Subscribe to this blog's feed
This morning, I was a guest on the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC radio (WNYC.org - search for my name or click here) We discussed whether or not people living with HIV should be criminalized for knowingly (or not), intentionally (or not) exposing and/or potentially transmitting HIV to another person. I won't go into the nuances of the discussion here ... please listen and let me know what you think. (Quick summary: I agree with UNAIDS' recommendation that the criminalization of people living with HIV be limited to those people who know their HIV-positive status and intend to and manage to transmit the virus to another person.)
During the show, a listener called in and asked about a case in which an HIV-positive woman was sexually assaulted by more than one man. He described how, at the time of the attack, the woman, who was aware of her HIV status, was too afraid to tell her multiple assailants that she was HIV-positive (though it occurred to her that it might be an effective deterrent) because she was afraid that, given the stigma surrounding HIV, the men would kill her when she told them. Then, post-attack, she lied to the police and told them she HAD disclosed her HIV status to the the attackers SO SHE WOULDN'T BE PUT IN JAIL FOR NOT DISCLOSING HER HIV STATUS TO THE MEN WHO RAPED HER. The criminalization laws around people living with HIV are so convoluted and poorly written that she worried that going to jail was a real possibility.
A part of me wanted to think this story was the clever concoction of a radio listener trying to make people understand the damaging impact of laws surrounding the criminalization of HIV (they prevent discussion, awareness, testing, treatment and disclosure) ... but when I got back to my office, I had e-mails from several HIV-positive women who had also worried about their legal fate for not disclosing their HIV-positive status to the men who had raped them. One asked me to imagine how it felt to educate the man (whom she knew, vaguely, before the attack) about the availability of PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis). Despite what he had done to her, she felt guilt about potentially exposing him to the virus, so much so that she ensured that he was aware of a medical protocol that could save his life after he had possibly been exposed to HIV when he forced himself on her.
And this is the kind of woman who some courts would deign to put behind bars for not disclosing her HIV status to a "sexual" partner.
Jeez.
If that's not an endorsement for how broken the system is and how gravely misunderstood and deeply feared and stigmatized HIV still is, I can't imagine what would be.
Moments like the one in which I opened the woman's e-mail, read her story and understood her regard for another person's well-being -- even after he terrorized her and put her life at risk -- are why I do what I do. I can not sit idle and watch the world continue to misperceive the moral character of people living with HIV when I know, personally, the exceptional characters of many who fight for their lives every day against the virus -- in spite of a sometimes uneducated, misinformed and unfairly judgemental world.
As HIV-positive, South African judge Edwin Cameron says, "HIV is not a crime." (Check out his piece written in a Norweigian paper posted on poz.com). What is, arguably, criminal, is the lack of compassion, appropriate legal recourse (if and when needed) and clarity around the complicated nuances surrounding the issue of potential HIV transmission between two serodiscordant adults consensually engaging in sex.
During the show, a listener called in and asked about a case in which an HIV-positive woman was sexually assaulted by more than one man. He described how, at the time of the attack, the woman, who was aware of her HIV status, was too afraid to tell her multiple assailants that she was HIV-positive (though it occurred to her that it might be an effective deterrent) because she was afraid that, given the stigma surrounding HIV, the men would kill her when she told them. Then, post-attack, she lied to the police and told them she HAD disclosed her HIV status to the the attackers SO SHE WOULDN'T BE PUT IN JAIL FOR NOT DISCLOSING HER HIV STATUS TO THE MEN WHO RAPED HER. The criminalization laws around people living with HIV are so convoluted and poorly written that she worried that going to jail was a real possibility.
A part of me wanted to think this story was the clever concoction of a radio listener trying to make people understand the damaging impact of laws surrounding the criminalization of HIV (they prevent discussion, awareness, testing, treatment and disclosure) ... but when I got back to my office, I had e-mails from several HIV-positive women who had also worried about their legal fate for not disclosing their HIV-positive status to the men who had raped them. One asked me to imagine how it felt to educate the man (whom she knew, vaguely, before the attack) about the availability of PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis). Despite what he had done to her, she felt guilt about potentially exposing him to the virus, so much so that she ensured that he was aware of a medical protocol that could save his life after he had possibly been exposed to HIV when he forced himself on her.
And this is the kind of woman who some courts would deign to put behind bars for not disclosing her HIV status to a "sexual" partner.
Jeez.
If that's not an endorsement for how broken the system is and how gravely misunderstood and deeply feared and stigmatized HIV still is, I can't imagine what would be.
Moments like the one in which I opened the woman's e-mail, read her story and understood her regard for another person's well-being -- even after he terrorized her and put her life at risk -- are why I do what I do. I can not sit idle and watch the world continue to misperceive the moral character of people living with HIV when I know, personally, the exceptional characters of many who fight for their lives every day against the virus -- in spite of a sometimes uneducated, misinformed and unfairly judgemental world.
As HIV-positive, South African judge Edwin Cameron says, "HIV is not a crime." (Check out his piece written in a Norweigian paper posted on poz.com). What is, arguably, criminal, is the lack of compassion, appropriate legal recourse (if and when needed) and clarity around the complicated nuances surrounding the issue of potential HIV transmission between two serodiscordant adults consensually engaging in sex.
Hi, i listened the interview and think you did a great job there. And it is true that there is lot to do yet to make people understand each an every single person must be responsible for his/her actions and his/her own safety.
And if written, laws addressed to hiv poz individuals must be clarified and well written before being enforced.
Hugs!!
I Listened to your radio broadcast yesterday,...Good for you!!!, I think it went really well and you also got to plug your book too!!! I really think you have turned a negative thing positive...no pun intended...you are educating the world...These blogs are constantly being abused by some of your fellow bloggers, Oriol nearly exclusively talks about the gay rights movement ( hello this is supposed to be about hiv and aids) not constant banter about when gay men will finally be able to marry each other ...The other guy Richard could tone down the langauge and would seem more credible if he did...(talk about making yourself seem sleazy and @$%) Anywhooo...Good for you Regan (again), you've overcome a lot, made a success of yourself and came out on top despite it all!
I think there can be no question that someone who knowingly infects another person should be charged with something. What that charge is I do not know. The other grey area is...what if they have sex with a negative person and they do not transmit the virus? Is this intent to harm? Beats me
Regan: "Quick summary: I agree with UNAIDS' recommendation that the criminalization of people living with HIV be limited to those people who know their HIV-positive status and intend to and manage to transmit the virus to another person."
Funny, seems like a bit of a turnaround from your last post - but, whatever.
Regan: The ONLY factor that should be relevant is the intent of the individual. If you've tested positive for HIV and chose not to disclose your status and still engaged in unprotected sex with a partner, your "intent" can only be homicidal, whether or not you accomplish that task. The law certainly punishes individuals for attempted murder as well as those who manage to succeed.
But sure, why not - we'll wait until the HIV positive with harmful intent actually does manage to infect someone before we take him/her off to prison. Until then, let 'em just keep giving it the ole college try.