Canada: Male Call study finds more than half of gay men with HIV fear being prosecuted for not disclosing their HIV status

Two-thirds of men who have sex with men believe that people with HIV-AIDS should face criminal charges if they fail to disclose their status to a sexual partner. But that number varied a lot depending on circumstance, with 83 per cent saying non-disclosure before anal sex should be a crime, and 42 per cent saying failure to disclose HIV status before oral sex was a criminal act. Only 17 per cent said failing to disclose should never be criminalized. “The consensus is there should be legal measures in place related to disclosure,” Dan Allman, an assistant professor in the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “At the same time, there is a feeling that legal measures won’t have an impact. There’s an innate understanding that disclosing your HIV status is hard and criminal laws aren’t going to make it easier,” he said.

The survey, dubbed Male Call involved 1,235 detailed interviews with men who have sex with men. The research shows that 26.2 per cent of respondents did not know their HIV status because they had not been tested recently; that number jumped to 50.6 per cent among bisexual men. Overall, 67.2 per cent of the men surveyed were HIV-negative, and 6.6 per cent HIV-positive.

Most of those who had not been tested said they were confident they were HIV-negative because their sexual practices put them at low risk. But a significant minority, 17 per cent, said they did not want to know their status, either because they could not deal with being infected or out of fear it could cause legal problems.

The fear associated with being HIV-positive was pervasive. The poll showed that 83 per cent of men worry about being stigmatized because of HIV, while 68 per cent fear being rejected by other gay/bisexual men, and 51 per cent fear being prosecuted for not disclosing their HIV status. 17.8% agreed that in the current legal climate it was better not to know your HIV status.

Full report available here: http://www.malecall.ca/technical-report/

UK: New research calls for better guidance for HIV service providers on criminal law, confidentiality and ethics

Yesterday saw the release of an important new UK study, Keeping Confidence: HIV and the criminal law from service provider perspectives, which explores how HIV criminalisation impacts those who deliver health and social care services for people with HIV.

The report’s lead author, Dr Catherine Dodds, from Sigma Research at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said: “Although HIV health and social care professionals expressed diverse views about their potential role in such cases, they gave a clear sense that criminal prosecutions for the transmission of HIV would not improve public health. Instead, it was most common to hear descriptions of such cases leading to increased stigma, reduced trust between service users and providers, and traumatic consequences for those involved in such cases.”

Study co-investigator, Matthew Weait, Professor of Law and Policy at Birkbeck, Univerisity of London, said: “This important and innovative research demonstrates both the problems that HIV criminalisation creates for clinical and social care providers and the need for solutions at both national and regional level. Care providers working in HIV and sexual health are concerned primarily with the health and wellbeing of their service users – which is of course as it should be; but there is also evidence that criminalisation is compromising their work. Increased awareness and understanding of, and inter-organisational communication about, legal issues is critical, and Keeping Confidence makes practical recommendations as to how that work might be taken forward for the benefit of prevention and support.”

Roger Pebody from aidsmap.com does an excellent job of summarising the study and its findings in this news report:

The study explored how criminal prosecutions for HIV transmission in England and Wales are handled by those who deliver clinical, psychosocial and community support for people with HIV. The report paints a picture of professionals grappling with the difficulties of communicating complex legal information in an appropriate way for each individual. They must weigh up competing concerns and responsibilities, including their own patient’s health and wellbeing, the health of unidentified sexual partners and the legal liability of their own organisation.

Read more at aidsmap.com

The report was launched in central London yesterday at a one-day meeting attended by around 70 HIV service providers, representatives of most of the UK’s community-based HIV organisations, and people living with HIV.

Following presentations of the report’s main findings, a panel consisting of a health adviser, and representatives of community-based organisaton and a people living with HIV discussed the implications for them.

Ceri Evans, Senior Health Adviser at the West London Centre for Sexual Health, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, highlighted that there may not be a ‘best time’ to inform a newly diagnosed individual of their new legal obligations. Athough she agreed that the post-testing counselling session may not be ideal, she noted that since the criminal law potentially covers all sexually transmissable infections, including genital herpes, and there is usually only a single oppportunity to provide counselling following a new herpes diagnosis, that information about the law might need to be provided to some patients sooner rather than later.

Of note, the report’s fieldwork, involving 75 providers of HIV health and social care services in England and Wales, was undertaken in the latter half of 2012. Since then, the British HIV Association (BHIVA) and the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) have released an updated position statement on HIV Transmission, the Law and the Work of the Clinical Team which provides clinicians with information and guidance on managing many of the issues highglighted as problematic in the research. Lead author, Dr Mary Poulton, Consultant and Clinical Lad, Sexual Health and HIV, Kings College Hospital, London, outlined the main recommendations and provided case studies that illustrated how the decision-guiding algorithm regarding third-party disclosure might be particularly useful.

The rest of the meeting focused around discussing the report’s recommendations, which were as follows.

National recommendations

1. HIV service professionals will benefit from a single website or webpage that collates practical and accessible information about criminal prosecutions for the sexual transmission of HIV. It will need to be updated as new resources become available, and older ones are revised. New resources should be published as required in order to keep pace with clinical and scientific developments in the treatment of HIV that may impact on legal decision-making. The online resource can also identify the best sources of expert criminal legal advice where those are available.

2. A nation-wide programme of continuous professional development in the criminal law should be available to those who provide clinical and non-clinical HIV services. Topics covered should include: straightforward legal definitions and defence arguments, how and when to raise discussions about legal responsibilities, professional liability, communication skills development through the use of scenarios, and existing policy and practice models.

3. Key contacts with an interest in criminal prosecutions should be identified in each clinical and non-clinical HIV service organisation.This process should feed into the development of an updated list for the explicit use of disseminating information about information and training discussed in recommendations 1 and 2 above.The key contacts will also be utilised as the main organisational contact for the development and dissemination of resources to inform people with HIV about the law in this area.

Local recommendations

4. Existing professional guidance and associated documents should be discussed and adapted for local use. This will translate differently in specific settings, and it may lead to the development of local criminalisation policies or protocols, or values statements in some workplaces. At a minimum, such activities should strive for internal consistency on advice, facilitation and support.

5. Opportunities should be created for clinics and community-based organisations to exchange best practice as it relates to criminal prosecution for HIV transmission and to discuss where they agree and disagree on a conceptual level about the ethics of responsibility and public health in HIV prevention.

6. Alongside the development of local criminalisation protocols, all organisations will need to review their confidentiality policies, ensuring that they are accessible to service users, and compatible with internal agreements about criminalisation.

Whilst there was broad consenus regarding many of the recommendations, implementation will depend on various stakeholders collaborating, as well as sufficient funding.

Of note, currently only Australia has a website on HIV and the law aimed specifically at HIV healthcare professionals. The Australian Association of HIV Medicine (ASHM) online Guide to Australian HIV Laws and Policies for Healthcare Professionals covers civil, criminal and public health law, and also includes reference to national guidance on the Management of People with HIV who Place Others at Risk.

The entire day was filmed by the HIV Justice Network and video of the main presentations and final disussion outcomes will be available soon.

Nondisclosure prosecutions and population health outcomes: examining HIV testing, HIV diagnoses, and the attitudes of men who have sex with men following nondisclosure prosecution media releases in Ottawa, Canada

This study was designed to examine HIV testing, HIV diagnoses, and the attitudes of men who have sex with men following media releases about a local nondisclosure prosecution in Ottawa, Canada. The authors first reviewed the trends in HIV testing and HIV diagnoses from 2008 through 2011 in Ottawa, Canada. They went on to explore the attitudes and beliefs of local MSM about HIV, HIV prevention, HIV serostatus disclosure, nondisclosure prosecutions, and public health.

Researchers found that, statistically speaking, HIV testing and HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men did not significantly change after the media releases about a local nondisclosure prosecution. However, qualitatively, a subgroup of 27 men who have sex with men (12 HIV-positive, 15 HIV-negative) expressed their belief that the local public health department openly shares information about people living with HIV with the police. Some HIV-positive participants stated that this perceived association between the local public health department and police services caused them to not access public health department services. The authors conclude that nondisclosure prosecutions do likely undermine HIV prevention efforts.

US: New Study Questions Michigan’s “Health Threat” Law (Press Release)

Michigan health officials are using HIV surveillance technologies to assist in enforcing a “health threat” law that makes it illegal for HIV-positive people to have sex without disclosing their status.

A new University of Michigan study reveals that health officials employ the state’s names reporting database, alongside partner services referrals, for law enforcement purposes. However, this is bad social policy for a variety of reasons, says Trevor Hoppe, the study’s author and a doctoral candidate in sociology and women’s studies.

When clients visit publicly funded health clinics in Michigan to be tested for HIV, they can expect more than just a finger prick or blood draw. Counselors also ask clients extensive questions about their sexual practices and partners. If the client tests positive for HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases, the counselor will provide treatment referrals. They are also legally mandated to ask clients to report the names of sexual partners, which health officials attempt to contact to recommend that they be tested.

Hoppe found that some health officials also ask their clients if any of their partners reported to them that they were HIV-positive. Officials then attempt to cross-reference the reported name against the state’s database of everyone in the state who has been diagnosed as HIV-positive. If an individual reported as a partner is identified by the state as HIV-positive and the client did not report that they disclosed, an investigation would be launched that could have legal ramifications.

At least 24 states have laws making it a misdemeanor or felony for HIV-positive people to have sex without first disclosing their status. In Michigan, failing to disclose is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison—whether or not the person was ever at risk of contracting the disease from their partner.

“The evidence is mounting that these laws are bad public policy and certainly bad public health policy, yet Michigan health officials are helping to enforce them,” Hoppe said.

At the minimum, there is little transparency in how health officials use epidemiological data for law enforcement purposes, he says.

“Health officials in some local jurisdictions are using data they collect for public health purposes to help enforce the law, but they’re not telling their clients how their personal information could be used,” Hoppe said.

From an ethical perspective, the question is whether it is reasonable for health officials to use confidential medical information to enforce the law.

Hoppe interviewed 25 local health officials who manage “health threat” cases from 14 jurisdictions across Michigan. His research also reveals that how local health officials interpret what qualifies as a “health threat” varies. In some cases, local officials suggested that an HIV-positive woman who became pregnant or contracted another STI might be labeled a “health threat.”

“These systems were not intended for legal surveillance, yet data collected by them are susceptible to being used for criminal proceedings,” Hoppe said.

Whether this practice should be continued must be discussed among policymakers, advocates and stakeholders, including those in the HIV-positive and –negative community, he said.

The findings appear in the February issue of the journal Social Problems.

Social Problems – Controlling Sex in the Name of Public Health (2013)

Galletly CL, Lazzarini Z. Charges for Criminal Exposure to HIV and Aggravated Prostitution Filed in the Nashville, Tennessee Prosecutorial Region 2000-2010.

Charges for Criminal Exposure to HIV and Aggravat… [AIDS Behav. 2013] – PubMed – NCBI

This paper examines comprehensive data on arrests for HIV-specific crimes within a single jurisdiction, the Nashville Tennessee prosecutorial region, over 11 years. There were 25 arrests for HIV exposure and 27 for aggravated prostitution. Eleven of the arrests for HIV exposure involved nonsexual behaviors; none alleged transmission. Sixteen of the arrests for HIV exposure involved sexual behavior; three alleged transmission. Aggravated prostitution cases (i.e. prostitution while knowing one has HIV) often involved solicitation of oral sex; none alleged transmission. Maximum sentences for HIV-specific crimes ranged from 5 to 8 years. We conclude that enforcement of US HIV-specific laws is underestimated. Fifty-two arrests over 11 years were recorded in one jurisdiction. Over half of the arrests involved behaviors posing minimal or no HIV transmission risk. Despite concerns about malicious, intentional HIV transmission, no cases alleged malice or intention.

British public confused about how you get HIV

PUBLIC CONFUSED ABOUT HOW YOU GET HIV Nearly half (46%) of the general public wrongly think you can get HIV from being bitten, spat at or coming into contact with a discarded needle and underestimate the impact unsafe sex has on HIV transmission, a new survey[1] shows (14 Jan) .