Abstract
Since the start of HIV pandemic, the humanity aimed to regulate and minimize the spread of the infection. Consequently, the corresponding laws were accepted. Unfortunately, these laws are far from being perfect, but the attempts to work out the rational system are held. This paper is aimed to offer the rational approach for the elaboration of HIV Disclosure Laws.
Introduction
Currently, about Forty million people all over the world are infected with the HIV. It is stated, that about six percent will never inform their intimate partners about the infection. Actually, numerous efforts have been made recently to elaborate and implement the HIV/AIDS law. The disclosure law was signed in 1990. It reasoned the stir among the citizens of the USA, who were surprised by this signing. People considered, that the accepted law included many holes regarding the matters of HIV/AIDS disclosure, because it lacked inclusive consideration. Some people considered, that if HIV infected people become obliged to tell the others of their decease, they will be more subjected to discrimination and segregation. Fundamentally, this law became the matter, that filled some holes, but simultaneously reasoned the new problems, and originated predicament.
Current HIV Disclosure Law
The stir and the voices of apprehension and dissatisfaction arose since the HIV pandemic appeared, so the virus infected people started feeling discriminated, and most did not tell their intimate partners of the infection. The people, who became the victims, as they were unaware of the danger of the infection, finally appeared in the center of attention. Since 2004, it has been regarded as a felony when the infected person, clearly realizing about his or her infection (HIV positive), and does not inform his/her partner, and when an infected person aims to pass it on.
Some people stand for this law, as the partners should be aware of the health condition of their intimates. Others argue that there is strong lack of specificity in the law. It also lacks the essentials of historical medical ethics, and the apprehension with the uproar of the HIV/AIDS dishonor.
The current HIV/AIDS Disclosure Law also originates some controversial matters regarding the nowadays beliefs and the beliefs originated previously. The disclosure matters confront conventional medical ethics. The contemporary medical practice is based on the ethic code, which touches upon the patients’ confidentiality, their approval, and their deterrence from harm. Proceeding from these principles, the Disclosure Law is often regarded as the invasion of privacy. Thus, if an infected person is obliged to tell his or her intimate partner of the infection, the person may challenge the further rejection or discrimination, depending on the reaction of the partner.
A research was held among the infected persons. It revealed that seventy fiver percent of the infected chose to inform their partners. As for the rest fifteen percent, they grounded their refuse on the fear to break serious relations. Also, they mentioned, that they just did not wish to be treated like sick persons, or experience the treatment as to the person who needs sympathy.
The Rational Law of HIV Disclosure
The key requirements for the HIV Disclosure Law should be the following:
- Provide the decrease of infection threat
- Do not harm the human dignity and privacy
- The intents of concealing the fact of infection should be restrained.
Consequently, the rational law – is the law, that should be based on the medical ethics and regard the human dignity as the highest precious. In order to prevent the disclosure as the instance of privacy violation, the infected person should take the responsibility of the sexual contact safety, and take all the safety measures to prevent the partner’s infection. The threat of infection stays minimal, but it can not be completely undermined. The matter should be not in the question of whether the infected person informed the partner, but whether the safety measures were taken, if the person was aware that he or she is infected.
As for the matters of harm, it is necessary to mention, that twenty-four states in the U.S. regard the HIV transmission by consensual sexual activities as the criminal offence. These activities are prohibited by the Disclosure Laws and the definite risk of virus transmission is regarded to be tenuous in the best situation. It is necessary to emphasize, that few other law spheres impose such severe sanctions for physical harm. As for the harm to human dignity, it should be stated, that still, the responsibility should be imposed only on the infected person, as the disclosure is the double edged sword, as on the one hand it violates privacy, and on the other hand it endangers the health of the infected person’s partner. The balance should be found, as it is originally impossible to defend the privacy and health simultaneously in this situation.
The rational Law should not restrict and prohibit the matters that are difficult to regulate. Sexual contact can not be forbidden just because of the fact, that someone does not wish to tell he/she is HIV infected. The following example of Disclosure Law should be considered as the example of mistaken approach: In Ohio, undisclosed HIV exposure by sexual contact is regarded as criminal assault. (1) If convicted, the punishment is two to eight years of imprisonment. (2) Prohibited activities entail anal, vaginal, and oral contact. (3) The Law makes no distinction between higher-risk sexual activities such as anal sexual contact and lower-risk such as oral sex.
Here is another mistaken approach to the sexual contacts among HIV infected: Florida is one of several states that have laws making it illegal for people who know they are infected with HIV to not tell sexual partners. The crime does not qualify one to be designated a sexual offender or sexual predator, under state law.
As it is medically confirmed that HIV transmission may be undermined, if retorting to the safety measures, the approach of total prohibition of sexual contacts is originally wrong. The prohibition of sexual contacts means the intervention into the private life, and restriction of personal liberty of the infected person: this is the approximate definition of discrimination. If the USA is struggling with the matters of discrimination and segregation, the sexual contacts should not be prohibited if condoms are used.
The approach of prohibiting the sexual activities is mistaken in the root, as it is impossible to control people’s nature. There is also no need to make the distinction of the sexual activities (vaginal, oral, anal) as the credibility of infection transmission is high, if condoms are not used.
The third point of the rational law system includes the intent of concealing the fact of being infected. Unfortunately, any state supports the idea of the total responsibility for the person for the sexual contact safety. The intent to conceal the fact of being infected almost everywhere is regarded criminal, as it is stipulated, that a human should be aware of the sexual health of his or her sexual partner. This way, the privacy and medical ethics is violated. On the other hand, if the entire responsibility for sexual safety were imposed on the infected person, there would be no need to regard the intent to conceal the fact of being HIV positive as the criminal offence.
Conclusion
As it has been stated, the matters of privacy and safety are on the different scale pans. It is necessary to find the balance between these two matters in order to promote essential safety level, and not to violate the infected person’s privacy.
The most credible approach, that allows to kill two birds with the only stone, is to impose the entire responsibility for the safety on the infected person. Consequently, there will be no need to inform the partner, and disclose the fact of infection, but in the case of infection transmission, the infected person will be regarded guilty for not using the safety measures.