigmatisation of AIDS, by reinforcing an outdated perception.

Rather than see that issue go out of the game though, I'd rather see it transformed, and for the game to acknowledge in some way that AIDS these days isn't a death sentence.

Anyway, to make this into an issue, I realised we needed another angle onto this, so I've added in the dilemma about information prior to sexual consent, and a little about press freedoms too. That'll hopefully make it less of an "obvious decision" issue. Finally, the last option is -- of course -- objectively wrong and bigoted, but hey, issues sometimes need an objectively wrong and bigoted option.

[Australian rePublic]

Did he know he was HIV positive? An unintended consequence coulf be someone who doesn't know. Further, option 2, so he didn't even tell his family? And all this is moot if there's a vaccine/cure for HIV

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Did he know he was HIV positive?

I think that the issue is pretty clear on this. He knew he was HIV positive, and kept it a secret.

Further, option 2, so he didn't even tell his family?

Actually, family is often the last people that get told, because they're the people who we most fear being judged by.

The read-between-the-lines here is that he's a single gay man who has had multiple lovers in recent years, so it's not as if he has kids or a husband to inform. The only family would be parents or siblings, and in real life cases it's often the case that the main people that HIV sufferers are keeping a secret from is their parents.

And all this is moot if there's a vaccine/cure for HIV

IRL there's antiretroviral treatments that can give full and healthy lives for people with HIV, but there's no cure. Re: vaccines, there are some in development, but there are none currently meeting the evidence standards that meet FDA requirements for use.

Glad you're asking the question though, as this is kind of the thrust of the issue - most people don't really know much about HIV beyond the frightening public health information of the 1980s.

[SherpDaWerp]

I'm aware that homosexuality is an important framing part of the HIV/AIDS scare IRL, but here the gay aspect of the issue seems a bit like it was added purely for the purposes of the bigoted option on the end. This could (from the perspective of the actual written issue) just as easily be any relationship where HIV has been hidden from an infected person's partner, and the 'bigoted' option could be mandatory blood tests and execution of carriers.

Unless you're really going for highlighting the stigma around AIDS and gay people, in which case, carry on.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

You got a point here. I started with a gay central character simply because the RL case that brought me to write this issue involved a gay man, so it's not so much that I made him gay to include option 4, but rather that I wrote option 4 because the RL inspiration is gay.

But actually you're right that the story works equally well without sexuality. Maybe better, as we're then focusing on one stigma at a time for the issue, which gives more clarity.

The hetero version would look like this:

TITLE:
Viral Burdens

VALIDITY:
Press freedoms. Adult

DESCRIPTION:
Celebrity footballer @@randommalename@@ recently exposed by right-wing tabloid The Daily Reflection as being HIV-positive, and having had unprotected sex with partners who were unaware of this.


OPTION 1
"The duplicity of this plague-carrier secretly spreading a potentially fatal illness disgusts me," asserts journalist @@randomfemalename@@, who uncovered this story by courting @@surname(1)@@ while pretending in him. "We've served the public good with our exposé, but the police should take this further. Anybody who has sex with someone while concealing their HIV status should be charged with attempted murder."

OUTCOME:
anyone who suggests videoing bedroom activities is probably an undercover journalist


OPTION 2
"My HIV status was a confidence to be held between me, my doctor, and a small number of trusted friends," refutes the footballer. "I'd been told that with the medical treatments, my viral load was so low that the risk of transmission was negligible, so there was no risk to any of my lovers. If anyone should be prosecuted, it should be this newspaper, who have invaded my privacy and caused me untold suffering."

OUTCOME:
secret lovers may be keeping more secrets than their partners know


OPTION 3
"This is all about miscommunication and lack of information," suggests Dr. @@randomname@@, a virologist. "What you need is a government campaign to educate people about AIDS and HIV more fully - things have changed a lot since the days when HIV was a death sentence, but there's been little dissemination of this information. If we can destigmatise all the STDs with public education, then maybe people will feel they can be open about any infections they've exposed to, and we can have a more honest and open society."

OUTCOME:
pick-up artists often tell people they have chlamydia

Does that read as a better issue or a worse one, in this community's opinion?

[Fontenais]

I prefer the second version - someone could have HIV/AIDS regardless of their sexual orientation. I agree with SherpDaWerp that the first version could be interpreted as stigmatising gay people/HIV/AIDS

[Fontenais]

OPTION 2
"My HIV status was a confidence to be held between me, my doctor, and a small number of trusted friends," refutes the footballer. "I'd been told that with the medical treatments, my viral load was so low that the risk of transmission was negligible, so there was no risk to any of my lovers. If anyone should be prosecuted, it should be this newspaper, who have invaded my privacy and caused me untold suffering."

I don't understand what Option 2 is proposing - surely the footballer can sue the newspaper for defamation or something without Leader's involvement. I think the footballer would do this if you clicked the 'dismiss' button.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Okay, have taken out the homosexuality.

I don't understand what Option 2 is proposing - surely the footballer can sue the newspaper for defamation or something without Leader's involvement. I think the footballer would do this if you clicked the 'dismiss' button.

Only if the option to do so existed in the nation. Selecting the option is basically taking a stance that the newspaper is in the wrong, which also implies including facilitating mechanisms like suing for defamation.

I'll change "prosecuted" to "held accountable for their actions", which gives more leeway as to the mechanisms of justice.

[Fontenais]

OPTION 1
...who uncovered this story by courting @@surname(1)@@ while pretending in him...

Should this be 'while pretending to be in love with him' or something?

[Fontenais]

I don't understand what Option 2 is proposing - surely the footballer can sue the newspaper for defamation or something without Leader's involvement. I think the footballer would do this if you clicked the 'dismiss' button.

Only if the option to do so existed in the nation. Selecting the option is basically taking a stance that the newspaper is in the wrong, which also implies including facilitating mechanisms like suing for defamation.

I'll change "prosecuted" to "held accountable for their actions", which gives more leeway as to the mechanisms of justice.

Being 'held accountable for their actions' is still pretty vague - I'd like to know what, exactly, Leader is planning to do to the newspaper. Off the top of my head, maybe Option 2 could make it illegal to publish medical information without consent?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

OPTION 1
...who uncovered this story by courting @@surname(1)@@ while pretending in him...

Should this be 'while pretending to be in love with him' or something?

Good point, fixed.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Only if the option to do so existed in the nation. Selecting the option is basically taking a stance that the newspaper is in the wrong, which also implies including facilitating mechanisms like suing for defamation.

I'll change "prosecuted" to "held accountable for their actions", which gives more leeway as to the mechanisms of justice.

Being 'held accountable for their actions' is still pretty vague - I'd like to know what, exactly, Leader is planning to do to the newspaper. Off the top of my head, maybe Option 2 could make it illegal to publish medical information without consent?

Hmm... I'll make it clear that they breached confidentiality, but I don't think explicitly stating you need to make this thing illegal is necessary. In fact, that statement would then imply that its not already illegal, whereas ambiguity in the issue presentation leaves more wiggle room for whether you are affirming a legal position or introducing one.