Write a Comment
9 Comments
As a nurse I wonder what you mean by "even those who are professionally committed to HIV care, can feed the criminalization fire." People should have the right to determine the amount of risk they are willing to take prior to taking it and people who take that choice away should be punished. Safer sex is not a guarentee and while you can be exposed by practicing safer sex with someone who is positive and doesn't know it, there is a roulet portion that is not present if the other person does have it and does not disclose. I compare this to the recent mandated notifications for H1N1 cases. We all could be exposed anywhere at anytime but when there is a known case with direct exposure we have a right to know. Health Care workers are routinely notified if they have been exposed to scabies, TB, meningitis, etc etc. Again, we know we can be exposed to any number of things at any time but I want to know if there is a direct risk. I feel this way regardless if it is a male or female that is not disclosing. Further, my personal views on non disclosure and advocacy for criminalization have absolutely nothing to do with my professional commitment to care for those with HIV. In fact the opposite is true. The pain and suffering I have experienced myself and the pain and suffering I have witnessed in my patients that are affected with the disease make me hope that no one else has to deal with this reality
I've lived with HIV for 18 years. I do trainings for social workers, nurses and physicians. Its very interesting to see that even those who are professionally committed to HIV care, can feed the criminalization fire. However, one can almost hear the gears grind when simple pronouns are changed. If the HIV positive person who chooses to not disclose is described with female pronouns, there is usually a higher state of empathy expressed and statements like "well, she really can't control that" seem to occur. It seems a strange disconnect is being communicated--Men get HIV because they did something wrong and deserve it--they also infect others. Women on the otherhand, have received HIV infection from another (passive infection?) and aren't really responsible for it. If they cannot come to grips with disclosing their status, then its understandable because of their multiple competeting priorities. Very sad double standard.
...Criminalization of HIV-AIDs...Sadly Canada leads the world in this regard.While filming Judge Cameron(of South Africa) at Osgood Hall speaking on this very subject,i was disheartened to learn the no of canadian prosicution of HIV+ persons is leading the planet!This will set back HARM REDUCTION 20 yrs! ps.Regan...Your an inspiration for all PHA's world-wide,GODBLESS & keep up the GREAT work!a fellow warrior.
Dear Regan Hoffman: Thanks for the wonderful work you and POZ Magazine are doing covering, educating and informing on the AIDS Pandemic. As one reporting on HIV/AIDS for several years, I do believe that the key word, here, is "AIDS education." More is more, when it comes to HIV/AIDS. The more we know about it, the more aware we can become and the better we can prevent ourselves and others from becoming infected. Today, though, we're living in a time of AIDS complacency. We have, nowadays, to our disposal some twenty-something life-saving and life-prolonging (HAART)medications that have transformed AIDS from the immediate death sentence of the eighties and early nineties to today's manageable disease. But HAART meds and their Lazarus effect should not be excuses for today's AIDS complacency. Maybe we need some sort of a wake-up call, of the magnitude that Rock Hudson's death had back in the mid-eighties, to realize the reality and complexity of today's HIV/AIDS. The truth is that we still live in a time of AIDS, when the virus still infects and kills. Maybe we should be more humble when facing HIV because it can infect and affect us all. Awareness, education, prevention, early testing, practicing safer sex are all vital when it comes to HIV/AIDS. As per CDC stats, there are 40,000 new HIV infections each year, later updated to 56,000. Many individuals don't know that they are infected or find out when already in a later state of the disease (not only are HIV positive, but have AIDS). We're not in the early eighties, when, even if knowing your status, there was nothing anybody could do for you. There is no excuse for not knowing, because this indifference can kill.
Is it responsible to advocate testing. Any of us that live with HIV truly understand the implications of a positive result. This virus for many pales with it's impact on oneself when compared against the stigma, isolation, discrimination, criminalization, travel restrictions and social impact. I'd advise anyone to practice safer-sex....but prior to testing for HIV they need to know the reality of a positive result and how that may impact them quite significantly.
HPV and various other STD's are TEMPORARY and only extremely rarely cause a threat to life and you well know it. But it's self-serving to proceed down this path for you. Why not impose prison time on those who spread the flu? After all, people die from flu. Why not spend your time preaching RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. When there are land mines buried in you yard, it's only responsible to let someone know. I realize someone didn't let you know and you're feeling bitter and angry and doing likewise to someone else is enticing - and you sure don't want to be punished for it. You really need help.
Dear ms Regan You wrote: "I agree that people who know they have HIV and do not disclose their HIV status to their partner and engage in unprotected sex intending to harm their partner (like Johnson Aziga) should be punished. I also think the laws around the transmission of STDs, if they are to remain in place for people living with HIV, should be consistent and clear and applied across the board to all sexually transmitted diseases that can lead to ill-health or death (like hepatitis, syphilis and human papillomavirus, to name just three). My personal view is that this is NOT the way to go: to put more and more diseases at the criminal court. NO DISEASE SHOULD BE NAMED IN THE CRIMINAL LAWS. Not STD, not TBC, not flu, not malaria, not salmonella, not you name it... If there is harm done, there are enough laws (grave bodily harm etc) who can punish if there is a victim. It is a slippery slope to make laws to fight transmission of diseases. As for the moment we are the only victims - I would not like other patients too will be persecuted because they are ill. If they are wilfully harming others, they can be punished with the existing laws. And besides can you imagine someone put in jail because he was riding on the subway with the flu and causing the death of another elderly person? Or a nurse in a care center with the flu who causes the death of a baby or a weak patient? With thanks for you excellent work and articles.
Matt Moovas
have read many hiv criminalization cases and yet it is not clear to me how the court proves that it is the accused and only the acused and no other person inffected the accuser.This is very important when a person is going to be convicted for infecting anothet. It is clear from the comments and even the postings that we all have responsiblity not to infect others and also to protect ourselves. The question always I think should be 'who made the first move, the first contact' Was there a coersion and by whom, by the accused or by the accuser? We have to determine if the accuser was,irresponsible, did not protect oneself, made the first move that led to his or her being infected
September 2, 2009