Limit Cases: How and Why We Can and Should Decriminalise HIV Transmission, Exposure, And Non-Disclosure.

Across the world, people living with HIV and AIDS (PLHA) face investigation, prosecution, conviction, and punishment if they transmit HIV to another person, expose others to the risk of HIV acquisition, or fail to disclose in advance their HIV positive status. This article seeks to explain why limiting the criminalisation of HIV is important and necessary; identifies some of the ways in which it has been, and might be, limited; and, finally, offers some reflections on whether there exists a principled limit to decriminalisation arguments (ie whether there are cases which, even if the general principles underpinning decriminalisation is accepted, justify state punishment). Drawing on recent international policy guidance, current scientific knowledge about HIV prevention and treatment, and research on the impact of criminalisation of PLHA, the article argues that decriminalisation is critical to eradicating HIV and should be a public health priority, that biomedical advances in prevention and treatment will assist the decriminalisation project but are insufficient in the absence of legal and criminal justice practice reform.

Partners of people on ART - a New Evaluation of the Risks (The PARTNER study): design and methods.

BACKGROUND: It is known that being on antiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of HIV transmission through sex. However it remains unknown what the absolute level of risk of transmission is in a person on ART with most recent measured HIV plasma viral load<50 c/mL in the absence of condom use. There are no data on risk of transmission for anal sex in MSM when the index partner is on ART. METHODS/DESIGN: The PARTNER study is an international, observational multi-centre study, taking place from 2010 to 2014 in which HIV serodifferent partnerships who at enrolment reported recently having had condom-less vaginal or anal sexual intercourse are followed over time, with 46 monthly reporting of transmission risk behaviour through a confidential self completed risk behaviour questionnaire and with 46 monthly HIV testing for the HIV negative partner. The objective is to study (i) the risk of HIV transmission to partners, in particular in partnerships that continue not to use condoms consistently and the HIV-positive partner is on therapy with a viral load<50 copies/mL and (ii) why some partnerships do not use condoms, to describe the proportion who begin to adopt consistent condom use, and factors associated with this. For any negative partner who becomes infected phylogenetic analysis will be used following anonymisation of the samples to assess if transmission had been from the HIV infected partner. DISCUSSION: This observational study will provide missing information on the absolute risk of HIV transmission for both vaginal and anal sex when the index case is on ART with a VL<50 copies/mL in the absence of condom use.

HIV Testing Autonomy: The Importance of Relationship Factors in HIV Testing to People in Lusaka and Chongwe, Zambia.

In recent times, informed consent has been adopted worldwide as a cornerstone to ensure autonomy during HIV testing. However, there are still ongoing debates on whether the edifice on which informed consent requirements are grounded, that is, personal autonomy, is philosophically, morally, and practically sound, especially in countries where HIV is an epidemic and/or may have a different ontological perspective or lived reality. This study explores the views of participants from Zambia. In-depth and focus group discussions were conducted at various locations in Lusaka and Chongwe, Zambia. Participants came from various demographics, including people living with HIV (PLHIV), healthcare professionals and workers, policymakers, pregnant women, churchgoers, teachers, rural-based persons, and police officers. Data were manually analysed by conducting inductive and deductive thematic analyses. Results show that participants were not in favour of HIV policies that promote personal autonomy at the expense of pursuit of the common good. Participants viewed interdependence, not autonomy, as an essential characteristic of being human. The participants' views have a realistic potential to provide a contextual and appropriate ethical, respectful, and realistic foundation for HIV testing policies.

BHIVA position statement on HIV, the law and the work of the clinical team.

The purpose of this statement is to outline issues at the interface between HIV transmission and the law and provide guidance to healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in the field of HIV medicine. The guidance is to support work in the UK, and it is important to note that the law in England and Wales differs from that in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Approaches are suggested to deal with these issues consistently, within legal and General Medical Council (GMC) regulatory frameworks and in the context of the public health agenda. The guidance specifically addresses sexual transmission.

Responses to criminal prosecutions for HIV transmission among gay men with HIV in England and Wales.

In England and Wales, criminal prosecutions for recklessly causing serious bodily harm by transmitting HIV have occurred since 2003. Understanding how people respond to the application of criminal law, will help to determine the likely impact of prosecution. As part of a wider qualitative study on unprotected anal intercourse amongst homosexually active men with diagnosed HIV in England and Wales, 42 respondents were asked about their awareness of criminal prosecutions for the sexual transmission of HIV, and how (if at all) they had adapted their sexual behaviour as a result. Findings demonstrate considerable confusion regarding the law and suggest that misunderstandings could lead people with HIV to wrongly believe that how they act, and what they do or do not say, is legitimated by law. Although criminalisation prompted some respondents to take steps to reduce sexual transmission of HIV, others moderated their behaviour in ways likely to have adverse effects, or reported no change. The aim of the criminal justice system is to carry out justice, not to improve public health. The question addressed in this paper is whether desirable public health outcomes may be outweighed by undesirable ones when the criminal law is applied to a population-level epidemic.

The criminalization of HIV transmission in England and Wales: questions of law and policy.

In this article, Matthew Weait and Yusef Azad discuss the current law concerning the criminalization of HIV transmission in England and Wales, and raise some issues about the wider implications of criminalization for those working in the HIV/AIDS sector. The authors look at the way the fault requirement of "recklessness" has been interpreted in the cases. They explore the courts' approach to consent--the defence which those who have appealed against conviction have sought to use. Then the authors raise some questions about the relevance of disclosure and the way the courts have dealt with knowledge about HIV status and the risks associated with unprotected sex. Finally, they discuss the relevance of the nature of the relationship between the accused person and the person to whom HIV has allegedly been transmitted, and touch on the potentially stigmatizing effects that criminalization may have on socio-economically marginalized groups. The authors conclude by discussing some more general policy-related issues.

Keeping confidence: HIV and the criminal law from HIV service providers' perspectives.

We present qualitative research findings about how perceptions of criminal prosecutions for the transmission of HIV interact with the provision of high-quality HIV health and social care in England and Wales. Seven focus groups were undertaken with a total of 75 diverse professionals working in clinical and community-based services for people with HIV. Participants' understanding of the law in this area was varied, with many knowing the basic requirements for a prosecution, yet lacking confidence in the best way to communicate key details with those using their service. Prosecutions for HIV transmission have influenced, and in some instances, disrupted the provision of HIV services, creating ambivalence and concern among many providers about their new role as providers of legal information. The way that participants approached the topic with service users was influenced by their personal views on individual and shared responsibility for health, their concerns about professional liability and their degree of trust in non-coercive health promotion approaches to managing public health. These findings reveal an underlying ambivalence among many providers about how they regard the interface between criminal law, coercion and public health. It is also apparent that in most HIV service environments, meaningful exploration of practical ethical issues is relatively rare. The data presented here will additionally be of use to managers and providers of HIV services in order that they can provide consistent and confident support and advice to people with HIV.

HIV-related restrictions on entry, residence and stay in the WHO European Region: a survey.

BACKGROUND: Back in 1987, the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that the screening of international travellers was an ineffective way to prevent the spread of HIV. However, some countries still restrict the entrance and/or residency of foreigners with an HIV infection. HIV-related travel restrictions have serious implications for individual and public health, and violate internationally recognized human rights. In this study, we reviewed the current situation regarding HIV-related travel restrictions in the 53 countries of the WHO European Region. METHODS: We retrieved the country-specific information chiefly from the Global Database on HIV Related Travel Restrictions at hivtravel.org. We simplified and standardized the database information to enable us to create an overview and compare countries. Where data was outdated, unclear or contradictory, we contacted WHO HIV focal points in the countries or appropriate non-governmental organizations. The United States Bureau of Consular Affairs website was also used to confirm and complement these data. RESULTS: Our review revealed that there are no entry restrictions for people living with HIV in 51 countries in the WHO European Region. In 11 countries, foreigners living with HIV applying for long-term stays will not be granted a visa. These countries are: Andorra, Armenia, Cyprus (denies access for non-European Union citizens), Hungary, Kazakhstan, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. In Uzbekistan, an HIV-positive foreigner cannot even enter the country, and in Georgia, we were not able to determine whether there were any HIV-related travel restrictions due to a lack of information. CONCLUSIONS: In 32% of the countries in the European Region, either there are some kind of HIV-related travel restrictions or we were unable to determine if such restrictions are in force. Most of these countries defend restrictions as being justified by public health concerns. However, there is no evidence that denying HIV-positive foreigners access to a country is effective in protecting public health. Governments should revise legislation on HIV-related travel restrictions. In the meantime, a joint effort is needed to draw attention to the continuing discrimination and stigmatization of people living with HIV that takes place in those European Region countries where such laws and policies are still in force.