The QOTW for this week made me search a little deeper into the criminalization of HIV transmission. I can understand why this subject is touchy for different people. It is hard to prove intent in such a situation but the intent of the transmission is the foundation of the criminal charges. There are three different forms of transmission recognized in a criminal case. The first and most serious is an intentional HIV transmission from one partner to another. In this case, the positive person engaged in a sexual act with the sole purpose of infecting their negative partner. Second is reckless transmission, in which a person is seeking sexual gratification but does not wish to infect their partner. Finally, accidental transmission can occur when a positive person is unaware of their positive status. As you may imagine, it is hard for the prosecution to find solid proof that would distinguish between intentional and reckless transmission.
Different legislations must acknowledge which form or forms of transmission are considered a criminal offense. There are three general approaches: criminalization of intentional transmission only, criminalization of all forms of transmission and no criminalization for transmission. Florida states that it is unlawful for an HIV positive person to engage in sexual contact without disclosure and consent. Also, Florida took it one step further in being the first state to prosecute a woman for mother to child HIV transmission. The prosecution stated that the mother did not follow the necessary steps to prevent transmission during pregnancy because she did not want the baby's father to know about her positive status.
Many HIV positive people disagree with the criminalization of reckless HIV transmission. One common belief is that protected sex should be a shared responsibility. I definitely see the validity in this statement. At this point, most people are aware of sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV/AIDS. However, young people often have a sense entitlement and believe they are invincible, as if nothing could ever happen to them. This is far from the truth. You should always use a condom when engaging in sexual activity. However, I do feel that the positive partner is more aware of the seriousness behind HIV/AIDS. They are living with this condition every day of their lives and know the deep impact that it can have. It is their responsibility to inform the negative partner of the possible outcome of the situation.
Another reason why an HIV positive person may dislike the criminalization of HIV transmission is that it once again sheds a negative light on HIV. This will only increase the stigma behind HIV. Depsite this fact, it is still important to have such laws in effect, especially for intentional transmission. The idea of someone actively trying to infect other people is wrong and should be dealt with in a criminal manner.
http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm
***Did You Know?***
HIV positive women that become pregnant will not become sicker simply because of the pregnancy. However, there are some factors within the pregnancy that must be monitored, especially medications. "Short course" treatments that protect newborns from transmission of HIV are not always good for the mother's health. Combination therapies are the best option for expecting mothers. It is important that the mother does not take the medications only during labor and delivery because HIV might develop a resistance to the medications. If a resistance is developed, this can limit future treatment options for the mother. However, many doctors suggest that pregnant mothers should interrupt their treatment course for the first three months of pregnancy. There is a high risk of missing doses due to the nausea and vomiting that is common in the first three months. By missing doses, HIV might get the chance to develop a resistance.
http://www.aids.org/factSheets/611-Pregnancy-and-HIV.html#anchor51213
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really liked all of the information you added about the different transmissions and law information. I wish I had researched the topic more before commenting on the question of the week. I guess there isn't a way to tell who's fault it was in certain cases dealing with HIV transmission. I am still up in the air about my feelings on the university adopting a policy about prosecuting those who knew they were positive and still had unprotected sex. So did you decide that you were against disclosing personal information in this case?
ReplyDeleteI didn't really think about the different intentions that went along with transmission. I would imagine it would be hard to prove someone truly wanting to infect another. I can't even grasp that concept.
ReplyDeleteAs far as HIV positive women not being sicker through the pregnancy...that might be true, but if you add AZT to the mix, which a lot of HIV positive moms-to-be would be on to avoid transmission to the child, I bet they'd say there were sicker than dogs if they just started the regimen! Thanks for the informative Did You Know.
I wonder out of the three which one is the most common. I would only assume that people who are HIV positive do not always want to tell their partner about their status because they really want to have sex at that moment. I also do not see how they can prove that the person intentionally infected another person. If your having sex without a condom than you know the risks and you are still pursuing. So I would think it would be your own fault.
ReplyDelete