An ethical analysis of the mandatory exclusion of immigrants who test HIV-positive

On 20 September 2000, Canadian newspapers reported that Health Canada recommended to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) that testing all prospective immigrants for HIV, and excluding those testing positive, constitutes "the lowest health risk course of action." Subsequently, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated that CIC is indeed considering implementing mandatory HIV testing for all prospective immigrants to Canada, and excluding all those testing positive (with the exception of refugees and family-class sponsored immigrants) from immigrating to Canada on both public health and "excessive cost" grounds. This proposal was met with vehement opposition from a broad range of organizations and individuals. In particular, they pointed out that, as stated in the International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights (UNHCHR/UNAIDS, 1998: para 105), "[t]here is no public health rationale for restricting liberty of movement or choice of residence on the ground of HIV status." At the time of going to print, no final decision had been made about whether mandatory HIV testing for all immigrants would be implemented. There are sound ethical, legal, and public policy arguments against imposing mandatory testing and excluding those who test HIV-positive.     

Understanding judicial discretion

The main aim of this paper is to clarify the dispute over judicial discretion by distinguishing the different senses in which claims about judicial discretion can be understood and by examining the arguments for these various interpretations. Three different levels of dispute need to be recognized. The first concerns whether judges actually do exercise discretion, the second involves whether judges are entitled to exercise discretion, and the third is about the proper institutional role of judges. In this context, the views of Dworkin, Raz, Perry, Greenawalt, and Sartorius are examined. Finally, it is suggested that a resolution of the judicial discretion controversy requires a satisfactory theory of the justification of judicial decisions.