This article was written by AIDS Calgary’s information/support worker.
People living with HIV/AIDS have not been portrayed in a favorable way in popular media. Cast members on shows that I’ve watched are generally depicted as very sick and or dying. They have also been shown as selfish and irresponsible individuals who make poor choices that affect everyone around them. News outlets and documentaries have also done similar things. This is cause for concern in my mind because the media in conjunction with other systems shape our ideas and thoughts.
I struggled to find a show that did not vilify people living with HIV. Season two of Queer as Folk was the only show that came close enough to try to drive the point I would like to make. The narrator of the story (Michael) begins to date Ben, a professor who is living with HIV. Michael is initially uneasy and reluctant when he learns of Ben’s status. His misinformed friends and family influence him to end the relationship in order to protect himself from contracting the virus. Though madly in love, Michael ends the relationship citing different reasons. It is also at this time that he chooses to learn more about HIV/AIDS, safer sex practices, and sero-discordant relationships. Shortly after that he finds himself fighting to win back Ben. Michael’s adopted heterosexual son, Hunter who is also living with HIV, goes through similar struggles. He is subject to discrimination at school as well as the justice system. He too is able to overcome stigma, discrimination, and relationship woes.
The show emphasizes the importance of communication, love, trust, education and awareness, between individuals regardless of their HIV status. It is important to note that the cast members were not defined by HIV. They were everyday people who went about their business like everyone else. Friends of mine who dutifully followed the show use different attributes to describe each member. For example, some recall Ben as the professor, Michael’s boyfriend, the guy who participated in the Liberty ride, Hunter’s dad, the publisher and so on.
So as news sources and other media outlets bombard us with a barrage of information regarding the criminalization of HIV over the next couple of weeks. Please keep in mind that people living with HIV are not deliberately infecting other individuals. The cases being considered are not a representation of everyone living with HIV/AIDS. We need to fully understand the context of the story before making any conclusions.
Showing posts with label criminilization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criminilization. Show all posts
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Thursday, May 26, 2011
ACAA's position statement on the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure
We have recently created a position statement formally announcing our stance on the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure. In our statement we carefully examine both sides of the argument, here is our full position statement on this issue:
Background:
Between 1989-2009 Canada has had a total of 104 cases and 98 criminal charges laid in
relation to HIV non disclosure(1). As an AIDS service organization, we are concerned with the number of cases that have been brought forward regarding HIV non disclosure and havedeveloped the below policy outlining our position on the issue by examining the arguments for and against the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure.
AIDS Calgary Policy:
AIDS Calgary Awareness Association is the largest AIDS Service organization in Alberta. We believe in harm reduction, human rights and the promotion of education, advocacy and prevention efforts pertaining to the transmission of HIV. Therefore AIDS Calgary opposes the criminalization of HIV transmission and/or exposure. The exception to this includes proven purposeful or malicious transmission of HIV with intent to harm and in these rare cases we encourage that existing criminal laws can and should be applied. A more appropriate and effective response to those who knowingly or unknowingly transmit HIV would be to utilize current public health procedures and programs.
Arguments for the Criminalization of HIV Non-disclosure Include:
Deterrence:
Those in favor of criminalization believe that the application of the law will effectively deter individuals from committing further acts of transmission.
Rehabilitation:
Those in favor of rehabilitation believe that incarceration will enhance prevention efforts, and assist in the rehabilitation of those who have knowingly spread HIV.
Complications surrounding HIV disclosure:
Those in favor of criminalization believe that they have the right to protection from those who may be unwilling or unable to disclose their HIV status through the utilization of the criminal justice system.
Stigma & Discrimination:
Those in favor of criminalization believe that the use of the law will assist in the protection of the general public, including those who may be marginalized.
Arguments against the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure:
Deterrence:
There is no evidence to support the claim that criminalization is an effective deterrent for individuals. This is especially true in the first few months of infection, as the individual most likely does not know they are carrying the virus(2). To prosecute people living with HIV would directly contradict efforts to prevent HIV transmission by encouraging safer sexual practices, voluntary HIV testing, and voluntary disclosure(3).
Rehabilitation:
Placing people living with HIV in prison is only going to enhance the risk of HIV transmission to others. Prisons often do not provide access to harm reduction supplies such as condoms, regular testing and syringes. Appropriate rehabilitation would include access to current information, counseling services and safer sex and drug use equipment. Available data shows no difference in behaviour between places where laws criminalizing HIV transmission exist and where they do not(3). (UNAIDS)
Complications surrounding HIV disclosure:
The courts “have not clearly defined in law what counts as a significant risk of HIV transmission(1). There are no specific laws regarding HIV exposure or transmission. Therefore it is up to interpretation on what significant risk is. This is decided upon by individual courts and judges. There have been charges laid in cases where evidence would state that there was no “significant risk” (i.e. vaginal intercourse with a condom.
There are complications surrounding disclosing your HIV status, some which may include: An individual may not know their HIV status, the person living with HIV may have taken appropriate precautions (i.e. condom use), they may not have the mental or emotional capacity to disclose (i.e. disability, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc), or they may not disclose due to fear of violence, discrimination or other serious negative consequences. The available evidence shows that most people living with HIV who know their status take steps to prevent transmitting HIV to others(3).
Stigma and Discrimination:
The handling of charges laid and the inconsistency in the sentencing handed down has led to sensationalism, promoted fear and ignorance in the community about how HIV transmission happens. Additionally, poor media coverage has also created further stigma as it often paints those undergoing prosecution as immoral and highly dangerous individuals. It has also shown a complete disregard to the confidentiality rights that someone living with HIV should be entitled to. Prosecutions and convictions are likely to be disproportionately applied to members of marginalized groups, such as sex workers, men who have sex with men, culturally diverse individuals and people who use drugs. We are also concerned that with the issues of stigma and discrimination and fear of prosecution that this will create yet another reason people do not get tested for HIV.
Conclusion:
We recommend an approach whereby there is universal access to prevention and public health measures. We believe in a approach where individuals are counselled and educated on how best to engage in safer sex and are given the tools to do so. There is a need to educate the broader community beyond those living with HIV about the risks of engaging in unprotected sex and to ensure a sense of personal responsibility. We cannot assume anything about our sexual partners’ history and as individuals have to take the steps needed to protect ourselves. If there continues to be cases where we are criminalizing HIV non-disclosure we recommend the development and use of universal guidelines to criminalize that is based on scientific and evidence based information about transmission.
Sources:
1.HIV Non-Disclosure and the Criminal Law: Establishing Policy Options for Ontario. Ontario HIV Treatment Network, 2010. http://www.catie.ca/pdf/Brochures/HIV-non-disclosure-criminal-law.pdf
2.10 Reasons to oppose the Criminalization of HIV exposure of transmission: Open Societies Foundation. Retrieved 2011 from: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/law/articles_publications/publications/10reasons_20080918
3.UNAIDS Policy Brief Criminalization of HIV Transmission. Retrieved 2011 from: http://data.unaids.org/pub/basedocument/2008/20080731_jc1513_policy_criminalization_en.pdf
To see the other considerations and compiled sources please click here.
Background:
Between 1989-2009 Canada has had a total of 104 cases and 98 criminal charges laid in
relation to HIV non disclosure(1). As an AIDS service organization, we are concerned with the number of cases that have been brought forward regarding HIV non disclosure and havedeveloped the below policy outlining our position on the issue by examining the arguments for and against the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure.
AIDS Calgary Policy:
AIDS Calgary Awareness Association is the largest AIDS Service organization in Alberta. We believe in harm reduction, human rights and the promotion of education, advocacy and prevention efforts pertaining to the transmission of HIV. Therefore AIDS Calgary opposes the criminalization of HIV transmission and/or exposure. The exception to this includes proven purposeful or malicious transmission of HIV with intent to harm and in these rare cases we encourage that existing criminal laws can and should be applied. A more appropriate and effective response to those who knowingly or unknowingly transmit HIV would be to utilize current public health procedures and programs.
Arguments for the Criminalization of HIV Non-disclosure Include:
Deterrence:
Those in favor of criminalization believe that the application of the law will effectively deter individuals from committing further acts of transmission.
Rehabilitation:
Those in favor of rehabilitation believe that incarceration will enhance prevention efforts, and assist in the rehabilitation of those who have knowingly spread HIV.
Complications surrounding HIV disclosure:
Those in favor of criminalization believe that they have the right to protection from those who may be unwilling or unable to disclose their HIV status through the utilization of the criminal justice system.
Stigma & Discrimination:
Those in favor of criminalization believe that the use of the law will assist in the protection of the general public, including those who may be marginalized.
Arguments against the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure:
Deterrence:
There is no evidence to support the claim that criminalization is an effective deterrent for individuals. This is especially true in the first few months of infection, as the individual most likely does not know they are carrying the virus(2). To prosecute people living with HIV would directly contradict efforts to prevent HIV transmission by encouraging safer sexual practices, voluntary HIV testing, and voluntary disclosure(3).
Rehabilitation:
Placing people living with HIV in prison is only going to enhance the risk of HIV transmission to others. Prisons often do not provide access to harm reduction supplies such as condoms, regular testing and syringes. Appropriate rehabilitation would include access to current information, counseling services and safer sex and drug use equipment. Available data shows no difference in behaviour between places where laws criminalizing HIV transmission exist and where they do not(3). (UNAIDS)
Complications surrounding HIV disclosure:
The courts “have not clearly defined in law what counts as a significant risk of HIV transmission(1). There are no specific laws regarding HIV exposure or transmission. Therefore it is up to interpretation on what significant risk is. This is decided upon by individual courts and judges. There have been charges laid in cases where evidence would state that there was no “significant risk” (i.e. vaginal intercourse with a condom.
There are complications surrounding disclosing your HIV status, some which may include: An individual may not know their HIV status, the person living with HIV may have taken appropriate precautions (i.e. condom use), they may not have the mental or emotional capacity to disclose (i.e. disability, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc), or they may not disclose due to fear of violence, discrimination or other serious negative consequences. The available evidence shows that most people living with HIV who know their status take steps to prevent transmitting HIV to others(3).
Stigma and Discrimination:
The handling of charges laid and the inconsistency in the sentencing handed down has led to sensationalism, promoted fear and ignorance in the community about how HIV transmission happens. Additionally, poor media coverage has also created further stigma as it often paints those undergoing prosecution as immoral and highly dangerous individuals. It has also shown a complete disregard to the confidentiality rights that someone living with HIV should be entitled to. Prosecutions and convictions are likely to be disproportionately applied to members of marginalized groups, such as sex workers, men who have sex with men, culturally diverse individuals and people who use drugs. We are also concerned that with the issues of stigma and discrimination and fear of prosecution that this will create yet another reason people do not get tested for HIV.
Conclusion:
We recommend an approach whereby there is universal access to prevention and public health measures. We believe in a approach where individuals are counselled and educated on how best to engage in safer sex and are given the tools to do so. There is a need to educate the broader community beyond those living with HIV about the risks of engaging in unprotected sex and to ensure a sense of personal responsibility. We cannot assume anything about our sexual partners’ history and as individuals have to take the steps needed to protect ourselves. If there continues to be cases where we are criminalizing HIV non-disclosure we recommend the development and use of universal guidelines to criminalize that is based on scientific and evidence based information about transmission.
Sources:
1.HIV Non-Disclosure and the Criminal Law: Establishing Policy Options for Ontario. Ontario HIV Treatment Network, 2010. http://www.catie.ca/pdf/Brochures/HIV-non-disclosure-criminal-law.pdf
2.10 Reasons to oppose the Criminalization of HIV exposure of transmission: Open Societies Foundation. Retrieved 2011 from: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/law/articles_publications/publications/10reasons_20080918
3.UNAIDS Policy Brief Criminalization of HIV Transmission. Retrieved 2011 from: http://data.unaids.org/pub/basedocument/2008/20080731_jc1513_policy_criminalization_en.pdf
To see the other considerations and compiled sources please click here.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
HIV - Trading a Death Sentence for a Life Sentence Part 3
The past two instalments of this blog have detailed Criminal law related to HIV disclosure in Canada and how this law contributes to increasing stigma and HIV transmission. This instalment will focus on how people living with HIV can protect themselves from criminal prosecution.
Canadian criminal law requires people living with HIV to disclose their HIV status before engaging in any risk activity that may present a “significant risk” of passing on HIV so that their partner can provide their “informed consent” to engage in the activity. In order to give their “informed consent”, people must understand what they are consenting to. Given these legal requirements, there are several steps people living with HIV can take to make sure they stay clear of the law:
Sources: Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and AIDS Calgary. HIV Disclosure, Criminal Law and Public Health Community Forum Power Point Presentation. March 2009.
Canadian criminal law requires people living with HIV to disclose their HIV status before engaging in any risk activity that may present a “significant risk” of passing on HIV so that their partner can provide their “informed consent” to engage in the activity. In order to give their “informed consent”, people must understand what they are consenting to. Given these legal requirements, there are several steps people living with HIV can take to make sure they stay clear of the law:
- Communicate clearly with sexual partners and avoid using language that might be confusing such as “poz” or “positive”. It is best to state “I am HIV positive” or “I am infected with HIV”.
- Ensure that sexual partners understands what it means to be HIV positive, and educate them on important facts. (i.e. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS, there is no cure for HIV and HIV can be transmitted through sexual activities)
- Consider whether your sexual partner is in a state of mind where they can understand what you are saying and make informed choices. If they are heavily under the influence of drugs or alcohol, their ability to provide informed consent may be questionable and if they can’t remember that they gave consent at all then you could have a problem on your hands later!
Unfortunately, even if you take these steps to educate your sexual partners to make informed choices, there is still some risk that later they could deny that you told them your HIV status. Increasingly, people living with HIV are developing strategies to gather evidence or proof that they disclosed their status to protect themselves from false accusations. Some ideas include:
- Having a witness present when you disclose your status
- Double checking with the person to ensure that they have understood
- Saving any written records you have (e.g. e-mails, online conversations)
- Talking to your counsellor to create a record documenting your disclosure
- Signing a document or contract with your sexual partner sign detailing your disclosure and their understanding of risk.
Recently one person living with HIV suggested they have gone so far as to save the condoms they used when they had sex so that later they could prove they had protected sex. While some of these strategies might seem extreme, and certainly could take some of the fun and spontaneity out of hooking up, at least they provide some options to make sure people don’t face problems down the road.
The other key thing people living with HIV can do to protect themselves is to reduce the risk of passing on their HIV. While the criminal law is unclear on what the rules are, the Alberta Public Health Act leaves no doubt. It states that people living with HIV must not engage in activities that can transmit disease and that they must always wear condoms for any penetrative sexual activity (vaginal, anal or oral). Also, people must always disclose their HIV status to their partners before engaging in any penetrative sexual or drug-sharing activity and cannot donate blood, semen, tissues or organs.
The penalties for violating Alberta Public Health law are not as grave as those under criminal law, but include interventions such as public health orders requiring counselling and limiting sexual activities and isolation orders subjecting people to “house arrest”. To date in Alberta we have seen very few criminal prosecutions of people living with HIV, which may be because Alberta has a strong public health approach to dealing with people who are “unwilling or unable” to prevent the spread of HIV. This means that people are more likely to face pubic health interventions than to face the courts. As a result, using the guidelines provided by the Public Health Act may be the best way to avoid any kind of problems.
Until we have a shift in criminal law or public health policy, the best defence for people living with HIV will remain a proactive approach to ensuring you disclose your status, document the process and reduce the risk of HIV transmission through practicing safer sex and drug use.
Sources: Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and AIDS Calgary. HIV Disclosure, Criminal Law and Public Health Community Forum Power Point Presentation. March 2009.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
HIV- Trading a Death Sentence for a Life Sentence Part 2
The previous instalment of this blog detailed the criminal law related to HIV disclosure in Canada. While media accounts of irresponsible, callous, reckless people living with HIV would have us all believe that there are legions of people out there trying to spread the virus, in reality it is rare that people intentionally seek to transmit HIV to another person. Instead, people may not to disclose their status for a number of reasons ranging from fear of rejection, concerns about others finding out about their status, fear of discrimination or violence, or the belief that the activities they are engaging in are not placing their partner at risk. Unfortunately, due to the stigma attached to HIV and the challenge this creates, many people living with HIV risk criminal prosecution when they are unable to manage these factors. While the hard line of the law on this issue presents the impression that offenders are being dealt with and HIV transmission is being stemmed, the reality on ground may be quite different.
Research in some communities has demonstrated that most HIV transmission occurs when people do not yet know their HIV status and have nothing to disclose, soon after they are infected when their viral loads spike and it is easiest to pass on the virus. Ironically, the fear of criminal prosecution makes people more fearful of HIV testing or seeking information to reduce their risks, which makes them less likely to know their status. In turn, people who do not know their status are less likely to access treatment, and more likely to be infectious, leading to higher risks of HIV transmission. Meanwhile, nasty media coverage of people living with HIV involved in criminal cases leads to even greater stigmatization, social isolation and fears of rejection on the part of people living with HIV, contributing to an increased reluctance to disclose their status.
Also, such cases provide the general public with a false sense of security, reinforcing the message that people living with HIV are required by law to disclose their HIV status and implying that those who do not disclose must be “safe”. Criminalization shifts responsibility from both partners to the person living with HIV, creating the impression that it is the sole responsibility of the positive individual to lead discussions about HIV and to discuss safer sex and reducing risks. Meanwhile, the law fails to take into account the power differentials and risks involved for people living with HIV in disclosing their status, making vulnerable groups even more vulnerable (e.g. people in abusive relationships, sex workers, prisoners).
Overall, it is unclear whether the criminalization of HIV has done more to spread HIV than to prevent its transmission. What is clear is that the impact on people living with HIV has been severe. Most people living with HIV are extremely vigilant about not putting others at risk, and about disclosing their HIV status to their sexual partners. Such laws stigmatize these well meaning individuals while undermining the support of the community. The lack of clarity in the law leaves people confused about what is required of them and worried that they may unintentionally transgress the law. In the next instalment of this blog read about how people living with HIV can protect themselves from criminal prosecution.
Sources:
Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure. The Impact of Criminalization on the AIDS Epidemic in Canada: Media Speaking Points January 2009. http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/mailouts.nsf/pages/cas-mailout-0588
Research in some communities has demonstrated that most HIV transmission occurs when people do not yet know their HIV status and have nothing to disclose, soon after they are infected when their viral loads spike and it is easiest to pass on the virus. Ironically, the fear of criminal prosecution makes people more fearful of HIV testing or seeking information to reduce their risks, which makes them less likely to know their status. In turn, people who do not know their status are less likely to access treatment, and more likely to be infectious, leading to higher risks of HIV transmission. Meanwhile, nasty media coverage of people living with HIV involved in criminal cases leads to even greater stigmatization, social isolation and fears of rejection on the part of people living with HIV, contributing to an increased reluctance to disclose their status.
Also, such cases provide the general public with a false sense of security, reinforcing the message that people living with HIV are required by law to disclose their HIV status and implying that those who do not disclose must be “safe”. Criminalization shifts responsibility from both partners to the person living with HIV, creating the impression that it is the sole responsibility of the positive individual to lead discussions about HIV and to discuss safer sex and reducing risks. Meanwhile, the law fails to take into account the power differentials and risks involved for people living with HIV in disclosing their status, making vulnerable groups even more vulnerable (e.g. people in abusive relationships, sex workers, prisoners).
Overall, it is unclear whether the criminalization of HIV has done more to spread HIV than to prevent its transmission. What is clear is that the impact on people living with HIV has been severe. Most people living with HIV are extremely vigilant about not putting others at risk, and about disclosing their HIV status to their sexual partners. Such laws stigmatize these well meaning individuals while undermining the support of the community. The lack of clarity in the law leaves people confused about what is required of them and worried that they may unintentionally transgress the law. In the next instalment of this blog read about how people living with HIV can protect themselves from criminal prosecution.
Sources:
Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure. The Impact of Criminalization on the AIDS Epidemic in Canada: Media Speaking Points January 2009. http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/mailouts.nsf/pages/cas-mailout-0588
Thursday, June 11, 2009
HIV- Trading a Death Sentence for a Life Sentence Part 1
HIV is more than an illness, it is a physical, psychological and social condition. No longer a “death sentence”, sometimes people call it chronic and manageable given the new medications that have been created. But, between taking piles of pills each day, experiencing grave side effects and being brutalized by the stigma attached to the illness, many people living with HIV balk at this idea of manageability and see HIV as a sentence of a different kind. And now, with the dramatic increase in the number of criminal prosecutions of people living with HIV, the sentence might actually be life behind bars.
Based on Supreme Court of Canada decisions, Canadian criminal law requires people living with HIV to disclose their HIV status before engaging in any risk activity that may present a “significant risk” of passing on HIV so that their partner can provide “informed consent” to engage in the activity. If they fail to tell their sex partner their status, they can be charged with serious offences like sexual assault, aggravated assault, criminal negligence or murder. Charges can be laid even if they do not pass on HIV to their partner.
While the law is clear that unprotected vaginal and anal sex constitute significant risk, it remains unclear whether activities such as sex with a condom, oral sex or other activities pose a high enough risk to be considered “significant”. While we know that factors such as HIV viral load, having other STIs, or being the insertive or receptive partner can influence how much risk is attached to an activity, it is also unclear how the law would interpret these factors. What is clear is that in the absence of firm guidance in these matters, courts will continue to exercise significant discretionary power in interpreting these risks and people living with HIV will continue to live in an uncertain environment unsure of what is required of them.
This is particularly alarming as courts in the US have demonstrated an inability to discern real risk from imagined risk, as demonstrated in a recent case where a homeless man living with HIV who spit on a police officer was sentenced to 35 years because the jury felt that his spit was a “deadly weapon” despite the lack of any scientific evidence that HIV can be spread through spit. It is unrealistic to think that police, prosecutors and judges are experts in HIV transmission or immune from misconceptions and fears about HIV. Likewise, as these cases often involve lawyers appointed through legal aid who have very little time to devote to building a case, even the defence attorneys may not have time to gather the necessary information.
But the real tragedy is that this criminalization of HIV does little to address the real issue. If the goal of criminalizing HIV is to reduce its spread, then from a public health perspective the strategy has totally missed its mark! See next week’s blog for the big picture on how criminalization may actually contribute to HIV transmission.
Sources:
Bernard, Edwin J. (2008) Texas jury concludes saliva of HIV-positive man a ‘deadly weapon’, sentenced to 35 yrs jail http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/57E118E4-CC57-4C0E-A200-E7709A67AF1F.aspRetrieved June 2009
Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure. (2009) The Impact of Criminalization on the AIDS Epidemic in Canada: Media Speaking Points January http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/mailouts.nsf/pages/cas-mailout-0588 Retrieved June 2009
Based on Supreme Court of Canada decisions, Canadian criminal law requires people living with HIV to disclose their HIV status before engaging in any risk activity that may present a “significant risk” of passing on HIV so that their partner can provide “informed consent” to engage in the activity. If they fail to tell their sex partner their status, they can be charged with serious offences like sexual assault, aggravated assault, criminal negligence or murder. Charges can be laid even if they do not pass on HIV to their partner.
While the law is clear that unprotected vaginal and anal sex constitute significant risk, it remains unclear whether activities such as sex with a condom, oral sex or other activities pose a high enough risk to be considered “significant”. While we know that factors such as HIV viral load, having other STIs, or being the insertive or receptive partner can influence how much risk is attached to an activity, it is also unclear how the law would interpret these factors. What is clear is that in the absence of firm guidance in these matters, courts will continue to exercise significant discretionary power in interpreting these risks and people living with HIV will continue to live in an uncertain environment unsure of what is required of them.
This is particularly alarming as courts in the US have demonstrated an inability to discern real risk from imagined risk, as demonstrated in a recent case where a homeless man living with HIV who spit on a police officer was sentenced to 35 years because the jury felt that his spit was a “deadly weapon” despite the lack of any scientific evidence that HIV can be spread through spit. It is unrealistic to think that police, prosecutors and judges are experts in HIV transmission or immune from misconceptions and fears about HIV. Likewise, as these cases often involve lawyers appointed through legal aid who have very little time to devote to building a case, even the defence attorneys may not have time to gather the necessary information.
But the real tragedy is that this criminalization of HIV does little to address the real issue. If the goal of criminalizing HIV is to reduce its spread, then from a public health perspective the strategy has totally missed its mark! See next week’s blog for the big picture on how criminalization may actually contribute to HIV transmission.
Sources:
Bernard, Edwin J. (2008) Texas jury concludes saliva of HIV-positive man a ‘deadly weapon’, sentenced to 35 yrs jail http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/57E118E4-CC57-4C0E-A200-E7709A67AF1F.aspRetrieved June 2009
Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure. (2009) The Impact of Criminalization on the AIDS Epidemic in Canada: Media Speaking Points January http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/mailouts.nsf/pages/cas-mailout-0588 Retrieved June 2009
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
To Test or Not To Test
After 25 five years of prevention, education and support work, several questions remain about community engagement and the efficacy of community based prevention initiatives. Central to this conversation is the issue of HIV testing.
Testing has always been a critical component in the fight against HIV, however, community based groups and mainstream medical professionals have struggled to normalize the HIV testing experience. HIV testing is unique as it is surrounded by a litany of public health recommendations and legislation.
HIV is criminalized in Canada which means that someone who is HIV positive is required to disclose their status to their sexual partners. If they do not disclose their status they can be charged under Canada’s criminal code. The litany of issues surrounding the criminalization of HIV is far too deep to dive into here. A critical element in regards to testing is how criminalization contributes to the ongoing stigma and discrimination surrounding HIV. People living with HIV today still face discrimination, fear, and sometimes even anger once they go public with their HIV status.
The best way to prevent HIV is by ensuring the health and wellness of those who have it and promoting a rights-based approach to sexual health and wellness information. The issue of testing has become more complex with many factors weighing in such as: confidentiality, onset of rapid testing, opt out screening instead of informed consent, and the movement of some provincial governments to remove the necessity of pre and post test counseling.
To respond to these issues, AIDS Calgary is beginning a process to push out testing to normalize the process. Major health programs such as breast cancer or diabetes have successfully used screening processes. Although we acknowledge important differences between screening programs and HIV testing, the end product should be the same. A person undergoing testing should have no fear of stigma, discrimination or reprisals from their friends, family or community.
To begin the process of spreading information about accessible testing we are working in collaboration with ASO’s across Canada and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Canada with the One Life Campaign (www.luvU2.ca).
We are ultimately working towards ACAA becoming a rapid testing site. With testing on site we can ensure the highest quality testing practices including anonymous testing, pre and post test counseling and additional sexual health and wellness counseling.
Welcome to the AIDS Calgary blog and I hope to see you back for more articles on important issues around HIV/AIDS. We have upcoming articles around treatment as prevention, HIV in the Aboriginal community, and the use of female condoms for anal sex. Please come back and visit each Thursday when we post a new article or sign up for our RSS feed to get our content delivered straight to your inbox.
Sincerely,
Susan Cress
Executive Director
AIDS Calgary Awareness Association
Testing has always been a critical component in the fight against HIV, however, community based groups and mainstream medical professionals have struggled to normalize the HIV testing experience. HIV testing is unique as it is surrounded by a litany of public health recommendations and legislation.
HIV is criminalized in Canada which means that someone who is HIV positive is required to disclose their status to their sexual partners. If they do not disclose their status they can be charged under Canada’s criminal code. The litany of issues surrounding the criminalization of HIV is far too deep to dive into here. A critical element in regards to testing is how criminalization contributes to the ongoing stigma and discrimination surrounding HIV. People living with HIV today still face discrimination, fear, and sometimes even anger once they go public with their HIV status.
The best way to prevent HIV is by ensuring the health and wellness of those who have it and promoting a rights-based approach to sexual health and wellness information. The issue of testing has become more complex with many factors weighing in such as: confidentiality, onset of rapid testing, opt out screening instead of informed consent, and the movement of some provincial governments to remove the necessity of pre and post test counseling.
To respond to these issues, AIDS Calgary is beginning a process to push out testing to normalize the process. Major health programs such as breast cancer or diabetes have successfully used screening processes. Although we acknowledge important differences between screening programs and HIV testing, the end product should be the same. A person undergoing testing should have no fear of stigma, discrimination or reprisals from their friends, family or community.
To begin the process of spreading information about accessible testing we are working in collaboration with ASO’s across Canada and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Canada with the One Life Campaign (www.luvU2.ca).
We are ultimately working towards ACAA becoming a rapid testing site. With testing on site we can ensure the highest quality testing practices including anonymous testing, pre and post test counseling and additional sexual health and wellness counseling.
Welcome to the AIDS Calgary blog and I hope to see you back for more articles on important issues around HIV/AIDS. We have upcoming articles around treatment as prevention, HIV in the Aboriginal community, and the use of female condoms for anal sex. Please come back and visit each Thursday when we post a new article or sign up for our RSS feed to get our content delivered straight to your inbox.
Sincerely,
Susan Cress
Executive Director
AIDS Calgary Awareness Association