Posted 9/25/2004 02:17:00 PM by Douglas

Fascinating story out of Amarillo, where an HIV positive crack whore won't stop practicing her avocation. So what's the city going to do about it? What else? They're going to sue her.

In what could become a one-of-a-kind case in Texas, Amarillo officials filed suit this week against an HIV-positive woman to compel her to seek treatment and stop spreading the disease.

Local officials said they think the case, which was filed in Potter County court Wednesday, would be the first of its kind in Texas if it goes to trial.

It's extremely rare. In fact, to our knowledge, it's the first one," said Amarillo City Attorney Marcus Norris, whose office filed the civil action. "The Public Health Department assists many people with AIDS, and this single case is the very rare exception where a person who is HIV contagious is noncompliant with the health authority.

"We believe that by her conduct, she poses a health threat to the community, and so we're going to have to try to get the court to intervene and help."

Last time I checked, prostitution, along with the sale, purchase, and use of cocaine were already illegal, and I'd be willing to bet that there are people sitting in prison at this very moment for the same offense. It's a sad commentary on the drug war when it's the only alternative for these people, but it's still illegal.

"We work with many people that have AIDS and HIV, and we talk to them about risk reduction," Pierce said. "Because this is a disease without a cure, all of them pretty much do what we ask. But this particular person just continues to put people at risk. You reach a point where you say, 'I don't know what else I can do."'

The authorization for the action is contained in Chapter 81 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. The law allows a judge or jury to force a person into treatment if "the person is infected with a communicable disease that presents a threat to the public health and ... the person has failed to follow the orders of the health authority or department."

The libertarian in me has a big problem with the "State" locking people up because they've determined they're a health risk, because these people are just crazy enough to deem damn near everything a health risk, and lock everyone up. Smokers, drinkers, fry cooks, Baskin Robbins, you name it.

But is this particular person's actions, and those she risks infecting, any worse? At least her Johns assume some risk when they do business with her, whether she tells them she's HIV positive or not. You don't get that luxury when someone next to you lights up a cigarette, or you're meeting a car on the street when the driver's BAL is 0.12%. Forcing her into treatment not only deprives her of the ability to live her life the way she chooses, but also those that would chose to utilize her services. Yeah, it's depressing, dehumanizing, degrading and illegal, but it's not any worse just because she's HIV positive, is it?

That's the same as padlocking McDonald's because you know that the very next BigMac you buy is going to be the one that causes your heart attack. It's absurd. Yes, it's legal (for now) to sell hamburgers, but it's also legal to have HIV. It's not legal to sell sex or cocaine, so I really don't understand where the dilemma is coming from.

What makes this particular case interesting is that HIV/AIDS is currently incurable, so the case has the potential to detain T.T. indefinitely without a conviction for a crime, she said.

Ok, so I stand corrected. Prostitution and cocaine aren't illegal in Amarillo. My mistake.

"She has a 100-percent right to refuse treatment, but she does not have a right to be a danger to society," Bard said.

See, this is where I get confused. I understand the impacts to public health, but it's statements like "does not have a right to be a danger to society" that cause me concern. Smoking and drinking are the two most obvious examples of other "dangers to society," so what are they going to ban next? Running with scissors in your hands?

"If the facts of the case are true, she's just as dangerous as if she was running around with a knife.

I guess I set myself up for that one.

"The part that seems to be problematic, though, is the mandatory treatment. If she doesn't agree to stop spreading the disease, this could be a real standoff, and she could be locked up for life."

Locked up for life, huh? A woman that sells her body to support her drug habit that has a terminal illness. I guess there's a downside that I'm not imagining. But what do Amarillo health department officials really want for this poor lost soul?

"I believe that if this patient would go and get away from Amarillo and receive counseling for her addiction and self-esteem issues, she could have a chance to really improve her life."

So which is it? Do you want her to get counseling, or do you just want her to get out of Amarillo? And for the record, self-esteem issues aren't her biggest problem anymore.