Canada: Justice Committee report recommends wide-ranging reforms to HIV criminalisation, including removing HIV non-disclosure from sexual assault law

Yesterday, the House of Commons Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights released a ground-breaking report “The Criminalization of HIV Non-Disclosure in Canada” recommending that the Government of Canada works with each of the Canadian provinces and territories to end the use of sexual assault law to prosecute allegations of HIV non-disclosure.

According to a press release issued by our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network:

People living with HIV currently face imprisonment for aggravated sexual assault and a lifetime designation as a sex offender for not disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners, even in cases where there is little or even zero risk of transmission. This means a person engaging in consensual sex that causes no harm, and poses little or no risk of harm, can be prosecuted and convicted like a violent rapist. We welcome the Committee’s recognition of this unjust reality and their call to end the use of sexual assault laws. We and our allies have spent many years advocating for this critical change.

The report also recommends that Canada limits HIV criminalisation to actual transmission only. The Legal Network notes:

But we must go further: criminal prosecution should be limited to cases of intentional transmission as recommended by the UN’s expert health and human rights bodies. Parliament should heed such guidance. Criminal charges and punishments are the most serious of society’s tools; their use should be limited and a measure of last resort.

However, one of the recommendations that the Legal Network takes issue with is the recommendation to broaden any new law to include other infectious diseases.

Infectious diseases are a public health issue and should be treated as such. We strongly disagree with the recommendation to extend the criminal law to other infectious diseases. We will not solve the inappropriate use of the criminal law against people living with HIV by punishing more people and more health conditions.

Currently, there is a patchwork of inconsistent approaches across each province and territory. Only three provinces — Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta — have a formal policy in place or have directed Crown prosecutors to limit prosecutions of HIV non-disclosure, and they all fall short of putting an end to unjust prosecutions.

A December 2018 federal directive to limit HIV criminalisation, which solely applies to Canada’s territories, is already having some impact — in January 2019 it led to Crown prosecutors in the Northwest Territories dropping a wrongful sexual assault charge against a man living with HIV in Yellowstone. “We followed the directive and chose not to prosecute,” said Crown attorney Alex Godfrey.

Other positive recommendations in the report include:

  • An immediate review of the cases of all individuals who have been convicted for not disclosing their HIV status and who would not have been prosecuted under the new standards set out in the recommendations of the Committee.
  • These standards must reflect “the most recent medical science regarding HIV and its modes of transmission and the criminal law should only apply when there is actual transmission having regard to the realistic possibility of transmission. At this point of time, HIV non-disclosure should never be prosecuted if (1) the infected individual has an undetectable viral load (less than 200 copies per millilitre of blood); (2) condoms are used; (3) the infected individual’s partner is on PrEP or (4) the type of sexual act (such as oral sex) is one where there is a negligible risk of transmission.”
  • And, until a new law is drafted and enacted (which is only likely to happen if the current Liberal Government is re-elected in October), there should be implementation of a common prosecutorial directive across Canada to end criminal prosecutions of HIV non-disclosure, except in cases where there is actual transmission.

The report also recommends that any new legislation should be drafted in consultation with “all relevant stakeholders including the HIV/AIDS community”, which the Legal Network also welcomed.

The report is the result of a study of the ‘Criminalization of Non-Disclosure of HIV Status’ that ran between April and June 2019. Many Canadian experts testified as key witnesses to help MPs gain insight into why Canada’s current approach is wrong. HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE also submitted a brief to the committee, providing international context to Canada’s extremely severe approach to HIV non-disclosure.

The Legal Network concludes:

The next step is actual law reform. The report makes clear that change to the criminal law is needed. Any new legal regime must avoid the harms and stigma that have tainted the law these past 25 years.

Colombia: Constitutional Court overturns HIV criminalisation law

Court strikes down article criminalising the spread of HIV
Google translation, for article in Spanish, scroll down.
 
Among the reasons for the decision, the high court stated that the rule “stigmatized” a population.
Three reasons led the Constitutional Court on Wednesday to overturn Article 411 of Law 599 of 2000, which penalized the spread of the Acquired Immunodeficiency Virus, HIV, and of Hepatitis B.
 
A first reason was that this rule was not a necessary and proportional measure. Second, it stigmatized a population. And the third is that there is another rule in the Penal Code that already typifies the spread of epidemics.
 
The Court’s decision accepted several of the plaintiff’s arguments. According to the plaintiff, the rule violated the rights to equality and restricted the free development of personality, in particular sexual freedom. 
 
The norm established that there would be a prison term of 6 to 12 years for those who, knowing they are HIV positive or sick with hepatitis B, “carry out practices by means of which they can contaminate another person, or donate blood, semen, organs or, in general, anatomical components”.
 
According to the lawsuit, this penalized the fact that a person living with these diseases had sex, and made it a crime regardless of whether that person took the preventive measures that make the transmission of diseases unlikely, such as antiretroviral treatments and others.
 
The plaintiff argued that, although the purpose of this measure was to protect public health, this did not justify prohibiting a population group from freely expressing its sexuality, and stressed that there would be no effect when there were consensual relationships in which measures were taken to prevent contagion.
 
Regarding the violation of equality, the lawsuit held that the article only referred to and penalized people with HIV or hepatitis B, and not others with potentially contagious and delicate diseases.
 
Other views
As part of the debate on this law, the Court received 15 statements from different organizations, ministries, universities, and even from the Constitutional Court of South Africa – against it – to take into consideration. And there were almost as many arguments in favour as against. 
 
The Colombian League for the Fight against AIDS supported the lawsuit because it considered that the law did violate rights, added that laws that penalize exposure to HIV leave the entire burden of prevention on people living with it and said that the real challenges were more education and better access to medical testing and counseling services.
 
The statement sent by the Ministry of Justice gave reason to the plaintiff that the rule was discriminatory because it was addressed only to people with HIV – who have also been recognized as subjects of special constitutional protection – or hepatitis B. It also argued that there was no justification for the rule being for people with these two diseases and not for others who are aware of having different risks of infectious-contagious diseases. 
 
However, faced with the restriction of sexual freedom, the Ministry of Justice considered: the rule “does not violate the right to the free development of the personality, but is limited to establishing the penal consequences that its abusive and harmful exercise entails with respect to the rights of others and the community”. 
 
The Ministry of Health indicated, on the contrary, that the article did not violate either the right to equality or the free development of the personality and asked to leave it as it was.
 
The Attorney General’s Office agreed with the plaintiff that the rule punished the fact of having sex even when there was no transmission of the disease, which, says the Public Prosecutor’s Office, is not true. For the Attorney General’s Office, the rule was clear that in order for the crime to be configured there must be an intention to cause harm by engaging in practices that could end in contagion. The Public Prosecutor’s Office asked the Court to declare itself inhibited.

Corte tumba artículo que penalizaba la propagación del VIH

Entre las razones, el alto tribunal dijo que la norma “estigmatizaba” a una población.

Tres razones llevaron este miércoles a la Corte Constitucional a tumbar el artículo 411 de la ley 599 del 2000 que penalizaba la propagación del Virus de Inmunodeficiencia Adquirida, VIH, origen al sida, y la Hepatitis B.

Una primera razón es que esta norma no era una medida necesaria y proporcional. La segunda, estigmatizaba a una población. Y la tercera es que hay otra norma en el  Código Penal que tipifica ya la propagación de epidemias.

La decisión de la Corte acoge varios argumentos del demandante. Según este, la norma vulneraba los derechos a la igualdad y restringía el libre desarrollo de la personalidad, en particular, la libertad sexual. 

La norma establecía que habría prisión de 6 a 12 años para quien, sabiéndose portador del VIH o enfermo de hepatitis B, “realice prácticas mediante las cuales puedan contaminar a otra persona, o done sangre, semen, órganos o en general componentes anatómicos”.

De acuerdo con la demanda, esto penalizaba el hecho de que una persona que viviera con estas enfermedades tuviera sexo, y lo convertía en delito sin importar si se esa persona tomaba las medidas preventivas que hacen improbable la transmisión de enfermedades, como tratamientos antirretrovirales y otros.

El demandante sostenía que, aunque el fin de esta medida era proteger la salud pública, esto no justificaba prohibirle a un grupo poblacional expresar libremente su sexualidad, y resaltaba que no habría afectación cuando se tuvieran relaciones consensuadas en las que se tomaran medidas para prevenir contagios.

Sobre la vulneración a la igualdad, la demanda sostenía que el artículo solo se refería y penalizaba a personas con VIH o hepatitis B, y no a otras con enfermedades también potencialmente contagiosas y delicadas.

 

Otras voces

Como parte del debate sobre esta norma, la Corte recibió 15 conceptos de diferentes organizaciones, ministerios, universidades, e incluso de la Corte Constitucional de Sudáfrica- en contra-, para alimentar sus consideraciones. Y hubo casi tantos argumentos a favor como en contra. 

La Liga Colombiana de Lucha contra el Sida apoyó la demanda pues consideró que con la norma sí se vulneraban los derechos, agregó que leyes que penalizan la exposición al VIH dejan toda la carga de la prevención a las personas que viven con él y dijo que los verdaderos desafíos son más educación y mejor acceso a servicios de pruebas médicas y consejería.

El concepto enviado por el Ministerio de Justicia le dio la razón al demandante en que la norma es discriminatoria pues estaba dirigida únicamente a personas con VIH –que además han sido reconocidas como sujetos de especial protección constitucional– o hepatitis B. También argumentó que no se advertía justificación para que la norma fuera para personas con esas dos enfermedades y no para otras que conscientes de tener enfermedades infectocontagiosas riesgosas distintas. 

Sin embargo, frente a la restricción a la libertad sexual, la cartera de Justicia consideró: la norma “no vulnera el derecho al libre desarrollo de la personalidad, sino que se limita a establecer las consecuencias penales que acarrea su ejercicio abusivo y lesivo frente a los derechos de las demás personas y la comunidad”. 

El Ministerio de Salud indicó, al contrario, que la norma demandada no vulneraba ni el derecho a la igualdad ni el libre desarrollo de la personalidad y pidió dejarla como estaba.

La Procuraduría coincidió con el demandante en que la norma castigaba el hecho de tener sexo aun cuando no exista transmisión de la enfermedad, lo cual, dice el Ministerio Público, no es cierto. Para la Procuraduría, la norma era clara en que para que se configurara el delito debía existir una intención de causar daño realizando prácticas que podían terminar en contagio. El Ministerio Público pidió a la Corte declararse inhibida.

US: HIV criminalisation laws that require people convicted to be on the sex offender registry are ineffective and stigmatising

THE PUSH TO END ‘PUNISHMENT FEVER’ AGAINST PEOPLE WITH HIV

Advocates say laws that land people with HIV on the sex offender registry are outdated and dangerous.

Every five years, Mark Hunter has to pay around $300 to have his picture displayed in the newspaper and notices mailed to his neighbors, informing them that he is a sex offender. While on parole, he said, he pays about $60 a month in fees and has to attend a sex offender treatment class. His crime? In 2008, he was convicted of failing to tell two ex-girlfriends that he was HIV-positive.

Though neither partner contracted HIV, Hunter was still convicted under Arkansas’s HIV exposure law, which requires those who know they are HIV-positive to disclose their status to sexual partners. Sentenced to a dozen years in prison, he was released in 2011 after serving almost three.

But now, he must register as a sex offender, incurring the same obstacles, humiliation, and costs many others on registries face.

In Louisiana, where he now lives, Hunter’s driver’s license has “sex offender” written in capital letters under his photo, per the state’s registry requirements.

“When I saw it on my license, that was one of the most hardest things ever,” said Hunter, now 44. “Those two words on my license are still a hindrance to the life I want to live.”

Lousiana, Arkansas, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington State require, or authorize courts to require, those convicted under HIV criminalization laws to be on the sex offender registry, according to the Center for HIV Law and Policy. Advocates, who condemn the statutes as ineffective, stigmatizing, and unscientific, are working to modernize the laws in the courts and state legislatures.

But even some of the fixes fall short, they say, including an amendment to Louisiana’s law that was enacted last year that removed biting and spitting as specifically identified means of transmission. Disclosure of HIV status is still required.

“We do not need to be punishing people through the criminal law,” said Robert Suttle, assistant director of the Sero Project, which advocates HIV criminalization law reforms. “This is a public health issue.”

 

Hunter, a hemophiliac, was diagnosed with HIV in 1981, at age 7. He said he and his family largely kept his status a secret.

“People were treated harshly who had this disease,” said Hunter. “They were treated like outcasts.”

But though the public’s perception of HIV has evolved, being on a sex offender registry carries a similar stigma. After he was released from prison in 2011, Hunter settled in Louisiana. He has found it difficult to find work, he said. Louisiana’s sex offender registry law requires him to register any address where he stays longer than seven days.

In the 1980s and 1990s, a flurry of HIV criminalization laws were enacted, many of which remain on the books. Today, 26 states have HIV-specific laws that criminalize exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

HIV became “swept up” in the era’s “punishment fever,” explained Trevor Hoppe, author of “Punishing Disease: HIV and the Criminalization of Sickness.”

“Legislators around the country were already in the mode of punishment,” said Hoppe. “It was kind of a general approach they were taking to many social problems.”

Because there is no national database that tracks prosecutions, it is difficult to know how many people have been charged, convicted, or placed on the registry as a result of HIV criminalization laws, according to Catherine Hanssens, executive director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy. A comprehensive study of Florida’s criminalization laws found that more than 600 people had been arrested for an HIV-related offense between 1986 and 2017.

Scientists, psychologists, healthcare providers, and HIV-positive advocates have condemned the laws over the decades since they were enacted, noting that there has been no association found between criminalization statutes and lower transmission rates.

“People with HIV are not out there passing HIV along in some intentional way,” said Dorian-gray Alexander, a member of the Louisiana Coalition on Criminalization and Health who is living with HIV. More than a third of the time, the transmission of HIV is between people who don’t know their status.

HIV criminalization statutes rarely take into account advances in treatment, condom use, or actual risk of transmission, according to advocates. For instance, in Arkansas, where Hunter was convicted, it is a felony to sexually penetrate another person without first disclosing one’s HIV-positive status. However, penetration is broadly defined as an “intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body or of any object into a genital or anal opening of another person’s body.”

Cheryl Maples, an Arkansas attorney, plans to file a petition in federal court in the coming weeks that challenges the law’s constitutionality, she told The Appeal. Maples, whose uncle died of AIDS-related complications, has defended several people charged with HIV exposure. The state attorney general’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

“It is basically a crime that is against the LGBT community and other communities that are in disfavor,” said Maples. “People that are being charged with this are not predators.”

 

In Tennessee, sexual contact is not even required under the state’s aggravated prostitution statute. A person is in violation of the law if he or she knows they are HIV-positive and works “in a house of prostitution or loiters in a public place for the purpose of being hired to engage in sexual activity.” Those convicted are placed on the sex offender registry and face up to 15 years in prison.

People convicted of aggravated prostitution can petition to be removed from the registry if they were victims of sexual violence, domestic abuse, or human trafficking. Last year, then-Governor Bill Haslam signed into law a bill that allows those convicted as juveniles with aggravated prostitution to have their records expunged if they were victims of human trafficking.

But regardless of why or when someone engages in sex work, sex workers living with HIV need “services, not handcuffs,” said Alex Andrews, co-founder of Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP) Behind Bars.

“When you put someone on a registry for having HIV, that’s public information,” said Andrews. “Put sex work on top of that and you have a really bad situation for survival.”

The state’s aggravated prostitution statute and HIV exposure law are both felonies that require sex offender registration. That’s different from the way Tennessee law governs the disclosure of other infectious diseases. It is a misdemeanor to engage in “intimate contact” without disclosing a diagnosis of Hepatitis B or C, but failure to disclose those diseases does not require sex offender registration.

 

As attempts are made to reform HIV criminalization laws, advocates worry about changes that tie criminalization solely to a person’s risk of transmission. Doing so, they warn, could marginalize those without access to treatment and those with detectable viral loads. (Those with undetectable viral loads, like Hunter, have “effectively no risk” of transmitting the virus, according to the CDC.)

Repealing HIV-specific laws is often insufficient, they add, because people can still be exposed to harsh punishments. People in states without such laws have been charged with attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon for a range of incidents including spitting. (HIV cannot be transmitted through saliva.)

Modernizing statutes should focus on a person’s intent, and conduct likely to cause harm, not a failure to disclose, said Hanssens, the HIV law and policy center executive director. Any reform must also cease placing people on the registry, a practice she called “irrational and unconscionable.”

“You cannot treat consensual sexual contact as a criminal wrong simply because that particular person happens to have one or another disease,” said Hanssens. “It’s a pointless and dangerous and stigmatizing response to what is a public health issue.”

Hunter has joined HIV-positive advocates from across the country in speaking out about the harms of criminalization and the sex offender registry in particular. He also works to reduce the persistent stigma and fear surrounding HIV by helping young people tell their families they are HIV-positive.

“They need to understand that it’s not a death sentence,” said Hunter. “I’m married. My wife is not HIV-positive, and we are trying to have a child.”

He has started a nonprofit organization dedicated to HIV and AIDS education in his brother’s name, the Dr. Michael A. Hunter Foundation. His brother, like Hunter, was a hemophiliac who contracted HIV from a blood transfusion. He died from AIDS-related complications in 1994.

“I’m Mark, and I happen to be HIV-positive,” said Hunter. “I had to embrace that, and once I embraced it, I let go of a lot of the pain.”

Nigeria: Akwa Ibom State intends to put in place HIV criminalisation law

Source: The Sun Nigeria on March 18, 2019

HIV status: Akwa Ibom plan law against spread

Akwa Ibom State government has expressed an intent to enact a law that would enable it prosecute persons found to wilfully infect or transmit HIV virus to another person.

This comes in the wake President Muhammadu Buhari unveiling the Nigeria AIDS Indicator Survey and Impact Survey (NAIIS) last week, which revealed that the state is top on the HIV prevalence scale with 5.5% against the national prevalence of 1.4% for the age group of 15 to 64 years.

The state Commissioner for Health, Dr Dominic Ukpong, while speaking with the press on Monday in Uyo in reaction to the NAIIS result, said other long term measures to be adopted to bring the prevalence down in the state would be to lead advocacy to the legislative arm of government to put in place laws to protect PLHIV and to curb transmission of new infections by expeditiously deliberating and passing the bill on Anti-stigma and Discrimination against PLHIV/AIDS.

 “We will lead advocacy to local government councils in the state to lend regular and dedicated support for HIV intervention and other health programmes in their respective local government areas,”Ukpong said as one of the long term measures.

But for the time being, he said the state government would increase access to testing services by providing enough rapid-test kits so that all primary and secondary health facilities in the state would be able to provide free HIV testing services to the citizens.

The state government, Ukpong said, would also increase “access to treatment by creating new comprehensive treatment centres in one senatorial district to be fully supported by the state government; this will complement other comprehensive treatment centres supported by international partners.

The commissioner attributed the high prevalence of HIV in the state to many factors.

“The location of the state with a long coast line of 129 km stretching from Ikot Abasi to Oron, an airport, good road network, peaceful environment, friendly disposition of our people, good cuisines and fast-developing economy have made our state the destination of choice for both national and international visitors. All these are not without attendant public health consequences, like transmission of communicable diseases which HIV/AIDS cannot be excluded,” he said.

He also said the seemingly scaling down of HIV/AIDS campaign in the state was due to limited healthcare resources shared to other equally compelling demands like Ebola and Lassa fever, which were no issues some years ago.

“The current HIV/AIDS situation in the state calls for a more robust multi-sectoral response towards curbing the epidemic in the state.  Consequently, the state government will step up collaboration through the Akwa Ibom State Agency for the Control of AIDS (AKSACA) and Akwa Ibom State HIV/AIDS and STI Control Programme (SASCP) with implementing partners. Faith based organisations, PLHIV/AIDS, and other stakeholders towards proffering immediate and long-term interventions for the state.

“We all know HIV is transmitted mainly by unprotected sexual contact with infected persons hence, Akwa Ibomites should imbibe the simple ABCs of HIV prevention – Abstinence, being faithful to one’s partner, correct and consistence condom use and refraining from the use of illicit drugs which could be injectable or otherwise.

“I therefore urge Akwa Ibomites to stand up and fight to stop the transmission of HIV virus; we have a part to play no matter how little,” Ukpong said.

Belarus: Experience of serodiscordant couple in Belarus demonstrates how punitive legislation can harm HIV prevention efforts

Published in echo.msk.ru on March 1, 2019 – Google translation, for from Russian article please scroll down. 

A prison awaits us: what are discordant couples in Belarus afraid of?

Ilya and Eugene – a gay couple from Belarus. They have been together for several years and call themselves an “interesting couple,” because they live in a discordant relationship. Recently, during sex, they broke a condom. They decided to start post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). It would seem that everything was simple: within 72 hours after the risk of infection, you need to start taking pills. Moreover, the steps are known: go to the doctor, explain the situation, get the pills, drink a month’s course – and you can forget about the problem. But due to the peculiarities of local legislation, it is much more difficult to get help than it seems at first glance. AIDS.CENTER figured out what Belarusian discordant couples face and what are the ways out of the current situation in the republic.

“As soon as our condom broke, we consulted with friends and went to Minsk [to the infectious diseases hospital] on Kropotkin Street for a PCP,” recalls Ilya. The doctor listened to him and with a “very dissatisfied face” asked to disclose the name of the partner. Motivated by the fact that a young person must be registered, and in such cases, the medical officer “must report to the law enforcement authorities.”

The man asked if such a law had not been repealed, but they explained to him that it remains in force and that the partner would incur criminal liability. Of course, the man refused to tell him about Evgeny, but the doctor insisted: “How do I know? Maybe you are slandering someone? Suddenly you will now go to sell the medicines that I will give you? ” The pill was not given.

Indeed, in the Criminal Code of Belarus there is Art. 157 (Human immunodeficiency virus infection), according to which, if a person deliberately put another in danger of becoming infected with HIV, he can receive up to a prison term. It is noteworthy that the article provided for criminal liability, even if the injured party had no complaints against the defendant. And infectious disease doctors can initiate proceedings. Moreover, Belarus together with Russia are leaders  in the criminal prosecution of people with HIV. For example, in 2017, 130 criminal cases were initiated under Art. 157 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus.

However, in the near future, legislation in the Republic may be relaxed, for example, on December 19, 2018, an amendment was made to decriminalize transmission of the disease. According to this, people with a diagnosis will no longer be prosecuted “for putting the threat of HIV transmission and HIV infection” on their partners if they have notified them in advance about their diagnosis. Now the bill has been submitted to the Council of the Republic and the president for approval.

“There are still a dozen of prohibitions  for people with HIV-positive status in the legislation of Belarus ,” says Irina Statkevich, chairman of the local HIV-service organization “Positive Movement”. – In 2018, they made positive changes to the standard “Children living with HIV are prohibited from playing sports.” It is noteworthy that the children themselves living with HIV initiated the changes in the norm, namely, they went to the meeting at the Ministry of Health. ”

In addition, before people with HIV were forbidden to adopt children, now this article has been revised, but still there are some nuances in the application.

Who is responsible for health?

Ilya is convinced that he must bear responsibility for his own health. Once he himself worked as an HIV counselor and conducted rapid testing, so he knew that there was very little time for PEP after unprotected intercourse, only three days.

“In my opinion, the doctor was very unprofessional,” he complains. “The reason for concern was that at that time my young man and I didn’t know exactly his viral load.”

“In Belarus, as in many other countries, there is no document that would clearly define the indications for postexposure prophylaxis, and this is due to objective difficulties,” says infectious disease doctor Nikolai Golobrudko.

According to him, the PCP is provided in cases of occupational risks, for example, if a nurse injected with a syringe, which took blood from an HIV-positive patient. Or in some domestic situations (for example, the child found a syringe in the sandbox and injected with them) or at certain sexual contacts (for example, after rape).

Statkevich agrees with the lack of regulations for issuing such tablets. “Therefore, the requirement to name your partner in this regard is unlikely to exist,” she said, assuming that the doctor could ask the partner’s data for risk assessment. “The doctor could look at the viral load information in the partner’s registration card and thus understand how much the situation is really emergency.”

Ultimately, Ilya received postexposure prophylaxis, but not from doctors who were supposed to provide it, friends from Russia helped and promptly transferred it.

Soon he will go for tests, and if he is around, he wants to go to an appointment with the very same doctor: “Since it was she who jeopardized my health and my life. Requirements of this kind from a doctor, in my opinion, violate the law on medical confidentiality; disclosing a person’s HIV status can be a criminal offense. After all, there are people who will use this information far from for good purposes. ”

How to change the situation?

The case of Ilya is a good demonstration of how HIV prevention is related to legislative norms, in particular, with 157 articles, Statkevich believes. “Recently this topic has been actively discussed, there are real cases of imprisonment. And many people seek to keep secrets at all costs so as not to harm the HIV-positive partner, ”she adds.

A public organization advocates a reduction in the criminalization of HIV infection by offering several points. First, reclassify cases under article 157 from public to private accusation. Thus, they will be initiated not by representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the Prosecutor’s Office, but at the initiative of a person who has suffered from a crime. In addition, the case may be closed in case of reconciliation of the parties.

Secondly, the possibility of blackmail by an HIV-negative partner should be excluded. To do this, community activists offer either to issue an “informed consent to have sex with an HIV-positive partner,” suppose a infectious diseases doctor; or, which seems more realistic, to supplement the criminalizing article with the phrase “in the event of failure to take measures to prevent infection (refusal to take antiretroviral therapy or use a condom)”.

Thirdly, to define the terms of the Criminal Code article itself more clearly, for example, what is the “knowledge” and so on. Since the vagueness of the wording allows them to be interpreted unnecessarily broadly.

“Medical prophylaxis after cases of unprotected sex is sometimes needed, but it should not become a substitute for concern about the safety of one’s sexual behavior, the use of condoms,” says Goloborudko.

The doctor adds that there is another effective way of prevention for people with increased risk of infection, for example, for men who have sex with men, and for sex workers – pre-contact prophylaxis (PrEP or PrEP).

However, there is a problem with access to these pills, and both DCT and PEP. Antiretroviral drugs in Belarus are procured centrally for the state budget, and pharmacies simply do not arrive, that is, it is impossible to buy them yourself, at least legally. This means that due to stigma, fear to open up even to doctors and unwillingness to donate partners, the number of people with HIV may increase. The principle is simple: do not drink therapy – either you are infected yourself, or you transmit the virus to another. It remains to hope that a program on pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis may appear in Belarus (at least now such conversations are under way), which could be given out not only in state hospitals, but also in public organizations.

 

Нас ждет тюрьма: чего боятся дискордантные пары в Беларуси

Илья и Евгений — пара геев из Беларуси. Они уже несколько лет вместе и называют себя «интересной парочкой», поскольку живут в дискордантных отношениях. Недавно во время секса у них порвался презерватив. Они приняли решение начать постконтактную профилактику (ПКП). Казалось бы, все просто: в течение 72 часов после риска инфицирования нужно начать принимать таблетки. Тем более что шаги известны: прийти к врачу, объяснить ситуацию, получить таблетки, пропить месячный курс — и о проблеме можно забыть. Но из-за особенностей местного законодательства получить помощь гораздо сложнее, чем кажется на первый взгляд. СПИД.ЦЕНТР разбирался, с чем сталкиваются белорусские дискордантные пары и какие есть выходы из сложившейся в республике ситуации.

Не сдал — не получил

«Как только у нас порвался презерватив, мы посоветовались с друзьями и поехали в Минск [в инфекционную больницу] на улицу Кропоткина за ПКП», — вспоминает Илья. Врач его выслушал и с «очень недовольным лицом» попросил раскрыть имя партнера. Мотивировав тем, что молодого человека необходимо поставить на учет и в подобных случаях медицинский работник «должен докладывать правоохранительным органам».

Мужчина уточнил, не отменен ли еще такой закон, но ему пояснили, что он действует и партнер понесет уголовную ответственность. Само собой, мужчина отказался сдавать Евгения, но врач настаивала: «Откуда мне знать? Может быть, вы клевещете на кого-нибудь? Вдруг вы сейчас пойдете продавать лекарства, которые я вам выдам?». Таблетки так и не дали.

Действительно, в Уголовном кодексе Беларуси есть ст. 157 (Заражение вирусом иммунодефицита человека), согласно которой, если человек заведомо поставил другого в опасность инфицирования ВИЧ, он может получить вплоть до тюремного срока. Примечательно, что статья предусматривала уголовную ответственность, даже если пострадавшая сторона не имела никаких претензий к ответчику. А инициировать возбуждение дела могут врачи-инфекционисты. Причем Беларусь вместе с Россией — лидеры по уголовному преследованию людей с ВИЧ. Например, в 2017 году было возбуждено 130 уголовных дел по ст. 157 УК Республики Беларусь.

Однако в ближайшее время законодательство в республике может быть смягчено, так, 19 декабря 2018 года внесена поправка о декриминализации передачи болезни. Согласно ей, люди с диагнозом больше не будут подвергаться уголовному преследованию «за постановку в угрозу передачи ВИЧ и заражение ВИЧ» своих партнеров, если они заранее уведомили их о своем диагнозе. Сейчас законопроект направлен для одобрения в Совет Республики и президенту.

«В законодательстве Беларуси все еще существует дюжина запретов для людей с ВИЧ-положительным статусом, — рассказывает председатель местной ВИЧ-сервисной организации «Позитивное движение» Ирина Статкевич. — В 2018 году внесли положительные изменения в норму «Детям, живущим с ВИЧ, запрещено заниматься спортом». Примечательно, что сами дети, живущие с ВИЧ, выступили инициаторами изменения нормы, а именно — ходили на встречу в Минздрав».

Кроме того, раньше людям с ВИЧ было запрещено усыновлять детей, сейчас эту статью пересмотрели, но все равно остались некоторые нюансы в применении.

Кто отвечает за здоровье?

Илья убежден, что ответственность за свое здоровье должен нести сам. Когда-то он сам работал консультантом по вопросам ВИЧ и проводил экспресс-тестирование, поэтому знал, что после незащищенного полового акта времени для ПКП очень мало, всего лишь трое суток.

«На мой взгляд, врач поступила очень непрофессионально, — сетует он. — Повод для беспокойства был — на тот момент мой молодой человек и я точно не знали его вирусную нагрузку».

«В Беларуси, как и во многих других странах, нет документа, который бы четко определял показания к проведению постконтактной профилактики, и это связано с объективными трудностями», — констатирует врач-инфекционист Николай Голоборудько.

По его словам, ПКП предоставляют в случаях профессиональных рисков, например, если медсестра укололась шприцем, которым забирала кровь у ВИЧ-положительного пациента. Или в некоторых бытовых ситуациях (например, ребенок нашел в песочнице шприц и укололся им) или при определенных половых контактах (например, после изнасилования).

Статкевич соглашается с отсутствием регламента выдачи таких таблеток. «Поэтому требование назвать своего партнера в данной связи вряд ли существует, — уточняет она, предполагая, что врач могла спрашивать данные партнера для оценки рисков. — Доктор мог посмотреть информацию о вирусной нагрузке в учетной карточке партнера и таким образом понять, насколько ситуация действительно экстренная».

В конечном счете постконтактную профилактику Илья все же получил, но не от врачей, которые должны ее предоставить, — помогли знакомые из России, оперативно передали ее.

Скоро он пойдет сдавать анализы, и если «плюсанет», то хочет попасть на прием к тому же самому врачу: «Так как это она поставила под угрозу мое здоровье и мою жизнь. Требования такого рода от врача, по моему мнению, нарушают закон о врачебной тайне, раскрытие ВИЧ-статуса человека может быть уголовно наказуемым. Ведь есть люди, которые данную информацию будут использовать далеко не для благих целей».

Как изменить ситуацию?

Случай Ильи — хорошая демонстрация того, как связана профилактика ВИЧ с законодательными нормами, в частности со 157 статьей, считает Статкевич. «В последнее время эта тема активно обсуждается, есть реальные случаи лишения свободы. А многие люди стремятся сохранить тайну любой ценой, чтобы не нанести вред ВИЧ-положительному партнеру», — добавляет она.

Общественная организация ратует за снижение криминализации инфицирования ВИЧ, предлагая несколько пунктов. Во-первых, переквалифицировать дела по статье 157 с публичного обвинения в частное. Таким образом, они будут возбуждаться не представителями МВД или прокуратуры, а по инициативе человека, пострадавшего от преступления. К тому же дела могут быть закрыты в случае примирения сторон.

Во-вторых, следует исключить возможность шантажа со стороны ВИЧ-отрицательного партнера. Для этого общественники предлагают либо оформлять «информированное согласие на вступление в половые контакты с ВИЧ-позитивным партнером», предположим, у врача-инфекциониста; или же, что кажется более реальным, дополнить криминализирующую статью фразой «в случае непринятия мер по профилактике заражения (отказ от приема антиретровирусной терапии либо от использования презерватива)».

В-третьих, более четко определить сами термины статьи УК, например, в чем заключается «заведомость» и так далее. Поскольку размытость формулировок позволяет трактовать их неоправданно широко.

«Медикаментозная профилактика после случаев незащищенного полового контакта иногда нужна, но она не должна становиться заменой заботы о безопасности своего полового поведения, использования презервативов», — говорит Голоборудько.

Врач добавляет, что есть другой эффективный способ профилактики для людей с повышенными рисками инфицирования, например, для мужчин, практикующих секс с мужчинами, и для секс-работниц — доконтактная профилактика (ДКП или PrEP).

Однако есть проблема с доступом к таким таблеткам, причем как ДКП, так и ПКП. Антиретровирусные препараты в Беларуси закупаются централизованно за госбюджет, а в аптеки просто не поступают, то есть купить их самостоятельно, по крайней мере легально, никак нельзя. А значит из-за стигмы, страха раскрыться даже врачам и нежелания сдавать партнеров количество людей с ВИЧ может увеличиваться. Принцип прост: не пьешь терапию — либо инфицируешься сам, либо передаешь вирус другому. Остается надеяться, что в Беларуси может появиться программа по до— и постконтактной профилактике (по крайней мере сейчас такие разговоры ведутся), которую могли бы выдавать не только в государственных больницах, но и в общественных организациях.

US: Five laws categorised as “bad” laws by the Human Rights Campaign in Missouri , including HIV/AIDS criminalisation laws

Missouri ranked in lowest category for LGBTQ protections, nondiscrimination

The Human Rights Campaign recently released their fifth annual State Equality Index — a state-by-state report detailing statewide laws and policies that affect LGBTQ people, assessing how well states are doing to protect LGBTQ individuals from discrimination.

This year, Missouri received the lowest rating, “High Priority to Achieve Basic Equality.” This rating is given to states that focus on raising suport for basic LGBTQ equality laws, such as non-discrimination laws, and for states focusing on municipal protections for LGBTQ people including opposing negative legislation.

Twenty-eight states earned this rating. Seventeen states earned the highest rating, “Working Toward Innovative Equality,” while the remaining five earned “Solidifying Equality” or “Building Equality.”

Karis Agnew, field director for PROMO, Missouri’s statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization, explained that they expected this rating for Missouri.

“It does not surprise me because there are basic protections that LGBTQ people lack in Missouri and those include protection of employment, housing and public accommodations,” Agnew said.

Missouri has a total of six laws that benefit LGBTQ people — hate crime laws, a college and universities non-discrimination law, a sexual orientation non-discrimination policy for state employees, an anti-bullying law specifically for cyberbullying, transgender inclusion in sports, and name and gender updates on identification documents for drivers licenses.

Missouri has five laws that the HRC categorizes as “bad” laws including HIV/AIDS criminalization laws, a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and transgender exclusions in state Medicaid coverage.

Missouri lacks all parenting laws such as parental presumption for same-sex couples, second parent adoption, and foster care non-discrimination. Missouri also lacks basic non-discrimination laws for employment, housing, public accommodation, education, adoption, foster care, insurance, credit, and jury selection.

The absence of youth laws in Missouri include anti-bullying laws, protection from conversion therapy, and laws to address LGBTQ youth homelessness. In the health and safety category, Missouri lacks laws including LGBTQ nondiscrimantion protections in Affordable Care Act exchanges, transgender healthcare coverage, and name and gender updates on identification documents for birth certificates.

Alex Padilla, co-president of Spectrum, an LGBTQ group at Missouri State Univerity, explained his fear regarding how few laws Missouri has protecting LGBTQ individuals like himself.

“Whenever I first came out, I was working at a fast food job and I was worried that I could be fired for who I was,” Padilla said.

He explained that he did a quick search online and found that there were no laws protecting him from being harassed or fired because of who he was.

Agnew, who prefers using gender-neutral pronouns, explained that although this rating is low, organizations like PROMO are working hard behind the scenes to make sure Missouri’s laws are progressing.

“When it comes to passing laws that are pro-equality, the thing that we really need the most to be able to do that is make sure that we don’t have bills that are anti-LGBTQ,” Agnew said.

Agnew explained that in 2018 five anti-LGBTQ laws were filed but PROMO worked to ensure zero made it to the governor’s desk to be signed.

“When those are filed, that is our priority, so it is really hard for us to file proactive legislation and pass proactive legislation when we have legislation that is harmful to LGBTQ people that we work so hard to prevent from passing,” Agnew said.

Agnew said a big reason why Missouri is far behind other states in passing pro-LGBTQ legislation is that Missouri legislators are not aware of what it is like to live as an LGBTQ individual.

“I think a lot of our legislators in Missouri honestly don’t know what it’s like to be LGBTQ — the majority of our legislators are not LGBTQ themselves,” Agnew said. “And because of that, I think a lot of them have a lot to learn from their constituents that are.”

Agnew said this year is the 21st year that PROMO has worked to file the Missouri Nondiscrimination Act, which would add protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in places of employment, housing and public accommodations.

“When their constituents aren’t bringing it up they assume it’s not important and not needed,” Agnew said. “The number one thing people can do is engage their elected officials and talk to them about why something like the Missouri Nondiscrimination Act is so important to them.”

Padilla explained how important it is for students to get involved.

“Help us lobby for equality, Padilla said. “Advocating for these things and showing that you are an ally is really helpful to all of Missouri and all of Missouri’s LGBTQ people.”

PROMO is hosting an “Equality Day,” a day of lobbying where people in the community come up to Jefferson City and talk to legislators about the Missouri Nondiscrimination Act on April 10.

Uganda: Mapping of the legal environment shows how the current criminal justice system discriminates against people living with HIV

Published in the Daily Monitor on Febraury 22, 2019

Report shows how laws discriminate against HIV positive people

KAMPALA- Various existing laws criminalise people living with HIV/ Aids, according to a new report released in Kampala on Thursday.

The report is titled: “Draft report on the assessment and mapping of the legal environment on provisions of HIV and TB services to let populations, persons living with HIV and tuberculosis”

“The existing legal framework is not favourable for some categories of the key, vulnerable and priority populations to freely access health services in Uganda. Specifically, the lifestyles sex workers, men who have sex with men, transgender persons and makes them most affected by the existing legal framework in Uganda,” read part of the report

It adds: “The laws criminalise sex work, same sex relationships and drug use. This results into violence, harassment, disappointment of sex workers and their legal recourse to address injustice against them.” “The other law, the HIV and Aids prevention and Control Act although not specifically targeting key vulnerable and priority populations, has implications for both the general affected by HIV in Uganda.”

The report indicates that the HIV and Aids Prevention and Control Act 2014 provides for voluntary HIV testing in Sub Section 9. However, the voluntarism is not considered if a person commits a sexual offense as part of the criminal proceedings and yet Section 8 provides for identity of a person tested with HIV not to be disclosed or released to any person except in accordance with the law and medical standards.

The report was carried out by civil society organisation Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) in conjunction with Aids and Rights Alliance for South Africa (ARASA).

The current criminal justice system is also discriminative as it hands down more deterrent jail terms to those suspects found to be living with HIV than their counterparts that are not.

Reacting to the aforementioned finding, a law professor at Makerere University, Prof. Ben Twinomugisha, explained that sometimes it’s prudent for the prosecution to take an HIV test of a suspect accused of committing a sexual offense for purposes of securing a conviction.

However, he was also quick to say that this compulsory HIV testing will lead to violation of their human rights and that this will drive those infected away instead of going to hospital to get medication.

“But a civil society organisation and I, have since petitioned court challenging Section 43 of the HIV Prevention and Control Act about criminalization of HIV,”  Prof. Twinomugisha said

“Why is it that a person suffering from Hepatitis B, which is more deadly than HIV are not subjected to a test when they commit a crime,” he wondered.

The study was carried out in three districts of Gulu, Mbarara and Tororo.

The study was mainly about the extent to which laws and policies protect and promote the rights of persons living with HIV/ Aids, let populations like sex workers, truck drivers and fishermen can access health care and services.

The HIV prevalence in Uganda stands at 6.2%. In 2016, approximately 1.4 million people were living with HIV and 28,000 Ugandans were estimated to have died of Aids-related illness.

Travel and long-stay restrictions for foreign nationals with HIV have no logical basis and have been deemed a human rights violation by the United Nations

Published in South China Morning Post on February 5, 2019

Visa restrictions for HIV-positive immigrants still in place in dozens of countries

  • Recent leak in Singapore of data of HIV-positive people renewed attention on its curbs on long-term stays by those who have the virus
  • Countries with restrictions include Russia and the United Arab Emirates; there’s no logical basis for them any more, UNAids says

A data leak of Singaporean medical records exposing the HIV-positive status of 14,200 people last month triggered concerns about a backlash for those whose health status was made public in a country that continues to stigmatise the disease.

But the case, involving the records of 8,800 foreign nationals who tested positive for HIV in Singapore, also shines a spotlight on the city state’s restrictive policies towards foreigners with HIV, who face barriers to staying in the country for more than 90 days unless married to a Singaporean national.

The records were leaked by a foreigner in just such a situation, American Mikhy Farrera Brochez, who was deported after serving jail time for drug-related crimes and fraud, including hiding his HIV status. He was able to access the records with help from his boyfriend, a Singaporean doctor.

Singapore is one of only a handful of developed nations that still have laws restricting the long-term stay of foreign nationals with HIV – laws that have been deemed a human rights violation by the United Nations.

“When this [1998] law was brought in there was a lot more fear of unknown issues around disease … but [today] the logic is just not borne out by any scientific or medical basis,” says Eamonn Murphy, UNAids regional director for Asia and the Pacific.

Instead, countries that still have such restrictions in place often do so because of “historical convention, ideology, or even passivity”, Murphy says. He notes that UNAids is renewing its focus on the issue this year, compiling a new report on national restrictions.

UNAids most recent comprehensive report on HIV-related travel and immigration laws in 2015 listed 35 countries with such restrictions.

However, incomplete data published in 2018 by UNAids named at least 18 countries that have policies restricting entry, stay or residence for people living with HIV. Information from many countries were left off the list, and will be updated this year to reflect the true extent. The same report found that 60 countries require testing for residence or other permits, including marriage, not limited to foreigners.

The exact numbers, however, are difficult to pin down, experts say. An independently researched global database counts 49 countries with HIV-related restrictions on long-term stay in 2018, based on information sourced from local embassies and reports from travellers and immigrants. Countries with restrictions include Russia, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates.

“The data the countries present about themselves in diplomatic settings can be different from the policies that are actually executed,” says American epidemiologist Jessica Keralis, who has researched the public health impacts of such HIV-related restrictions.

For example, countries may not have regulations “on the books”, but employers can revoke visas for HIV-positive employees, or state insurance policy can make it difficult for immigrants to afford treatment, she says.

In other cases, official policy may not be known by regional or local officials and institutions.

These distinctions matter for HIV-positive immigrants, whether white-collar workers, migrant labourers or students, according to David Haerry, who publishes the Global Database on HIV-Specific Travel and Residence Restrictions, which names the 49 countries.

“Oftentimes people [sent abroad for work] don’t know and they fall in the trap: if you don’t know and you have to be tested on the ground, and then you are sent back on health grounds, your company knows,” he says. “It’s a big issue.”

Haerry receives daily emails through the database from people around the world wondering how to travel or relocate safely while living with HIV. In recent years, he’s seen restrictive policies become more of an issue for students looking to study abroad, but who fear the consequences of mandatory HIV testing even in countries where there is no explicit restriction on those who are HIV-positive.

For such situations, “we have no solution”, Haerry says.

Many national restrictions are holdovers from the 1980s, before the disease’s transmission was understood and the antiretroviral therapies and daily medications that can prevent its spread became widely available, according to UNAids’ Murphy. But he has seen progress globally.

A number of countries changed their policies after UNAids launched a 2008 campaign against the 59 governments that had bans at that time. The United States, South Korea and China were among the nations to remove restrictions in 2010, although South Korea retained some related to immigration, while China reportedly has mandatory HIV testing for some visas.

Singapore revised its own regulations in 2015 to allow people living with HIV to enter the country for short-term stays of less than three months, while South Korea in 2017 removed its final restriction, which mandated the testing of foreign teachers.

But conservative cultures, social stigma and inertia have kept some restrictions in play in other nations, experts say. The majority of such restrictions are found in conservative countries; more countries in the Middle East than anywhere else have them.

“The basis of discrimination is misconception and fear, and with HIV these boil down to drug use, men who have sex with men, and all these realities that countries don’t want to face,” says Peter Wiessner, who co-authors the global database. “There’s also xenophobia mixed in.”

That element can have a negative public health impact, according to Keralis.

“It communicates that HIV is a foreign contagion and a foreigners’ problem, and if [citizens] don’t mix with foreigners then they are not at risk,” she says. She notes that, paired with a lack of proper sex education, this can create a dangerous situation.

“There’s no incentive for people to seek more information or modify their behaviours,” she says.

Belarus: 89 HIV criminalisation cases initiated in 2018 in the Gomel region alone

Published in TUT.BY on February 6, 2019 – Google translation from Russian. For original article in Russian, please scroll down.

There are also minors. How and who in the Gomel region are infected with HIV

In the Gomel region, the number of registered crimes under the article “Infection with the human immunodeficiency virus” remains high. Among those included in the statistics there are minors. The Investigation Committee told who, how and why infects a dangerous disease.

In 2018, 89 crimes under this article were registered in the region.

For example, a criminal case was initiated in Mazyr against a 16-year-old girl. A minor, knowing that she is a carrier of the virus, repeatedly entered into an intimate relationship with no means of protection with a 23-year-old young man. For knowingly putting him in danger of being infected with HIV by a court of the Mozyr District, the minor is sentenced to 6 months in prison with a 1-year delay in the execution of the sentence.
 
A criminal case was filed with the Svetlogorsk district court against a 24-year-old resident of Svetlogorsk, who was at risk of contracting HIV to his wife, and also infected a minor friend.

A 28-year-old resident of the Rogachev region infected two fellow villagers with HIV. The first victim learned about the diagnosis during the examination in the hospital. The second victim was established by investigative means. The district court sentenced a man to imprisonment for a term of 5.5 years with serving in a correctional colony with a reinforced regime.

Several criminal cases were sent to the Zhlobinsky District Court against a 26-year-old woman who, in the period from 2013 to 2018, infected four men with HIV and put four more people at risk of infection. The victims are from 25 to 65 years old.

According to the Gomel Regional Center for Hygiene, Epidemiology and Public Health, 7973 people with HIV-positive status live in the region. In 2018, the highest number of new cases was registered in the age group of 40 years and older (47.7%).

Есть и несовершеннолетние. Как и кого на Гомельщине заражают ВИЧ

В Гомельской области число зарегистрированных преступлений по статье «Заражение вирусом иммунодефицита человека» остается по-прежнему высоким. Среди попавших в статистику есть и несовершеннолетние. В Следственном комитете рассказали, кто, как и зачем заражает опасной болезнью.

В 2018 году в области зарегистрировано 89 преступлений по этой статье.

К примеру, в Мозыре возбуждено уголовное дело в отношении 16-летней девушки. Несовершеннолетняя, зная, что является носителем вируса, неоднократно вступала в интимную связь без средств защиты с 23-летним молодым человеком. За заведомое поставление его в опасность заражения ВИЧ судом Мозырского района несовершеннолетняя приговорена к 6 месяцам лишения свободы с отсрочкой исполнения наказания на 1 год.
 

В суд Светлогорского района направлено уголовное дело в отношении 24-летнего жителя Светлогорска, который подвергал опасности заражения ВИЧ жену, а также заразил несовершеннолетнюю знакомую.

28-летний житель Рогачевского района заразил ВИЧ двух односельчанок. Первая потерпевшая узнала о диагнозе при прохождении обследования в больнице. Вторая потерпевшая была установлена следственным путем. Районным судом мужчине назначено наказание в виде лишения свободы сроком на 5,5 года с отбыванием в исправительной колонии усиленного режима.

В суд Жлобинского района направлено несколько уголовных дел в отношении 26-летней женщины, которая в период с 2013 по 2018 год заразила ВИЧ четверых мужчин, еще четверых поставила в опасность заражения. Потерпевшим от 25 до 65 лет.

По информации Гомельского областного центра гигиены, эпидемиологии и общественного здоровья, в области проживает 7973 человека с ВИЧ-положительным статусом. В 2018 году наибольшее количество новых случаев заболевания зарегистрировано в возрастной группе 40 лет и старше (47,7%).

Читать полностью:  https://news.tut.by/society/625331.html?crnd=18984

 

 

 

[Update] US: Missourians living with HIV testify in House committee hearing in support of proposals to modernise HIV criminalisation laws

Published in Houston Herald on Feb. 4, 2019

By Alexis Allison

Proposals to reduce criminal HIV exposure penalties encourage prevention

JEFFERSON CITY — LaTrischa Miles doesn’t spit when she runs.

A mother of three, the treatment adherence supervisor at Kansas City Health Center was diagnosed with HIV in 1995. She remembers the day like her birthday, and she remembers it when she’s running.

“Running is not a pretty sport. You see a lot of things when you’re running. You smell a lot of things when you’re running,” Miles said. “A lot of runners get dry mouth, and they spit, a lot. But I dare not. Because if I spit … I may get arrested at the finish line.”

Current Missouri law makes it a felony for a person knowingly infected with the human immunodeficiency virus to “recklessly” expose someone else without their knowledge or consent — whether or not the person meant to do so, and whether or not the victim contracted HIV. The law lists sex, needle-sharing and biting as methods of transfer.

It’s not clear whether spitting during a half-marathon violates the law, but that uncertainty is part of the problem. “As a person living with HIV,” Miles said, “I’ve lived in the shadow of these criminal laws.”

But for the second year in a row, Reps. Tracy McCreery, D-St. Louis, and Holly Rehder, R-Sikeston, have filed separate but similar bills to modernize what some call the “criminal HIV exposure” law.

Each proposal would apply penalties currently reserved for exposing someone to HIV to other “communicable diseases,” such as hepatitis C or HPV, and minimize the punishment for those convicted. The proposals also update the law’s language to reflect current understanding about how HIV is transmitted.

Miles and a slew of public health advocates, students and Missourians living with HIV testified in a House committee hearing Monday in support of the proposals. The witnesses emphasized the need for a revised bill that would reduce stigma, encourage people to know their status and reflect modern science.

“So much has changed. HIV is no longer a death sentence. It’s a chronic disease. It’s a human disease,” Miles said. “Persons living with HIV that once took 16 pills a day … now have the option to take one pill a day.”

Lawmakers passed the original bill in the late ‘80s, an era when the rampant spread of AIDS through sex made lovers into killers, and the law ensured they would be punished accordingly. Mere exposure can lead to a class B felony conviction. If the victim contracts HIV, the charge bumps up to a class A felony, punishable by up to 30 years or life in prison. It’s the same consequence in Missouri for murder.

Both proposals would consider whether the person with a communicable disease intended to transmit it to someone else, and the consequences would be less severe. Rehder’s bill makes knowingly exposing another person to a communicable disease a class C felony; if transmission occurs, the charge becomes a class B felony.

“For comparison’s sake, if you’re driving while intoxicated and hurt someone but don’t kill them in Missouri, it’s a class C felony,” Rehder said. “If you’re driving while intoxicated and in an act of criminal negligence you cause the death of someone, then it’s a class B felony, so that makes it more consistent.”

McCreery’s bill offers a less severe punishment, diminishing the consequences for exposing another person to a communicable disease to a class B misdemeanor — or a class A misdemeanor if the victim contracts the disease.

The severity of the current law also serves as a disincentive for people to know their HIV status, Rehder said. If a person doesn’t know they have HIV, they can’t be convicted of exposing the virus to another person.

And, Rehder said, people who are unaware of their positive status are responsible for 90 percent of HIV transfer — and that ignorance is a public health issue.

“The bottom line is, we want people to get tested and know their status and get treatment,” she said.

Another strategy the proposals encourage is prevention. Under the current law, condom use — which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends as a preventative strategy — is not a defense. The new proposals note that using science-based, preventive measures (including condoms) could serve as evidence that the person with the disease did not intend to expose or transmit it.

The proposals offer a few more updates based on the scientific advancements that have happened in the last 30 years. For one, they’ve removed “biting” from the list as a way to transfer HIV. In fact, transmitting HIV via biting is extremely rare — so rare that the CDC notes it’s only happened when the bite led to “severe trauma with extensive tissue damage and the presence of blood.”

McCreery’s bill removes the current law’s enhanced punishments for HIV-positive sex workers; Rehder’s does not address it. McCreery’s bill also eliminates punishments for a person with HIV or hepatitis who endangers a correctional or mental health employee.

The current law lists exposure to feces, urine or saliva as a means for transmission. Rehder’s version no longer specifically penalizes HIV or hepatitis and applies only in the case of exposure to “bodily fluids … scientifically shown to be a known means of transmission of a serious infectious or communicable disease.”

Rehder acknowledged that neither proposal is perfect, and the final product may lie somewhere between the two.

“We’re working closely together to present Missouri-specific options to update Missouri’s antiquated HIV laws,” McCreery said in an interview after the hearing. “We wanted to send a strong message to Missourians that this is a nonpartisan issue.”

 

Published in Fox2Now on December 1, 2018

Lawmakers, health officials push Missouri HIV law rewrite

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Some Missouri legislators and public health professionals are calling for a rewrite of the state’s HIV laws, which they say are outdated and medically inaccurate.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Republican Rep. Holly Rehder and Democratic Rep. Tracy McCreery proposed bills in the last legislative session to reduce the state’s penalties for exposing someone to HIV. They plan to present the same bills in the 2019 session.

Missouri’s roughly 30-year-old law states that an HIV-positive individual could be convicted of a felony if he or she exposes a partner to the disease without the partner’s knowledge or consent. The law gives a minimum 10-year sentence for transmitting HIV and minimum five-year sentence for knowingly exposing someone to HIV.

Advocates say such laws result in questionable prosecutions and negative public health outcomes.