Preventing HIV transmission via HIV exposure laws: applying logic and mathematical modeling to compare statutory approaches to penalizing undisclosed exposure to HIV

Twenty-four U.S. states have enacted HIV exposure laws that prohibit HIV-positive persons from engaging in sexual activities with partners to whom they have not disclosed their HIV status. There is little standardization among existing HIV exposure laws, which vary substantially with respect to the sexual activities that are prohibited without prior serostatus disclosure. Logical analysis and mathematical modeling were used to explore the HIV prevention effectiveness of two types of HIV exposure laws: "strict" laws that require HIV-positive persons to disclose their serostatus to prospective partners prior to any sexual activity and "flexible" laws that require seropositive status disclosure only prior to high-risk sex (e.g., unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse). These laws were compared relative to each other and to a no-law alternative. The results of these analyses indicate that, under most (though not necessarily all) circumstances, both strict and flexible exposure laws can be expected to reduce HIV transmission risk relative to the no-law alternative, with flexible exposure laws producing the greater reduction in risk. This study demonstrates how logical analysis and mathematical modeling techniques can make an important contribution to the construction of a rational basis for decisions about a highly contested public health policy issue.     

US: court refuses to order disclosure of HIV status to police

In February 2001, Massachusetts' highest court ruled that a man whose blood was splattered on police officers during his arrest is protected under that state's law from having to reveal his HIV status.     

Nigeria--Judge denies woman with HIV access to courtroom

In February 2001, a judge in the Ikeja High Court in Nigeria barred an HIV-positive woman from entering her courtroom out of concern for transmission of the virus.     

Mandatory HIV testing used to bar potential immigrants

Last year Canada turned away 75 people with HIV/AIDS because the federal government said that they would place excessive demands on publically funded services. Another 207 people with HIV/AIDS were allowed to enter Canada, mainly because of exemptions to the excessive-demand provisions. HIV/AIDS organizations have objected to the government's policy of mandatory HIV-antibody testing of potential immigrants and have expressed concerns about the way in which excessive demand is calculated.     

Using rights and the law to reduce women's vulnerability to HIV

Cathi Albertyn's paper, an edited and updated version of her presentation at "Putting Third First," argues that both human rights and the law can play an important, if limited, role within a wider set of national and international strategies to reduce women's vulnerability to HIV. It analyzes the nature of women's vulnerability to HIV/AIDS, and highlights some of the issues and lessons in using rights and the law to advance gender equality and reduce women's vulnerability to HIV/AIDS.     

Motion to strike claim dismissed in HIV defamation suit

On 23 April 2001, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued the first Canadian ruling on the issue of whether words inputing that a person is HIV-positive or has AIDS can be the basis of a defamation action per se, in the case of Serdar v Metroland Printing, Publishing and Distributing Ltd.     

Risk-Taking,Recklessness and HIV Transmission: Accommodating the Reality of Sexual Transmission of HIV Within a Justifiable Approach to Criminal Liability

This paper examines the issue of justifiability of risk-taking with regard to the transmission of HIV. It considers a number of factors, such as seriousness of risk, likelihood of risk occurring, social utility of conduct involved, ability to use precautions and victim awareness of the risk and willingness to accept it, which combined help to determine whether the taking of a risk is reasonable or not. It argues that by considering the issue of justifiability in this way, it is possible to accommodate the wider social, psychological and public health realities of HIV. It further argues that a criminal law which fails to take account of such considerations is not only overly broad in its application but ultimately risks punishing those who are not in fact deserving of punishment. I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft.     

Update to international guidelines on HIV/AIDS and human rights

On 10 September 2002, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) released a revised international guideline on "Access to prevention, treatment, care and support." The update to Guideline 6 of HIV/AIDS and Human Rights: International Guidelines reflects significant therapeutic, political, and legal developments in this area since the 12 guidelines were originally published in 1998. The new Guideline 6 significantly expands the guidance given to governments on what international human rights norms require of them in relation to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, care and support.