There was a story in the Knoxville News-Sentinel newspaper a month or so ago about a woman who was charged with a felony for prostitution while she knowingly had HIV. In Tennessee, prostitution is a misdemeanor, unless you’re infected with HIV, in which case it becomes the felony of aggravated prostitution. I didn’t think too much about it at the time the story came out, since this kind of disparity in the criminal code makes perfect sense to me on one level.
Today someone on Twitter pointed to a blog run by a former teen prostitute turned author, Juliana Picillo. I enjoy reading the perspective of other sex workers, so I bee-bopped over to the blog to see what it was about. The first post I encountered, though, kind of irritated me, though. Entitled “HIV and the Law,” Juliana argues that:
This is one of those issues that on the surface sounds somewhat reasonable. If you know you have a potentially life-threatening, communicable virus which you expose other people to without informing them, it’s unethical, wrong, outrageous behavior really. But is it criminal?
And if you say yes, then it’s criminal whether the HIV positive person in question is a sex worker or not.
Further, I would argue it’s not criminal in any case. All sexually active adults in this country are well aware of the risks of STDS, STIs, HIV, etc. If they choose to not use protection or even if they choose to use protection and that protection fails, it was a risk they consented to.[Emphasis added]
Well, no, actually there wasn’t fully informed consent if they didn’t know the prostitute had HIV, pure and simple. Consent has to be informed to be valid,1 and if the client isn’t made aware of the fact that the prostitute has a potentially fatal, communicable disease, then he sure isn’t making a fully informed decision, is he?
If I point a gun you assume to be unloaded at you, and I pull the trigger, knowing that the weapon had a bullet in it, and you are killed by the bullet fired from that gun, should I be charged with a crime? Of course, you’d say. But you consented to having the gun pointed at you, didn’t you? It doesn’t matter; though. Even if you knew there was a bullet in it, I’d be charged with negligent homicide or the like.
When I go out driving my car, I know the risks of becoming involved in an accident, including the potential for being hit by someone driving under the influence. If I chose to do so anyway, and a drunk driver hits me, do we allow him to avoid being charged with a crime because I consented to the risks of being on the road with him? Of course not. We charge him with a crime such as vehicular homicide.
In all three cases, the parallel is that one person chose to recklessly elevate or increase the risk to the other person/people. Doing this is the very definition of negligence, and negligence is usually treated as a crime in our society when it results in a harm to someone else. Why? Because you have a duty to society to not recklessly put people at risk.
And, yeah, you may have consented to being physically intimate with the sex worker, but what if you get the disease and transmit it to other people you have sex with before you realize you’re infected? Those people certainly didn’t consent to having sex with the person you became infected by. Would you have consented to having sex with your other clueless partner(s) if you knew that you were infected? I’d suspect (hope?) that the vast majority of you wouldn’t.
In my opinion, anyone who is infected with HIV (or any other STD for that matter) has a duty to notify their potential sex partner(s) that they’re infected. And I’d argue that a sex worker has an even greater duty as a consequence of the nature of the work they perform. It’s not unlike the financial business as I see it. Any financial matter involves some risk. However, when we engage in transactions that involve professional financial counselors, there is a higher fiduciary duty on the part of those professionals to ensure that any risk we face is mitigated to the extent possible, and, further, that we’re notified of those risks prior to conducting business with him. I fail to see why conducting business with a sex worker should be held to a lower standard.
A great many of us seek to legitimize sex work, and arguing that knowingly exposing our clients to the increased threat of acquiring a potentially fatal disease ought not to be criminalized directly contravenes that. Now, of course, there’s the qualifier that “all sex between two people involves some degree of risk.” Well, yeah, but only a small handful of people you’re going to come into contact with have HIV, so the relative risk of contracting it on a daily basis is quite low. Exposure to HIV is not a universal when two people have sex, so it’s disingenuous to suggest that you must automatically assume the unannounced risk of acquiring it with every sexual encounter.
What about all of the other viruses we acquire and transmit among ourselves? The flu, for example? If you catch the flu and go to work, infecting others, should you be held criminally liable? I think it’d be possible to construct a rational argument for that if someone died from that flu. But the mortality rate for flu is around 1-2%, depending upon the strain. And you only have it for a couple of weeks, if that. HIV is an incurable infection that will require life-long, very expensive treatment and care. And, of course, it may eventually lead you to acquire AIDS, and perhaps die. with retroviral treatment, the mortality rate for HIV/AIDS is down to around 6-7%, but a huge chunk of the population can’t afford the treatments for it. Plague would be a more accurate comparison. Don’t you think it should be a crime to knowingly expose someone to the plague?
People say, well, HIV has a stigma attached to it, and disclosing that information results in all kinds of negative things happening to the one who has it if it is disclosed. So what? The onus is on you to act responsibly and not intentionally put other people at risk. It’s not our responsibility to ensure that you are allowed to go along infecting people willy nilly without being held responsible for it. If you go around putting other people at risk, then you deserve to have any stigma that comes your way.
What if cancer was as transmittable as HIV was, and could be transmitted via sexual contact? Would you likewise argue that one should be able to neglect to disclose that as well? I’d argue that the potential for a person losing their life outweighs any inconvenience or negative experience you might endure as a result of it becoming known that you have HIV. HIV doesn’t carry the stigma that it used to, so I don’t know that you can even use that as a (legitimate) argument any longer, really.
I do agree with one point Juliana makes in her post, by the way:
This a case an unfair law simple because it singles out one very marginalized group. [sic]
I definitely concur with that. I believe the law ought to apply to anyone who knowingly has sex with someone else while infected and fails to inform that other person. It ought not to apply to or exacerbate the charges associated with prostitution in general in my opinion, though. Perhaps it should exist as a separate, chargeable offense (and actually does in many states). In fact, as I commented on Julianna’s blog, I hope someone challenges the constitutionality of that specific law at some point.
At any rate, as a sex worker myself, you have my solemn word that, if I were to become infected with HIV or any other communicable disease, I’ll tell you before I fuck you, whether you’re paying me or not. In reality, if I became infected with something, I would not see any more clients unless and until I was cured, just for the record. In my post about the Alternative Provider’s Code of Ethics, I made a specific bullet point that stated: I will not practice my trade if I am sick or ill without disclosing my illness(es) to my client before any personal contact. I’d honor that above anything else.
So what are your thoughts on this? If you see providers, would you want or expect them to disclose to you that they had HIV? Or any STD? Would you change your mind about having sex at that point, even if it were “protected?” What about your private liaisons with people you hook up with? Do you expect them to disclose to you if they have an STD, or do you consider “the risk” to be just part and parcel of being sexually intimate with someone else? Do you think failure to disclose ought to be considered a crime? If not, why not? I’m honestly curious about other peoples’ thoughts on this.
- Legitimate consent can’t be given if you are not aware of all of the facts [↩]
- Providers and Clients with STIs I was talking with a woman who’s interested in becoming...
- Society as a Whole Caused Julissa’s Death I posted a comment to my Twitter this morning regarding...
- Decriminalization vs. Legalization There’s been a lot of discussion in a variety of...
- Things I Like and Dislike About My Job Peridotash has a post up asking sex workers to list...
- Toward A Code of Ethics I am in the process of drafting a Code of...
Email This
Print This
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
Awesome blog – beautiful! And thanks for the comments on my post!!
To be clear, I am not condoning anyone having sex when they knowingly have an STD – that is not the point of my post. My point is simply that it’s another case of sex workers in general and the weakest and most vulnerable sex workers in particular targeted for more criminal charges.
Sex workers are amongst the safest individuals I’ve ever met. I can’t tell you how many clients I’ve had begging for unsafe sex. I never did it and I never contacted an STI. Of course, if I did, I would have stopped working but I have that luxury as a middle class woman with health insurance. I’m not on the street. I don’t want to see my colleagues who are in dire straights targeted and pathologized in this way.
To be clear, I am not condoning anyone having sex when they knowingly have an STD – that is not the point of my post. My point is simply that it’s another case of sex workers in general and the weakest and most vulnerable sex workers in particular targeted for more criminal charges.
I agree with your point about sex workers being the subject of unnecessary targeted. I don’t think any sex workers should be specifically targeted by such laws. My personal belief, however, is that sex workers, regardless of the strata they operate in have a higher duty than the average person when it comes to STDs because of the work they do. Do I think think sex workers should be criminally charged in lieu of anyone else because of that fact? No.
My argument with you revolves around your belief that even the knowing, intentional infection (potential or actual) of another person shouldn’t be criminalized in any case.
In our society, when someone perpetrates a harm against someone else, either knowingly through an act of commission, or through depraved indifference, we criminalize that behavior. I have yet to see someone construct a reasonable justification as to why that should not apply to infectious diseases as well. What possible justification could there be for allowing one person to intentionally harm another one, potentially fatally, and getting away with it?
I would not sleep with someone if I knew they weren’t clean- whether that be just someone I wanted to sleep with, or a “professional” so to speak just for the night. Even if it had to come down to asking for papers showing that they had been tested. I think it’s criminal for anyone to sleep with anyone when they have an STI. And in the case of HIV, especially so.
I think it’s irresponsible to sleep with someone if you don’t know if you’re clean or if you know you aren’t clean and you don’t tell them. It’s just not fair.
Negligence is almost never a crime in this country. Negligence may subject you to civil liability, but rarely criminal liability. In general, only reckless or intentional acts are subject to criminal liability.
Regardless of what the law states, knowingly exposing someone to potential infection without informing that person prior to sexual contact is grossly irresponsible and morally bankrupt.
I agree that the law should apply to anyone who commits such a potentially harmful act, and that it should not be yet another law used to single out sex workers.
I would absolutely expect a provider to tell me if she had any STD. I would not have protected sex with a provider who disclosed to me that she had an STD. Actually, I would expect her to “bench” herself until the STD was gone. I would expect the same from a perspective partner in a casual hookup. I would also hold myself to the same standard that I expect of others.
I do think that failure to disclose an STD to a sex partner should be a criminal offense.
1. How do you know that she isn’t informing her clients of her HIV status? I know it’s not likely, but it’s possible, and it’s their choice to make if they know.
2. The point about risk taking and general knowledge of the possibility of HIV transmission from a sex worker with whom you have not discussed HIV status with is the responsibility of the client. It is within the rights of the client to ask the sex worker his or her HIV status before engaging in sex acts; if the sex worker lies then there might be a case. Also, sex workers have a statistically higher rate of STIs than the general population, so personally, I wouldn’t go by the don’t ask don’t tell policy here.
3. In order to prosecute someone for an HIV related crime you have to violate HIPAA laws, which do not provide for any exceptions. The only way to get around them is for a court order due to the overwhelming interests of another party (e.g. rape victim, blood splattered in someone’s face…), and in that case would not be admissible against the defendant as per the 5th amendment.
4. At least in New York State, you can still legally INTENTIONALLY infect someone with HIV through sexual contact due to the reason stated in #2. A man’s conviction was overturned because of it and he was set free making case law.
Also, sex workers have a statistically higher rate of STIs than the general population,
What? What is your source for that claim?
The only way to get around them is for a court order due to the overwhelming interests of another party (e.g. rape victim, blood splattered in someone’s face…), and in that case would not be admissible against the defendant as per the 5th amendment.
Not sure where you came up with that line of reasoning, but it is inaccurate. HIPAA doesn’t have anything to do with self incrimination. Maybe a state law in NY has some kind of provision about that, but obviously the case in TN demonstrates your assertion here is not correct.
They were international statistics and didn’t parse by country, so they might not be as accurate across the board amongst all types of sex workers in the US.
HIPAA doesn’t have anything to do with self-incrimination. However, if you’re using the overwhelming need of another as the reason to overturn it you are not allowed to use that information for anything other than the overwhelming need of another, which means it cannot be used for anything other than to let that person know if they should be tested for HIV1 or HIV2. You cannot then turn around and use that information against the defendent.
They were international statistics and didn’t parse by country, so they might not be as accurate across the board amongst all types of sex workers in the US.
I’d still like to know where you got the information.
The stuff about HIPAA and self-incrimination is a straw argument or at best, tangential. All you’d need to show is that the individual was aware they had the illness and failed to inform the other person. Both of those can easily be established without any self incrimination whatsoever as a general rule.
I will be the first person to admit that I made a mistake, and I did; the statistics, which were international, covered Eastern Europe. I had taken them out of a WHO document and put them into another that I was writing and just looked at the one I was writing when I commented and misread it.
As for the HIPAA stuff, without violating HIPAA you can’t prove that the defendant knew they were positive, so you can’t use the evidence.
Addie, I must disagree with you on a point, though it’s not entirely relevant to Alexa’s [very aptly stated--well done again, contigo] post:
“Also, sex workers have a statistically higher rate of STIs than the general population…”
Generalizing this way is extraordinarily irresponsible and inaccurate, in my humble, at least in so far that it further perpetuates the negative stigma attached to sex workers due to simply their form of employment. Erotic dancers are sex workers, as are dommes, and pornographic ’stars’, also nude models–not simply those engaged in prostitution. Every provider [and agency] with whom I’ve come into contact utilizes an extraordinarily strict policy on protection–even with oral sex [that last is most certainly my agency; I can't speak for anyone else--I'm aware Alexa occasionally provides oral without] and any statistics I’ve ever encountered stated blatantly that sex workers [in the form of escorts] have a significantly lessened rate of sexually transmitted infections or diseases.
I’d like to see where you’ve come across this information, honestly.
Alexa: As usual, you’re stupendously on-target. The gun metaphor is astoundingly practical and accurate–bravo on your morality.
Generalizing this way is extraordinarily irresponsible and inaccurate, in my humble, at least in so far that it further perpetuates the negative stigma attached to sex workers due to simply their form of employment.
Agreed. As I asked above, I’d like to see the basis for such a claim.
I know, for example, in Nevada, the incidence of STD transmission between prostitutes in the brothels there and their customers is far, far lower than that in the general public.
…almost tangential to the discussion, as none of those involved are sex workers, but somewhat relevant to criminal charges of HIV transmission:
http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/5/article_7518.php
In New Zealand a bisexual man is being charged with ‘wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse causing or producing a sickness or disease, namely HIV.’ Previous cases have set a precedent that HIV positive people do not have to disclose so long as safe sex is being practiced; this gentleman is accused of knowing he was HIV positive, not disclosing, and infecting five men and one woman with the condition.
(In a similar case over a decade ago a man was convicted of grevious bodily harm and imprisoned for seven years after he infected a woman with HIV and declining to use a condom; the jury found that he had not intended to infect the woman, but rather, only intended to have sex.)
To relate this back to the discussion though: I think the key word when discussing professional sex work is professional. I do not want society to discriminate against HIV positive people (because, honestly, it’s a crappy enough thing as it is without jailing people for having it) but there are questions of public health safety and professionalism to consider also.
In a perfect world, if you cannot do your job safely, you get a different job. If this is not an option, you mitigate the dangers to all involved- this should include disclosure of relevant risks.
(There’s a wider discussion to be had here about a society that would rather incarcerate someone for having a disease than provide a society where it would be an option for them to be treated, but it’s easy to be condescending towards the United States when one does not live there.)
This is a human society. Let’s leave aside the law for a minute. If I was having sex with somebody – whether professionally or otherwise – I have an absolute obligation to disclose to them anything that might be of importance to their health and wellbeing as part of that act. It is absolutely the case that I expect the same standard from my partners whether paid or not.
It is unconscionable that a person could have sex with another person, knowing that they had an STI of any sort, without disclosing that fact prior to engaging in any sexual contact.
I know a person who had rollicking sex with another person, only to be told – as she left the next morning – that her partner had herpes. Her parting act was to lay her erstwhile partner out cold with a punch to the jaw. That however did not prevent her from contracting herpes.
Not OK ever.
rbg
I agree in theory.
And I agree in HIV in practice. Also agree about some others in practice, such as gonorrhea, syphilis, etc.
But unfortunately, HPV and herpes turn out to be a very different animal.
In reality, people with HPV and HSV continuously engage in sex with others without getting tested for these two specific conditions and with no disclosure. How many people even know that cold sores are herpes? How many people think that it’s okay not to tell a casual partner as long as you get one little cold sore every year and you are not having an outbreak now? And what if you had a genital wart a couple of years ago that never came back? How many people would actually disclose that?
Should people be informing their partners? Yes, I think they should. But saying that is as effective as “just say no”. On those two, the rate of disclosure is so low, and stigma of STD so high, and the prevalence so huge (different stats say 25-75% of sexually active people eventually get infected with HSV or HPV). As the result people rarely wish to risk stigmatization for being the responsible exception when the majority of population does not even test for HSV/HPV.
Albertan free STD clinics don’t test for HSV, not even when you ask to get tested for everything – unless you have a sore! And since most people are asymptomatic, they never get tested for herpes – and they don’t even know it. HPV tests for men, last time I checked, don’t even exist. How many women know that you need to ask for an HPV test during your PAP test?
A massive – massive! – education, awareness and behavioural campaign would need to be carried through before disclosure of HPV/HSV becomes a reality even among sexually educated public.
Any kind of sex between two consenting parties cannot be fully consented to, unless all the variables pertaining to sex are agreed upon by both parties. And that includes any disease that either party may be carrying at the time of initiation of sexual contact. Willfully hiding any information that could influence consent is no different, in my opinion at least, than a company selling a product that makes misleading claims. In both cases, a crucial piece of information is held back, and had that information been divulged, it would have most likely influenced the decision of the concerned party.
As a matter of fact, I believe sex workers in particular, if they are to make a strong case for themselves, must be doubly cautious about STD’s. Detractors of sex work will pounce on any opportunity they get to accuse prostitutes of destroying society. This case is a prime example of how the media perpetuates the common myths regarding sex work. And it is just the kind of publicity sex workers don’t need.
Addie, I must agree with other in saying your claim was misinformed and highly irresponsible. Even otherwise, I am reluctant to believe in any statistic regarding sex workers. More often than not, the methods employed to obtain this data are questionable, and results are extrapolated to make misleading generalizations. Human trafficking and sex work are distinct issues; one is exploitation, and a crime, the other is a valid and misunderstood form of work. You cannot club statistics meant for one in the other.
A very well thought out article Alexa, bringing out a real issue concerning sex workers. People are inclined to believe prostitutes have no responsibility towards society. You clearly show otherwise
I already apologized for misreading my summarized statistics, I quoted the statistics in good faith and corrected myself as soon as I realized I was in error. However, the study they came from was about sex workers in Eastern Europe, not women trafficked from Eastern Europe. I agree completely that trafficking is a very different issue, and one that should definitely be illegal for the trafficker, and that much more needs to be done both in prevention and in assistance to women trafficked after the fact.
I think ANY ONE who knowingly has HIV and has sex with others without informing them is committing a crime. In fact, in Canada, a man who did just that got sentenced to 18 years, which, in Canada, is pretty heavy penalty considering how light they go on criminals.
Here’s link to the story about Carl Leone from spring of last year.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/410303
Just happened to of owned a music store in the city I live in, Windsor, Ontario.
Personally, I think 18 years is too short. Should tattoo HIV on his damn forehead also. Guy is scumbag.
End Verbal Flatulence
1.) Fact: there is no law requiring the disclosure that an individual is HIV positive in the United States period. Ironically, in a ‘tangential’ sense HIPAA law precludes disclosure, even by those medical professionals who have irrefutable evidence of the existence of the virus except by court mandate. By way of example, if you have HIV and are in an accident and are bleeding profusely and are taken to the emergency room those professionals that treat you can not find out this information without a court order compelling the release. If you do not disclose this and one of them contracts the virus are you criminally liable….no. Hence there is neither legal precedent for disclosure by anyone under any circumstances nor the prosecution for not.
Morally, in my opinion only the opposite is absolutely true. Disclosure is required by fundamental human consciousness and decency. So in essence, unless all who have the virus are compelled by law to disclose such on any level, the prosecution of one group or individual is capricious and discriminatory (e.g. sex worker).
2.) The foundations of most laws present in the United States are based in English common law. Those laws are typically to be used as a shield, not a sword. In this instance perhaps the shield would be to require the publication/disclosure of any individual who has the virus irrespective of career choice etc. The sword aspect is to prosecute individuals based upon an arbitrary standard or interpretation of who should say what to whom (i.e. everyone or no one).
3.) 1con•sent
1 : to give assent or approval (Webster). No reference made about knowledge or disclosure.
Will see if this is posted as often times the truth sets someone free but will usually beat the shit out of them first.
Fact: there is no law requiring the disclosure that an individual is HIV positive in the United States period.
Who said there was? You’ve missed the point entirely. No one is advocating a law requiring disclosure. Rather, that the failure to disclose when you put someone in the position where exposure is not only possible, but likely should be illegal. That’s not the same thing.
Your example of the HIV patient in the ER not being liable for an exposure is also faulty. In that case, there’s not a specific intent or a reckless carelessness leading to a positive likelihood of exposure such as would be the case with someone having sex with another person.
In this instance perhaps the shield would be to require the publication/disclosure of any individual who has the virus irrespective of career choice etc.
And that’s what both I and Juliana are advocating.
No reference made about knowledge or disclosure.
One cannot consent to something legitimately if they’re not aware of the circumstances associated with the consent they’re giving. I’d think that was common sense. Perhaps not.
The concept of informed consent is a legal construct, not a semantic one as you seem to suggest by posting the definition. Therefore, the a higher standard must be met. For some assistance in understanding the concept, see this: Informed Consent
Part of why the ER folks aren’t given the info about HIV status of patients is that they are supposed to act as if every patient has HIV and other infections. If they’re taking appropriate measures, it’s not relevant whether a given patient is HIV-positive, so there’s no reason for patients to tell medical staff what their HIV status is unless it’s part of why they’re in the ER, or they’re taking medication, etc.
Quite honestly, I’m disturbed that people in the sex industry, including prominent sex educators, have no compunction about allowing infected people to suffer no criminal responsibility for intentionally infecting other people, under the guise of the “stigma” associated with HIV. This includes Dr. Charlie Glickman, from Good Vibrations, and Audacia Ray, a well known former sex worker and writer on sexuality.
Charlie’s Blog Entry on This
Their “solution” is to always practice safe sex. Well, yeah, but “safe sex” isn’t risk-free sex. Safe sex can and does fail. Then what?
There is a BIG difference between intentionally infecting people, as in, trying to make people who are negative become positive, and being HIV positive and not disclosing your status and accidentally exposing that person because a condom broke.
Neither of those are necessarily morally right, but the first one is orders of magnitude worse, and is malicious in intent while the second can be categorized as inconsideration.
Personally, I think that people should disclose their status before having sex. Realistically though, I know that may not happen. It is just stupid for someone to assume that the person they are sleeping with is negative without either a piece of paper with a recent test result on it or an established relationship of trust with that partner (and even that established trust may be not enough, I know someone whose girlfriend of a year lied to him about everything, including her name). If someone decides to have unprotected sex without one or both of those things and they catch HIV then it’s their own damn fault.
Not to mention, there are plenty of diseases that aren’t “STIs” that are sexually transmitted, malaria, ebola, African sleeping sickness, for example. All of these will kill you faster than HIV will. Ebola Zaire will kill you in a week; it has a 100% mortality rate. Treatment for African sleeping sickness is so toxic that the treatment itself will kill 50% of the people who take it, but if you don’t, that has a 100% mortality rate too, in about 3-4 weeks. Malaria depends on where you are in the world and how drug resistant it is, but generally speaking protozoan diseases are a lot harder to kill than bacteria. All three of these are very easily sexually transmitted, actually more easily sexually transmitted than HIV.
Put into perspective, a long term and manageable with medication virus doesn’t really sound so bad to me.
If someone decides to have unprotected sex without one or both of those things and they catch HIV then it’s their own damn fault.
Nothing like a good old dose of victim blaming, eh? I suppose you believe a woman’s at fault if she goes out and gets drunk and then gets raped, right? Same principle when you get right down to it.
And you and several others seem to think “safe sex” practices are the answer to this. It’s not – condoms fail and don’t protect against some diseases. Even with the use of safe sex practices, the risk is still there and someone might elect not to go that route if they were informed about their partner’s disease status.
Not to mention, there are plenty of diseases that aren’t “STIs” that are sexually transmitted,
And your point is what? I didn’t limit the law to STIs, but to any disease that is contagious. AFAIC, transmitting any of these would be treated just as HIV would be.
You’re right- safer sex is not 100% safe, which is why sex educators call it “safer” rather than “safe.” And as I’ve said on my blog and elsewhere, I agree that there is an ethical responsibility to give enough information for consent to be meaningful.
And at the same time, I don’t support a law requiring HIV status disclosure. I think it’s a “magic bullet” approach to a very complex situation and I’ve never seen one of those work. There are a lot of reasons that people don’t disclose their HIV status and any response that doesn’t reflect that is likely to only add to the shame and stigma that already surround HIV. As I said in a reply to your comment on my blog, in a society that denies people the support they need to develop the ability to talk about sex and HIV without shame, creating a law that requires the ability to do so sets people up to fail.
Further, I have an expectation that if we make HIV status disclosure mandatory, it will become yet another barrier to testing. When I was working as an HIV counselor, I had quite a few clients who would come in for testing and then never come back to get the results. Some of them would later report that they were scared to hear the results and decided that they would rather not know. Do we really need to add another reason for people to be scared to get tested?
Lastly, people break laws all the time. I have very little expectation that legally mandating disclosure would change that and unless we have people sign off on paperwork, there’s no way we can prove whether the conversation took place. I believe that legally mandated disclosure provides the illusion of safety without providing nearly as much protection as it seems. Between that and the added stigma that it produces, I don’t think it’s a useful response.
Charlie, the basic premise of your position (and that of Dacia and others) rests on how the person with HIV is or should be treated. What about the victim in these cases? What about retribution or punishment for having injured that person by knowing putting them at risk?
You haven’t bothered once to mention how to compensate the person who’s been injured by the negligence or willful actions of the infected person. Why not? How do you propose to make things right with the injured person in these cases? In any other case, generally speaking, we charge the perpetrator with a crime. And you’re suggesting we not in these cases simply because of the stigma attached to having HIV? I’m not sure how that is socially responsible.
I look at this from a public health perspective, rather than a criminal justice perspective and I expect that many other sex educators will do the same. As I said, I think it’s reasonable to expect that a law mandating disclosure of STI status will increase the barriers to STI testing that already exist and I think that the consequences of that would be detrimental on a larger scale. There are already plenty of people who don’t get tested for STIs because they’re afraid to find out what they results are. Adding to that isn’t going to help.
I get that you’re trying to create more safety for folks. And I think that you and I ultimately agree on what we’d like to see in the world. Where we disagree is in how we get there from here. I think that there are probably ways to create accountability that don’t hinder the public health aspects of STIs and that seems like an excellent topic for people to consider. It’s not a simple situation and I doubt that a simple response will really be effective.
First off, living in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area), I heard of the case that ScytheNoire was talking about and I was appalled. How could someone who knows they have HIV go around having unprotected intercourse with regular people, without telling them and INSISTING on protection? (Ignoring the fact that they shouldn’t be having sex period, because transmission is still possible even with protection.) I would also agree with Scythe that 18 years is WAY too little for exposing 15 women (of which 5 have tested positive for HIV). But then again, as we all know here in Canada, criminals get off really easy in this country.
Here are my views on the issue:
- It should be illegal that if you know you have HIV, to not inform your partner (regardless of how long you have been with them or if it’s your first time with them) of being infected. In fact, I think that in this case, singling out professional sex workers would even be beneficial, in that infecting a sex worker (regardless of whether it was protected or unprotected sex) should be a more punishable offense than infecting a “regular” person. This would solely be because sex is a sex worker’s only method to sustain that job, so abstaining from it, like Alexa mentioned she would if anything ever happened, would mean that they would not be able to use this job as a method of livelihood.
- Infecting someone knowingly with HIV should be criminally punishable because you are not killing them immediately, but instead are messing up their life for a LONG time, which to some could be even better than death. Also, you would be depriving them of ability to have sex, which I’m sure we all know is a very enjoyable and fun activity. ;)
- Having sex with someone without telling them that you have HIV not only puts that person in risk of contracting it, but also anyone else that this new person might have sex with that person, whether it be protected or unprotected.
-If anyone I was about to have sex with had an STI/STD, I would expect them to fully disclose it. Depending on my level of sobriety (because that may be a factor), the communicability of the disease, as well as the availability of protection, which for a one night fling is a must.
-…
There was more and I’ll put it up if and/or when I remember.
Any offensive things I said here were completely unintentional, and if they’re there, please correct me. I’ve only recently (within the last 2 months or so, since starting to read Alexa’s blog) realized that courtesans/escorts are not disgusting, desperate people, but usually pretty smart people that have a good life, usually a good past and enjoy their work. Any offensive stuff is a result of years of conditioning by the media that prostitution/sex work is “bad” and wrong. So please excuse me, and let me know if I should change anything. (And a final thanks to Alexa.)
I’ve only recently … realized that courtesans/escorts are not disgusting, desperate people, but usually pretty smart people that have a good life, usually a good past and enjoy their work.
I’m glad I’ve been educational for you.
Thanks for your thoughts.