James’ life was forever altered the day his name, picture, home address, and place of employment were published on a news website along with the claim that he had infected his ex-partner with HIV.
It wasn’t the beginning of the nightmare he was now suffering; that had started two years earlier, when the English police investigated James in response to a complaint filed by his ex-partner.
It also wasn’t the end. 2018 would mark the end of James’ case after another three years.
But he didn’t feel all that relieved to hear that the case was no longer being investigated. He was furious.
I would never be able to get my reputation back. James, to whom we’ve given anonymity so that he can discuss his situation in detail, said on the In Focus mini-series podcast from EU Confidential, “My life had been suspended for five years.”
“So when I heard the news, it actually made me angrier and made me wonder, ‘Why didn’t this come earlier?'” Why did they wait so long before approaching me and announcing that the case would be dismissed today?
A widespread occurrence
James’ case, with its extensive effects, is by no means exceptional.
If you are aware that you have HIV, conceal it from your partner, don’t take precautions like using a condom, or aren’t receiving HIV treatment, you may face legal action in many nations. The circumstances vary: Some nations have laws specifically addressing HIV; others utilise generic rules, such as those relating to causing great bodily harm; some exclusively pursue cases of transmission; others declare it to be illegal even if there is no transmission.
According to the HIV Justice Network, an NGO fighting HIV criminalization, about 700 cases were brought before courts worldwide between January 2019 and December 2021. With France having the most reported cases in the EU, 21 nations in Western and Central Europe have made HIV criminalization cases subject to their general laws.
However, there are significant questions about whether the courts should be handling these cases and the wider impact of convictions on public health.
The National AIDS Trust’s Kat Smithson, director of communications and engagement, claims that criminalization threatens “pretty much everything we know about effective public health approaches to HIV,” including considering shared responsibility for sexual health and not viewing those who are HIV-positive as a threat or a danger.
Smithson makes it clear that she is not implying that HIV is unimportant or that it has no bearing on people’s lives. “There is a significant question as to whether the criminal law is the appropriate way to deal with those situations, or whether we should be doing better in our public health efforts in general, to support people and ensure that we can ensure that people know their HIV status and are able to get the care they need,” she asserts.
There is no question for UNAIDS, the joint United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS. It asserts that only the exceedingly rare instances of intentional transmission should be subject to criminal law. Attempts to prevent new HIV infections are hampered by laws that make accidental or “reckless” HIV transmission or exposure illegal. They also stand in the way of the goal of eliminating AIDS as a public health issue by 2030, the report claims.
A changing world
The criminalization of HIV stretches back to the 1980s, when the American AIDS epidemic first began. The infection was a death warrant at the time. However, medical progress over the ensuing years has turned HIV into a chronic illness. Campaigners have claimed that current rules are based on antiquated science and prejudice.
For instance, researchers now concur that taking HIV antiretrovirals can cause a person’s virus count to drop to undetectable levels, virtually eliminating the possibility of HIV transmission.