Kenya: High Court declares Section 24 of HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act (2006) unconstitutional, removes overly broad and vague HIV-specific criminal statute

By Kamau Muthoni Kenya: The High Court has declared unconstitutional a section of the HIV and Aids Prevention and Control Act that sought to criminalise reckless spreading of the disease. A three-judge bench comprising justices Mumbi Ngugi, Isaac Lenaola and George Odunga ruled Section 24, introduced by the State and criminalising the reckless spreading of HIV, was unclear and had no limits on which group of people was targeted.

“We so hold that Section 24 of the HIV and Aids Prevention and Control Act No. 14 of 2006 does not meet the principle of legality which is a component of the rule of law. The said section is vague and over-broad, and lacks certainty, especially with respect to the term ‘sexual contact’,” read part of the judgment.
As drafted, the section provided that a person who is aware of being infected with HIV or who is carrying and is aware of carrying HIV shall not, knowingly and recklessly, place another person at risk of becoming infected with HIV unless that other person knows that fact and voluntarily accepts the risk of being infected. Further, the section read that the person shall take all reasonable measures and precautions to prevent the transmission of HIV to others; and inform, in advance, any sexual contact or person with whom needles are shared of that fact, failure to which one would be jailed, if convicted by a court, for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine not exceeding Sh500,000, or both.
Justice Lenaola ruled that the section of law failed to meet the legal requirement that an offence must be clearly defined in law. “To retain that provision in the statute books would lead to an undesirable situation of the retention of legislation that provides for vague criminal offences which leave it to the court’s subjective assessment whether a defendant is to be convicted or acquitted,” said the judge.
In the case, filed by a lobby group called Aids Law Project, the court heard that the same section had warranted other people surrounding an infected person to seek his or her status from a medical practitioner without their discretion or involvement. The lobby group argued that such risk of unwarranted disclosure of confidential information was against the affected person’s privacy. Aids Law Project adopted the view that Section 24 of the Act was likely to promote fear and stigma as it imposed a stereotype that people living with HIV were immoral and dangerous criminals, and this would negate the efforts being made to encourage people to live openly about their HIV status.

Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) and HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) Position on the Criminalization of HIV, Sexually Transmitted Infections and Other Communicable Diseases (2015)

This statement was issued by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) on the urgent need to repeal or modernize HIV-specific criminalization statutes and laws criminalizing transmission or exposure to sexually transmitted infections and other communicable diseases.

Criminalizing HIV: Recent Experience in the United States and Africa to Update Laws and Policies to Promote the Public Health

Conference Dates and Location:
February 23-26, 2015 | Seattle, Washington
Abstract Number:
129

Criminalizing HIV: Recent Experience in the United States and Africa to Update Laws and Policies to Promote the Public Health

Primary Author:

Jeffrey Crowley1

1 O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States

Abstract Body:

Laws and policies have been used to protect people living with HIV and affected communities from stigma and discrimination. Indeed, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are just two legal instruments that help to create environments where people feel safe enough to come forward for HIV testing and to engage in care. Laws and policies also are used in ways that are highly stigmatizing and that hinder public health approaches to responding to HIV. In the United States, thirty-four states and territories have laws that criminalize the conduct of people living with HIV based on perceived exposure to HIV and without any evidence of intent to do harm. Far from representing a legacy of the past, people with HIV continue to be prosecuted and jailed for failure to disclose their HIV status prior to engaging in sex and for spitting and biting offenses, often in the context of arrest by law enforcement. Moreover, this is a challenge in countries across the globe. As of 2013, twenty-six African countries had overly broad and/ or vague HIV-specific criminal laws, most enacted over the past decade, with a further three countries considering new HIV-specific criminal laws. As governments, clinicians, researchers, and advocates seek to maximize population-level HIV viral suppression both to protect the health of people with HIV and also to reduce HIV transmission, these laws and policies could hinder our collective efforts. This talk will examine the current landscape of HIV criminal laws and policies in the US and selected African countries, will examine available data on the effectiveness of such laws at deterring behaviors such as failure to disclose HIV status prior to sexual encounters, and will look for common lessons from both Africa and the US to suggest a path forward for promoting effective evidence-based approaches to reducing HIV transmission.

Session Number:
S-5
Session Title:
Advancing HIV Prevention: Lessons from Biology, Medicine, and Public Health Law
Presenting Author:
Crowley, Jeffrey
Presenter Institution:
Georgetown University

Criminal Law Not Effective Against HIV

THE CONFESSIONS of the 40-year-old man who went on a “deliberate spree to infect as many other people as possible” in 2002 (The Namibian, 14 January 2015) sparked a series of media reports in the past few weeks, which featured calls from the public for the enactment of an HIV-specific crime of intentional transmission of HIV.

The push to apply criminal law to HIV exposure and transmission is often driven by the wish to respond to serious concerns about the ongoing spread of HIV, coupled by what is perceived to be a failure of existing HIV prevention efforts.

No one suggests that a person who, knowing he has HIV, sets out intending to infect another, and achieves his aim, ought to escape prosecution. In these cases, as infrequent as they may be, the victims and their society seek justice because harm was caused with clear intention.

There is, however, no need to enact a new HIV-specific law to address this situation. We have existing common law crimes that can be applied. Where we seek to apply these, we must ensure that the use of criminal law in relation to HIV should be guided by the current best available scientific and medical evidence.

Two key scientific and medical developments in the past five years call for a reconsideration of the application of criminal law in the context of HIV. The first is that we know that effective HIV treatment has significantly reduced AIDS-related deaths and has transformed HIV infection from a condition that inevitably resulted in early death to a chronic manageable condition.

In Namibia the treatment programme has been a flagship of the response, achieving 2010 Universal Access target 2009, and has since continued to register remarkable achievements. By March 2014, an estimated coverage of over 81% of eligible adults and 54% of eligible children were on anti-retroviral therapy (ART).

Secondly we now know that effective HIV treatment significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission from people living with HIV to their sexual partners.

Since HIV is now a chronic treatable health condition, it is thus no longer appropriate for criminal prosecution for HIV transmission to involve charges of murder, attempted murder or assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Based on current evidence, the harm of HIV infection should not be treated differently from that of other serious sexually transmitted infections like hepatitis B or C. Transmission of these infections is, however, seldom if ever subject to criminal prosecution.

In addition, the effectiveness of criminal law as a tool for reducing the spread of HIV is questionable. Criminal law is traditionally used to incapacitate, rehabilitate or deter offenders.

Why then should we treat HIV differently?

In order to slow the spread of the HIV epidemic, vast numbers of people would have to be prevented from having unsafe sex or engaging in other risk behaviours, which no criminal law could possibly do.

Indeed, imprisoning a person with HIV does not prevent the transmission of HIV. HIV risk behaviours are prevalent in prisons, yet correctional services authorities continue to reject the introduction of evidence-informed prevention measures such as condoms and fail to address sexual violence in prisons.

There is little evidence to suggest that criminal penalties for conduct that transmits HIV will “rehabilitate” a person such that they avoid future conduct that carries the risk of HIV transmission. Most cases of HIV transmission are related to sexual activity – human behaviour that is complex and very difficult to change through the blunt tool of criminal penalties.

There is no scientific data to support the claim that criminal prosecution, or the threat thereof, has any appreciable effect in encouraging disclosure to sexual partners by people living with HIV or deterring conduct that poses a risk of transmission.

What nearly 30 years of addressing AIDS has taught us is that key to preventing the spread of HIV is the reduction of stigma and discrimination on the basis of HIV status, real or perceived, the fear of which deters many people from seeking HIV testing and knowing their status as an entry point to accessing HIV treatment and other related services.

Applying criminal law to HIV exposure or transmission, except in very limited circumstances, does the opposite. It reinforces the stereotype that people living with HIV are immoral and dangerous criminals, rather than, like everyone else, people endowed with responsibility, dignity and human rights.

Instead of focusing our attention on passing more criminal laws that provide for an HIV-specific crime, we should rather be putting our energies into creating an enabling legal environment in which the social and legal constructs that place some people more at risk of HIV infection than others are addressed. In particular we should ensure that the laws in place protect women’s equal rights and that their right to be free from violence are enforced.

We should promote access to comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education and sexual and reproductive health services and other evidence-based strategies designed to reduce HIV risks. We should adopt a comprehensive anti-discrimination law that protects people against discrimination on the basis of real or perceived HIV status or on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and we should repeal laws that criminalise or further marginalise vulnerable groups such as sex workers, people who use drugs, and men who have sex with men, which create barriers to access to effective HIV prevention and treatment services by these groups.

Our response must be based on the best scientific and medical evidence rather than misguided fears and stigma.

• Michaela Clayton is a human rights lawyer who has worked on HIV and human rights in Namibia and internationally since 1989. She is Director of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa, based in Windhoek and serves as the co-chair of the UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Human Rights as well as co-chair of the Human Rights Reference Group of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. – See more at: http://www.namibian.com.na/indexx.php?id=23584&page_type=story_detail#sthash.kMTUAWlM.dpuf

Zimbabwe: HIV-specific criminal law on trial; ZLHR launches campaign highlighting impact of overly broad HIV criminalisation on women

Tomorrow, Zimbabwe’s HIV-specific criminal statute, Section 79 of the Zimbabwe Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act 23 of 2004 will be on trial itself, facing its first-ever challenge in the Constitutional Court.

The Court will hear arguments on behalf of two applicants – Pitty Mpofu and Samukelisiwe Mlilo – both of whom were unfairly convicted of “deliberate transmission of HIV” in 2012, and who are now represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZHLR).

“The provision is too wide, arbitrary and therefore violative of the protection of the law guarantee. It is submitted that the legislature has created an offence which is as scary as the evil that it seeks to redress.” Applicants head of arguments (1.1)

Law on trial

Although the ‘crime’ in Section 79 is called “deliberate transmission of HIV”, a wide range of variables are possible that involve neither being deliberate nor actually transmitting HIV.

It is a crime for anyone who realises “that there is a real risk or possibility” that he or she might have HIV to do “anything” that the person knows will involve “a real risk or possibility of infecting another person with HIV.”

This, argues the applicants, is overly broad and unconstitutionally vague.

(Scroll to the bottom of the page, or click the link, to read the entire Applicants heads of arguments.)

Since 1996, International Guidelines on HIV and Human Rights have recommended that:


”Criminal and/or public health should not include specific offences against the deliberate and intentional transmission of HIV but rather should apply general criminal offences to these exceptional cases. Such application should ensure that the elements of foreseeability, intent, causality and consent are clearly and legally established to support a guilty verdict and/or harsher penalties.”

It is eminently clear that Section 79 does not ensure that “elements of foreseeability, intent [or] causality” are adequately provided for, although there is a defence of informed consent via disclosure. (It is not clear, however, exactly what needs to be disclosed, given that it is possible to be prosecuted for anything that might be a risk even if you haven’t been tested).

Although the Zimbabwe law predates other African laws based on the flawed N’Djamena model law, funded and disseminated with US international aid money, it contains many of the same problems. (Zimbabwe passed the first version of Section 79 in 2001 and updated it in 2004 to include people who suspected they were HIV-positive, but were not yet diagnosed.)

‘UNAIDS recommendations for alternative language to some problematic articles in the N’Djamena legislation on HIV (2004)’, specifies the kind of language that could be used, should Zimbabwe still deem to find an HIV-specific criminal statute necessary.

Notably, it recommends defining ‘deliberate transmission of HIV’ as “transmission of HIV that occurs through an act done with the deliberate purpose of transmitting HIV”.

It further recommends that no criminal liability should be imposed upon:

  • an act that poses no significant risk of HIV infection.**
  • a person living with HIV who was unaware of his or her HIV infection at the time of the alleged offence.
  • a person living with HIV who lacked understanding of how HIV is transmitted at the time of the alleged offence.
  • a person living with HIV who practised safer sex, including using a condom.**
  • a person living with HIV who disclosed his or her HIV-positive status to the sexual partner or other person before any act posing a significant risk of transmission.
  • a situation in which the sexual partner or other person was in some other way aware of the person’s HIV-positive status.
  • a person living with HIV who did not disclose his or her HIV status because of a well-founded fear of serious harm by the other person.
  • the possibility of transmission of HIV from a woman to her child before or during the birth of the child, or through breastfeeding of an infant or child.

**The issues of significant risk and safer sex (along with the difficulties of proving timing and direction of transmission) are further expounded upon in UNAIDS expanded and updated 2013 guidance.

However, Zimbabwe could also decide to do away with Section 79 altogether, and implement a new law based on a model law developed for the Southern African Development Community (SADC; www.sadc.int), which comprises Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

This model law, which was unanimously adopted by the SADC Parliamentary Forum in 2008, integrates the protection of human rights as a key element of an effective response to HIV and has no specific provisions allowing for the criminalisation of potential or actual HIV exposure or transmission.

Alone But Together

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights are using the Constitutional Court hearing as a springboard for a campaign against overly broad HIV criminalisation, highlighting the case of Samukelisiwe Mlilo who features in a powerful 15 minute documentary produced by ZLHR, ‘Alone But Together – Women and Criminalisation of HIV Transmission: The story of Samukelisiwe Mlilo’.

Today, they will launch the documentary in Harare under the banner; ‘HIV on Trial – a threat to women’s health’.

Ms Mlilo was found guilty of ‘deliberately’ infecting her husband with HIV and faces up to 20 years in jail despite there being no proof that she had infected her husband. She claims she had disclosed her status to him following her diagnosis during pregnancy, and that her husband only made the complaint in revenge for her own complaint of gender-based violence following the breakdown of their marriage.

“At this point we do not know who infected who,” ZLHR’s Tinashe Mundawarara told Voice of America News in August 2012. “This is an example of the violation of women’s rights. Women are likely to know of their status first. Mlilo might have been infected by her husband, no one knows, and got charged and convicted.”

The other applicant, Pitty Mpofu, was also found guilty of ‘deliberate’ transmission of HIV a month after Ms Mlilo.

It was alleged that he infected his wife sometime between October 2009 and June 2011 , although he wasn’t diagnosed until “sometime in 2010.”  No proof regarding timing nor direction of transmission was provided during the trial.

Highest number of reported criminal prosecutions in Africa

The first known successful prosecution in Zimbabwe took place in 2008, although it is believed that more than 20 prosecutions had previously been attempted.

In this case, a 26-year-old woman who had mutually consensual sex with a male partner pleaded guilty to non-disclosure prior to unprotected sex. She was given a five-year suspended sentence, primarily because the partner – who had tried to withdraw the charges – did not test HIV-positive.

A further five men and three women have since been prosecuted, along with a 2010 case where a man was fined for falsely accusing his girlfriend, who subsequently tested HIV-negative, of infecting him with HIV.

The most recent court case, from November 2014, involved a man who was found guilty “based on a single witness” and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Mpofu/Mlilo vs State, Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe, Harare (Case SC96/12 and 340/12 by HIV Justice Network

Spain: Supreme Court upholds nine year sentence for ‘reckless’ HIV transmission; BBC Mundo publishes analysis

Spain’s Supreme Court last week upheld a nine-year prison sentence for a man, known as ‘ABM’, who did not disclose his HIV-positive status to his former partner, who is now also living with HIV.  Although the reports do not state under which general law he was prosecuted, it is likely to be Article 149 of the Criminal Code, grievous bodily harm.

According to a recent analysis of all previous cases that reached Provincial or Supreme Courts (1996-2012), Article 149 has used for similar cases, using the ‘state of mind’ of ‘dolus eventualis’ similar to concept of ‘recklessness.’ The nine year sentence is similar to two previous cases for alleged HIV transmission during otherwise consensual sex in Spain. (Sixteen sentences and 9 writs belonging to 19 cases were included in the analysis; 17 judged by criminal and two by civil jurisdictions – full text at the bottom of the page).

The Court’s judgment, dated December 4, 2014 but published last week, noted that that  the Cantabria Provincial Court’s ruling was “sufficiently motivated” and dismissed ABM’s appeal which cited a violation of his right to the presumption of innocence and lack of credibility of his accuser, with whom he maintains a dispute over ownership of property.

The Supreme Court upheld the Provincial Court’s sentence of nine years in prison. He also has to pay his former partner compensation of 70,000 euros.

According to the judgment, cited in several Spanish language media reports (the most detailed of which was in 20 minutos), ABM was diagnosed in April 2000. In 2007 he began a romantic relationship with the complainant which lasted until 2012. It was alleged that ABM did not disclose to her that he was living with HIV despite having condomless sex. In 2011, she began to suspect that her partner may be living with HIV.

The Court found there was nothing to suggest that she was already HIV-positive when she arrived in Spain (from Peru), based on her own testimony, her medical history and her GP, although there is no mention of phylogenetic analysis being used to attempt to show a link between the viruses. The Court also noted that the woman is asymptomatic and on antiretroviral treatment.

BBC report and analysis

On Friday, BBC Mundo (the BBC’s Spanish language BBC World website) published a longer analysis of the implications of overly broad HIV criminalisation in Spanish-speaking countries.  I was interviewed for the piece, and am delighted to report that the journalist, Leire Ventas, produced a very good, balanced report.

Below is an approximate English translation of the Spanish language original.

Should knowing transmission of HIV be a crime?

January 30, 2015

A jail sentence in Spain rekindles debate over whether criminal law should apply to people who transmit the human immunodeficiency virus.Spain’s Supreme Court upheld the sentence of nine years in prison for a man who hid his HIV positive status from partner, infecting her with HIV.

The Court did not admit the appeal filed by the defendant.

This appeal had alleged violation of the right to presumption of innocence and lack of credibility of the victim, who maintains a dispute over ownership of a property.

According to the facts in the case, the convicted man was diagnosed HIV-positive in April 2000 and began a relationship with the woman in 2007.

They were together until 2012.

According to the Court, during those five years the defendant hid that he was HIV-positive from his partner and had sex without protection.

In 2011, woman began to suspect that her partner may have the virus and subjected to analysis, which confirmed infection.

“Intentional transmission”

Given this statement of facts, the Court found that the defendant had deliberately concealed his condition and that was the reason it upheld the ruling.

In the same vein, intentional transmission is the only case in which the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV / AIDS, UNAIDS, considers appropriate to apply the criminal law to people who transmit HIV or expose others to the virus.

“That is, when the person knows their HIV-positive serostatus and acts with intent to transmit or indeed does transmit,” says the report Criminalization of HIV Transmission, 2008 and its revision in 2013 the agency told the BBC.

“If a person known to be HIV-positive acts with the intention of transmitting the virus and transmits it (…), the damage justifies punishment,” it adds.

“In other cases, legislators, prosecutors and judges should reject the application of criminal law”.

Other cases

According to UNAIDS, the law should not apply to cases where there is no “significant risk” of transmission or where the person did not know they were HIV-positive, did not understand how HIV is transmitted, disclosed their status to the person at risk, or did not for fear of violence.

And neither should the law be used against someone who took “reasonable steps” of protection to reduce the risk of transmission or who previously agreed with the other person “a level of mutually acceptable risk”.

Thus, the agency recommends that governments legislate specifically to prevent HIV and only apply general criminal law to cases of intentional transmission.

They should also “develop guidelines to limit the discretion of the police and prosecutors in the application” of criminal law.

And UNAIDS believes that the latter creates “a real risk” of increasing stigma and discrimination.

“It is very likely that prosecutions and convictions fall on members of marginalized groups such as sex workers, men who have sex with men and people who inject drugs,” it says.

Obligation to disclose

For that reason, the agency also recommends repealing the legal obligation to disclose one’s HIV status or that of others, in the case of health workers, that exist in some countries.

“Everyone has the right to privacy regarding their health and should not be required by law to disclose such information, especially when it may cause serious stigma and discrimination and possible violence.”

It considers inappropriate to enact laws criminalising mother-to-child transmission of the virus.

“Everyone has the right to have children, including women living with HIV,” said UNAIDS.

It adds: “When pregnant women are advised on the benefits of antiretroviral therapy, almost all access treatment”.

The position of Edwin Bernard, co-ordinator of HIV Justice Network, a network of advocates providing information and international legal policy advice on HIV criminalisation, is not far from the recommendations of the UN programme.

“The only cases where it is appropriate to apply the criminal law is when there has been intent and these are usually very rare,” he tells the BBC.

He stressed that “not disclosing you have the virus, and keeping it a secret is not the same as wanting to spread it.”

There are several reasons not to tell, according to the activist: stigma, violence, even denying the condition itself.

Awareness, not persecution

Therefore he believes that laws around HIV in countries should be aimed at raising awareness and support for the eradication of the disease, and not the prosecution.

Latin America is a region particularly aware of this, he says.

“It has a good record of understanding that with regard to HIV the law should support and not persecute”.

“There have been very few known cases of prosecution for HIV transmission in Latin America. Most have taken place in Brazil and under a general, not specific, criminal law”.

In Spain, by contrast, between 1996 and 2012, 19 legal [or civil] cases were recorded.

This is registered in the report Temporal trends, characteristics and evidence of scientific progress in legal complaints for alleged sexual HIV transmission: 1996-2012.

However, the country with the most prosecutions is the United States, where 30 states have specific legislation on HIV.

“After eight years following up the issue, I can say that judicial systems, prosecutors and judges do not understand how the science has advanced, how the life expectancy of those with the virus has increased. They should know that the risk of transmission is very low “, says Bernard.

For the activist, the ideal situation would be to only have one or two lawsuits per year related to the topic.

“The law should be used, for example, in cases of rape. But when sex is consensual and those involved are aware of the risks, responsibility should also be shared.”

 

F. Bolúmar-Montero, M.J. Fuster-Ruiz de Apodaca, M. Weait, J. Alventosa & J. Del Amo (2015) Time trends, c…

US: In depth interview with Ken Pinkela whose change.org campaign to review his unjust court-martial has more than 73,000 signatures

Bob Leahy: Thank you for talking to PositiveLite.com about your case. Now before we get in to that, I want you to tell me first your background. Ken Pinkela: Sure! Ken Pinkela is still a card-carrying Lieutenant Colonel in the (US) army.

US: Texas man who pled guilty to murdering woman after learning she had HIV sentenced to 50 years

A Lufkin man has accepted a 50-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to killing a woman after learning she had HIV after he had sex with her. Justin Welch, 23, entered the plea in District Judge Bob Inselmann’s courtroom. “Guilty,” Welch said. “Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty?” Yes sir,” Welch said.

Welch was arrested in June in San Antonio after the Angelina County Sheriff’s Office issued a warrant for his arrest for first-degree murder of Elisha Henson, 30. An arrest affidavit states Welch killed her after he learned she had HIV and they had already had sex.

According to another arrest affidavit, Welch’s co-conspirator, Rosalind Smith, told investigators the three of them were getting high on meth when Smith talked to Henson about her having HIV. Welch appeared to have heard the conversation and “appeared astonished to know” Henson had HIV. Smith told investigators that Welch later told her that Henson was dead. Smith is accused of disposing of the body in Rivercrest.

Smith is scheduled for jury selection on Jan. 20.

Welch’s Lawyer Al Charanza said that Welch was remorseful for what he did. But Hensen’s mom, Brenda Carrell, said the damage is done. After Welch pleaded guilty, Hensen’s mother gave her impact statement. “You have no heart.” Carrell said. “You are a killer in my eyes.You must pay for what you did. Elisha was a mother of two amazing boys, who today have a grave to visit.” “I am sorry,” Welch said.

China: Warranted fears of stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings resulting in people with HIV not disclosing their status

“I was so desperate, and I could not imagine the future if I was really infected,” Fu Yi (pseudonym), a maternity doctor at Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital in Chengdu, recalled her feelings when she was exposed to HIV-infected blood during a birth in 2010.

Fu accidentally exposed her injured foot to the blood of the HIV-positive patient who was delivering a baby – Fu did not know the patient was HIV-positive, until the blood test results came out the next day.

Fu immediately started to take anti-AIDS emergency prevention pills. She suffered from the  side effects, vomit and nausea, for a month, and lived in an abyss of fear for over half a year until she was eventually declared HIV free, she told the Global Times.

This incident was made public recently when the media began to report on the danger of exposure to infectious diseases that medical professionals face.

“We call [what Fu experienced] ‘occupational exposure,'” Xiang Qian, with the healthcare associated-infections division at Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, told the Global Times.

Occupational exposure for medical staff can be defined as coming into contact with infectious virus or toxic substances at work, which can pose health risks, according to Xiang.

Fu was not the only medical worker who has been exposed to infectious diseases at work. As of press time, there are no national statistics available, but in the hospital where Fu works a total of 122 medical staff reported being exposed to infectious diseases in 2013, including AIDS, hepatitis B and syphilis, according to Xiang.

From January to November this year, 88 medical workers, 43 percent of them nurses and 29 percent of them doctors, were exposed to infectious diseases at work. Hepatitis B topped the list, with 45 percent of the incidents of exposure involving the disease, followed by syphilis with 14 percent and HIV with 7 percent.

Among those infectious diseases that medical staff are exposed to, HIV is the most serious.

The risk is heightened as many patients do not disclose their HIV infection to physicians when being treated for other conditions. Meanwhile, many physicians do not take the kinds of precautions necessary to avoid becoming infected.

Concealment

Pregnant women usually go through a full blood test for possible infectious diseases before the delivery, and the result comes the day of the birth.

But in Fu’s case, the patient’s critical condition meant that she had to perform the delivery immediately, Fu said.

The patient’s family concealed her medical history and told Fu the patient had no infections. Fu, who had no time to take extra precautions, went into the operating room with an injured foot.

“From the doctor’s perspective, concealing infectious diseases is unfair,” Fu said.

But in some HIV patients’ eyes, disclosing their disease would jeopardize their access to healthcare as some hospitals may transfer them to designated infectious disease hospitals that offer inferior treatment.

Bi De, (pseudonym), 26, an AIDS patient who organized a debate in Shenzhen in November on whether HIV carriers should disclose their disease to doctors not treating their HIV, said he understood the ethical necessity to disclose one’s infections.

“But after my experience, I would not tell them [doctors] again,” Bi said. He first learnt he was HIV positive was two years ago when he went to a hospital in Henan Province to receive treatment for facial paralysis, and the hospital told him about his disease and transferred him to a designated hospital in Zhengzhou.

“But the infectious disease hospital did not have enough resources, and I finally recovered [from his paralysis]after visiting a Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor,” Bi said.

In another high-profile case that came to light last year, an HIV-positive cancer patient sued a Tianjin hospital that refused to treat his cancer due to his HIV. The case was the first well-known case of an HIV carrier suing a hospital for discrimination.

After hearing of the case, then vice-premier Li Keqiang [now premier] immediately called for better treatment of HIV/AIDS patients.

But the Tianjin Hexi District Court last week rejected the case as the plaintiff failed to provide a legal basis for his claims, according to Beijing-based newspaper The Mirror.

Chinese media has reported many cases of hospitals delaying or refusing treatment to HIV carriers despite the regulation issued by the State Council in 2006 which stipulates that clinics and hospitals should not refuse or delay treatment for HIV/AIDS patients.

According to Xiang, hospitals should only transfer patients to designated infectious disease hospitals when their conditions could pose public health risks, such as if they have SARS or bird flu.

Shao Yiming, an AIDS expert at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Global Times that hospitals are obliged to treat the diseases of HIV carriers.

“The HIV virus has a lower transmission level than many other infectious diseases such as hepatitis B. Why can they [doctors] treat [the disease] of hepatitis B carriers but not those of HIV carriers?” Shao said.

By the end of 2013, the number of people infected with HIV/AIDS hit 810,000 in China, according to the National Center for AIDS/STD Control and Prevention.

Shao suggested the country should put the related laws into practice while making more effort to promote knowledge of HIV/AIDS among medical staff and society.

Safety protection awareness

Xiang’s hospital laid out protection guidelines for medical staff to minimize their exposure to infectious diseases, but many are reluctant to adopt them.

“For example, some doctors following extra safety protection guidelines have to wear two sets of gloves, which they believe affect their surgical performance,” Xiang said.

Who should pay for the safety protection equipment in a long run is another headache for Xiang.

As the government subsidy does not cover it, hospitals that make an insufficient profit find it difficult to afford the equipment, he said.

“Some hospitals would not even pay for their medical workers to have a hepatitis B vaccine,” He said.

But Fu, who has performed gynecological surgeries on two HIV carriers after she was exposed, has been extra careful since the exposure.

“I wear special masks to prevent the blood splashing, safety protection suits, shoes and other extra safety protection equipment when I perform surgeries,” she said.