When reviewing cases where a person with HIV is believed to not have informed a sexual partner of their HIV status, judges currently use Canada’s Currier decision (1998) which states “A person has a legal duty to disclose his or her HIV-positive status to sexual partners before having sex that poses a “significant risk” of HIV transmission.” This includes anal or vaginal sex without a condom. What else it includes is not fully clear.
Do you disclose to all of your partners, or only those whom you place at “significant risk”, and how do you determine whether the risk is significant or not? What are your thoughts on the Currier Decision? Is it clear enough, or do we need a list of what can or can’t be done, with or without disclosure? HIV is a disease, not a crime, perhaps clearer laws would help. We’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
Canadian HIV law
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Does the anyone know if the current law (Currier Decision) is used for if you just put someone at risk, or does it only apply if they actually contract the virus from you?
It seems crazy that you could be subject to prosecution if the person doesn't even become positive!
You can be prosecuted under the current law for putting someone at risk without telling them that you are HIV positive. It doesn't matter if they become HIV positive or not.
How would this apply if you told a person you simply will not discuss the issue. They have a choice to walk away. If they continue, would this not mean they have given consent and nothing more needs to be said?
The current law says that if you put someone at "significant" risk, you may be charged for not disclosing. These charges can go through whether or not the other person actually contracted HIV. This is one part of the law that needs some work, the other part is what defines a "significant" risk.
Post a Comment