Should persons with HIV inform their Sexual Partner (s) ?

HIV-positive Canadians who don't tell sex partners shouldn't go to jail: doctors | News | National Post

Canadians living with HIV/AIDS should no longer face a prison sentence for not telling their sexual partners, according to an acclaimed Canadian doctor who helped revolutionize treatment of the disease worldwide.

According to Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Canada “now ranks among the world leaders in the rate of such prosecutions.”

Today’s triple drug cocktails known as HAART, or highly active antiretroviral therapy, can reduce the viral load of people living with HIV to undetectable levels — making their risk of transmitting the virus to partners “exceedingly low,” Dr. Montaner and colleagues write in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Despite this, Canada has witnessed “an escalation in the number of people prosecuted for allegedly exposing sexual partners to the virus,” the team writes.

Yet strong scientific evidence now exists to justify doing away with routine prosecutions for HIV nondisclosure, Montaner and colleagues Dr. M-J Milloy and Thomas Kerr, write in the journal.

Their controversial proposal comes on the 30th anniversary year of the first documented cases of HIV and just as Canada’s top court, the Supreme Court of Canada, prepares to hear two high-profile cases in February, one from Manitoba, the other Quebec, involving those living with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV.

In the first, Clato Lual Mabior, an HIV-positive man and Sudanese immigrant in Winnipeg, was sentenced in 2008 to 14 years in prison after he was convicted of multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault for engaging in unprotected sex with six women — including a 12-year-old —and not disclosing his status.

An appeal court found that the original trial judge erred when he ruled Mabior was a “significant risk” even though he had an undetectable viral load and used condoms during intercourse on some of the occasions.

In the Quebec case, a woman known as D.C. had unprotected sex with her former spouse without informing him of her HIV status. She was convicted of sexual assault and aggravated assault. The Quebec appeal court acquitted her on the ground that, since her viral load had been undetectable during the period covered by the charges and the risk of transmission had been low, the fact that she had not disclosed her HIV-positive status had not had the effect of exposing her former spouse to “a significant risk of serious harm.”

Writing in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the B.C. researchers argue that while some aspects of the Mabior case “may well deserve a full and fair prosecution, there is no evidence that criminal prosecutions for HIV-nondisclosure protect individuals from infection.”

Today’s drug regimens, introduced in 1996, have transformed HIV/AIDS from a brief and fatal infection into a chronic condition, they say. Researchers reported earlier this year that early treatment with HAART reduces by 96 per cent the chances that an infected person will transmit the virus to a partner.

“The evidence is consistent with the consensus statement from the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV/AIDS that people living with HIV/AIDS on effective HAART treatment for six months without other genital tract infections pose a negligible risk of transmitting HIV and therefore these people should not be found guilty for exposing sexual partners to HIV,” the B.C. researchers say.

High-profile cases such as Mabior’s only promote stigma and discrimination and discourage people from getting tested for HIV, they argue — adding that, “In some cases, information shared in counseling session between health care providers and people living with HIV/AIDS has been subpoenaed and entered into evidence in criminal trials.”

Canada’s Criminal Code contains measures to deal with people with HIV who are aware that they are infected and intentionally seek to harm other people, they say.

“Prosecutions put the life of people living with HIV/AIDS at risk, increase the risk of HIV transmission and health care costs, and ultimately place the public at higher risk,” the authors write.

“It is time to embrace the scientific evidence, recognize the ability of HAART to virtually eliminate the transmission of HIV, and do away with criminal prosecutions for HIV nondisclosure.”

Today, an estimated 75,000 Canadians are living with the virus; 3,300 people are infected each year.

Montaner led research that was the first in the world to confirm that HAART can stop HIV from progressing into AIDS, extending life expectancy and reducing HIV-related deaths.

I agree, cut their balls off!

Thta takes care of guys. Women have it as well.

HIV-AIDS? xDDDD April fools

Low risk of transmission...there are plenty of medical interventions with low risks that can be deadly, can shorten life expectancy, or leave patients with life long need of medication. If the Doctor doesn't inform the patient of known risks, even low risks, they can lose their license to practice. Not giving someone this information is not giving them any choice, for a known risk. That's not ethical at all.

What

Low risk is not risk free. Until they come up with a cure or a method to guarantee it will not be transmitted through sex then a person who has HIV should tell their partners about it. If they don't, it's an assault at minimum in my book. Attempted murder at worst.

If the partner willingly goes ahead and has sex with the person anyway and knows the risk, then thats their problem if they get sick.

How bout everyone puts a raincoat on their hog before sleezing around.

Because they are not 100 % foolproof.

I'm living proof of that.

Well that really only leaves two alternatives doesn't it.

Zippered or button style.

Listen this thread is about aids. If we wanted to start a thread about spreading NDP'ers we ask for your opinion.

Hand or damn the torpedoes.

Well, now you won't have to ask me as I've been charitable and offered an opinion before you had to ask.

HIV runs rampant in my little neighbourhood. Double the national average. I'd like to beat the snot out of the creeps that wander through the yard but all it takes it a small cut on a knuckle and I'm toast.

The fact that anyone in North America outside of blood contamination get's HIV is a testament to their own stupidity.

The short answer. Yes, jeez, that's a no brainer. Anyone with any STD (or what ever the politically correct term is these days) should be informing their partner.

I believe it's STI these days.

I believe you're right. That rings a bell. I know the first time my last 2 boys came home from school to let us know they were going top be learning about STI's my question was learning about what??????????

We're getting old.

Sexually transmitted idiocy?

It's a sexually transmitted disease, if you have unprotected sex with someone and don't tell them, you should go to jail.

Speak for yourself yuh old fart.

That's about it. As I understand it, using "disease" had too negative a connotation to it so it was changed to "infection". I, personally, think the negative connotation would be better than watering it down.

My farts are fresh.

Not being a woman I can only speak for the men!

I don't care how "Exceedingly Low" the chances are, the chances are still there that I or someone else can contract it.... and if I am in a relationship with someone, I should be able to trust them to disclose that they have HIV/AIDS and that I stand a great chance of contracting it as well.

Maybe the chances of me getting it through one sexual encounter is "Exceedingly Low"..... but if I'm in a long term relationship with that person, I'm going to probably be having sex with them more than once and eventually my luck will reach Zero and I will get it.

And if I am not aware that I have contracted it from my partner, I could go for a very long time without it being treated until it's physically obvious that something is wrong with me.

And if the relationship ends and I start another relationship, unaware that I have gotten HIV/AIDS from my previous partner, then I just gave it to my new partner.

So yeah, I don't give two craps if current treatments make it difficult to contract HIV/AIDS from a sexual partner, I can still get it & it's only a matter of time..... and when I do get it, my entire life will change, as will the lives of anybody else in my life.... my family, my friends and any possible sexual partners I have in the future.

Bullsh*t.... did her husband contract HIV/AIDS?

If yes, then it doesn't matter wtf they think her viral load was or wasn't at the time.... he got it and he got it from her.... thus that's a pretty g'damn significant risk.

If he got away with not contracting it during their relationship and is currently HIV/AIDS free... then he got lucky, but that still doesn't negate the fact that his own wife wasn't open and honest with him towards the risks she was putting him through.

In my view, allowing someone to have sex with you while ignorant of you having HIV/AIDS and possibly ending up contracting it, is no better than finding some girl passed out drunk at a party and having sex with her.....

Lack of Consent.

I might have consented to having sex with my partner, but I did not consent to being exposed to HIV/AIDS and possibly having my entire life turned upside down.

Are you fk'n mental?

Informing your partner about you having HIV/AIDS gives your partner a clear acknowledgement of the situation and gives them the chance to not have sex based on that information, thus directly protecting them from getting infected...... and at the same time, while they are informed, they can still decide to have sex with you if they accept the risks and decide to consent..... thus if they do contract HIV/AIDS, it's their own fault by choice.

Sorry, but having a "Chronic Condition" for the rest of my life because someone didn't disclose they had HIV/AIDS is not acceptable no matter how much they try and sugar coat it.

This treatment reduces the chances of infection by 96%??

Big friggin deal.... Condoms reduce the chances of infection and pregnancy by 98%... yet people still end up pregnant or catching something.

If their sexual partner was exposed to HIV/AIDS from having sex with them, then they are in fact guilty of exposing them to HIV/AIDS.....

I don't care if the chances are "negligible"... they can trivialize the situation all they want.... if they didn't tell their partner they have HIV/AIDS, if they have sex with their partner, if their partner gets HIV/AIDS, then they're Guilty.

It's as simple as that.

So what do they expect to happen now?

Infected partners don't tell their partner they have HIV/AIDS because they're being treated to reduce their chances of infection, their partner gets HIV/AIDS from their partner due to having sex with them.... but they're not guilty of the above because their infection levels are lower than normal due to treatment??

They are still infectious.... they still did not inform their partner of the risks, and they just passed along a life-changing, lifelong & very serious illness to their partner without their consent.

Oh but it's not that bad, because all they have to do now is suck back a concoction of drugs every day for the rest of their lives and they'll be just fine???

Sorry, I don't want these clowns deciding my fate & the rest of my life simply because they have some sympathy for those with HIV/AIDS who are too embarrassed to tell their partners the risks.... or allow their want for sex to override the safety & well being of those they're having sex with.

What contradicting crap.... puts their lives at risk?? What about the rest of us who don't have the disease yet?

If my partner told me they had HIV/AIDS and informed me of the risks and such I would be getting involved in, and I accepted those risks and had sex anyways, I'd be even more inclined to get regular testing and eventually, the medication I need to reduce my infection to others when I do contract it.....

... If they don't tell me and I eventually get infected, yet I don't know, I go for longer without the medication to reduce my risks to others and by the time it is discovered, I could be in a pretty bad condition, the relationship could have ended and I could have had a number of other sexual partners since symptoms of HIV/AIDS can take a while to show up.... and I wasn't taking the medication to reduce my risks to others.... thus a greater risk to the public and more cost to the health system.

Idiots!

No, it's time to use your g'damn brains & common sense.

Well whoopty do.... that's all well and great that they're improving the quality of life people with HIV/AIDS have..... But I don't want to be one of those people.

What about hookers? Should they warn their johns?

Probably not PC enough