Ontario to curb prosecution of HIV non-disclosure cases

[Cuttlefish]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/12/01/ontario-will-limit-its-prosecution-of-hiv-non-disclosure-cases.html

Thoughts?

[ralk]

11 hours ago, Cuttlefish said:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/12/01/ontario-will-limit-its-prosecution-of-hiv-non-disclosure-cases.html

Thoughts?

Perfectly sensible and long overdue. HIV is not the death sentence it used to be and chances of transmission are extremely low if properly treated. All affected people should be disclosing their HIV positive status prior to intercourse, but that does not mean failure to do so should be a crime, particularly when many other non-disclosures to partners that also carry potential harms are not considered criminal offenses.

[somebowdy]

8 hours ago, ralk said:

Perfectly sensible and long overdue. HIV is not the death sentence it used to be and chances of transmission are extremely low if properly treated. All affected people should be disclosing their HIV positive status prior to intercourse, but that does not mean failure to do so should be a crime, particularly when many other non-disclosures to partners that also carry potential harms are not considered criminal offenses.

Yes, but we presume that sex must be consensual, and failing to disclose any risk of transmitting STI's still puts the other person in a position without full knowledge of what they are consenting to. Doesn't that start getting into sexual assault territory?

[ralk]

2 hours ago, somebowdy said:

Yes, but we presume that sex must be consensual, and failing to disclose any risk of transmitting STI's still puts the other person in a position without full knowledge of what they are consenting to. Doesn't that start getting into sexual assault territory?

Agreed, but in that case it should apply uniformly. Having sex with any other STI and not revealing it isn't criminal. Well-managed HIV is arguably less harmful than many of those STIs.

[Hanmari]

What is the reasoning behind non-disclosure of other STIs not being a criminal offense?

[somebowdy]

1 hour ago, Hanmari said:

What is the reasoning behind non-disclosure of other STIs not being a criminal offense?

It seems to be that they're trying to reduce the stigma attached to the HIV-positive label, although I feel that there would be more effective ways of doing so without putting others in harm's way.

[somebowdy]

On 12/2/2017 at 5:51 PM, ralk said:

Agreed, but in that case it should apply uniformly. Having sex with any other STI and not revealing it isn't criminal. Well-managed HIV is arguably less harmful than many of those STIs.

Do you think non-disclosure of those other STI's should be criminalized?

[yup]

51 minutes ago, somebowdy said:

Do you think non-disclosure of those other STI's should be criminalized?

From a harm reduction perspective, I don't think it makes much sense to criminalize the non-disclosure of STI's. Individuals would be less inclined to be tested/monitored for these STIs, since doing so can potentially make them liable/implicated in a crime. Transmitting the disease unknowingly (because they didn't get tested for it) isn't punishable by law. 

[somebowdy]

50 minutes ago, yup said:

From a harm reduction perspective, I don't think it makes much sense to criminalize the non-disclosure of STI's. Individuals would be less inclined to be tested/monitored for these STIs, since doing so can potentially make them liable/implicated in a crime. Transmitting the disease unknowingly (because they didn't get tested for it) isn't punishable by law. 

Getting tested for STIs wouldn't make them liable for a crime though. It's the part about knowingly putting someone else at risk that would.

[ralk]

1 hour ago, somebowdy said:

Do you think non-disclosure of those other STI's should be criminalized?

Based on current standards of consent, no. There are many things which could materially impact whether or not a person consents to sex with another person if they knew those facts ahead of time, none of which are illegal to fail to disclose. It's a tough line to draw what things must be disclosed and which ones shouldn't, especially when it comes to criminal liability. Where I can see a more justifiable argument is in civil liability, whereby a person could be validly sued for damages if they fail to disclose something material to their partner before having sex, such as an STI.

In general though, the public health angle is the one with a better track record. Making failure to disclose HIV status illegal hasn't done much to stop its spread. Having effective anti-retrovirals and using them optimally has. And, as the other posters have noted, the stigma of the disease - especially with threats of criminal punishment - have made it harder for people to step forward and get tested, a key step towards getting the proper treatment.

[somebowdy]

16 minutes ago, ralk said:

Based on current standards of consent, no. There are many things which could materially impact whether or not a person consents to sex with another person if they knew those facts ahead of time, none of which are illegal to fail to disclose. It's a tough line to draw what things must be disclosed and which ones shouldn't, especially when it comes to criminal liability. Where I can see a more justifiable argument is in civil liability, whereby a person could be validly sued for damages if they fail to disclose something material to their partner before having sex, such as an STI.

In general though, the public health angle is the one with a better track record. Making failure to disclose HIV status illegal hasn't done much to stop its spread. Having effective anti-retrovirals and using them optimally has. And, as the other posters have noted, the stigma of the disease - especially with threats of criminal punishment - have made it harder for people to step forward and get tested, a key step towards getting the proper treatment.

I'm convinced