Recent years have seen a push to apply criminal law to HIV exposure and transmission, often drive... more Recent years have seen a push to apply criminal law to HIV exposure and transmission, often driven by the wish to respond to concerns about the ongoing rapid spread of HIV in many countries. Particularly in Africa, some groups have begun to advocate for criminalization in response to the serious phenomenon of women being infected with HIV through sexual violence or by partners who do not reveal their HIV diagnoses to them. While these issues must be urgently addressed, a closer analysis of the complex issues raised by criminalization of HIV exposure or transmission reveals that criminalization is unlikely to prevent new infections or reduce women's vulnerability to HIV. In fact, it may harm women rather than assist them, and have a negative impact on public health and human rights. This paper is a slightly revised version of a document originally released in December 2008 by a coalition of HIV, women's and human rights organizations. It provides ten reasons why criminalizing HIV exposure or transmission is generally an unjust and ineffective public policy. The obvious exception involves cases where individuals purposely or maliciously transmit HIV with the intent to harm others. In these rare cases, existing criminal laws – rather than new, HIV-specific laws – can and should be used.Ces dernières années, l’application du droit pénal à l’exposition au VIH ou à sa transmission a été préconisée, souvent pour répondre aux préoccupations suscitées par la propagation continue du VIH dans beaucoup de pays. En particulier en Afrique, certains groupes ont commencé à demander la criminalisation pour répondre au grave phénomène des femmes infectées par le VIH suite à des violences sexuelles ou par des partenaires leur ayant caché leur séropositivité. S’il faut aborder de toute urgence ces problèmes, une analyse plus approfondie des questions complexes soulevées par la criminalisation de l’exposition au VIH ou de sa transmission révèle que cette mesure a peu de chances de prévenir de nouvelles infections ou réduire la vulnérabilité des femmes au VIH. En fait, elle risque plutôt de faire du tort aux femmes et de nuire à la santé publique et aux droits de la personne. Cet article est une version légèrement révisée d’un document publié en décembre 2008 par une coalition d’organisations s’occupant du VIH, des droits de la personne et du statut de la femme. Il donne dix raisons pour lesquelles la criminalisation de l’exposition au VIH ou de sa transmission est généralement une politique publique injuste et inefficace. L’exception évidente concerne la transmission intentionnelle du VIH ou dans le dessein de porter préjudice. Dans ces rares cas, le droit pénal existant, plutôt que de nouvelles lois spécifiques au VIH, peut et doit être utilisé.En los últimos años se ha visto más presión por aplicar el derecho penal a la exposición y transmisión del VIH, por lo general motivada por el deseo de responder a las inquietudes respecto a la continua y rápida transmisión del VIH en muchos países. Particularmente en África, algunos grupos han empezado a abogar por la penalización en respuesta al grave fenómeno de mujeres infectada con VIH mediante violencia sexual o por parejas que no les revelan su diagnóstico de VIH. Aunque se debe tratar estos problemas urgentemente, un análisis más detenido de los aspectos complejos que surgen de la penalización de la exposición o transmisión del VIH, revela que es improbable que la penalización impida nuevas infecciones o reduzca la vulnerabilidad de las mujeres al VIH. Es más, podría perjudicar a las mujeres en vez de ayudarlas, y tener un impacto negativo en la salud pública y los derechos humanos. Este artículo es una versión algo modificada de un documento publicado originalmente en diciembre de 2008 por una coalición de organizaciones de VIH, mujeres y derechos humanos. Expone diez razones por las que la penalización de la exposición o transmisión del VIH generalmente es una política pública injusta e ineficaz. La excepción obvia es los casos en que las personas transmiten VIH deliberada o maliciosamente con la intención de perjudicar a los demás. En estos casos raros, se puede y se debe usar las leyes penales vigentes, en vez de nuevas leyes específicas al VIH.
Although HIV and tuberculosis (TB) prevalence are high in prisons throughout sub-Saharan Africa, ... more Although HIV and tuberculosis (TB) prevalence are high in prisons throughout sub-Saharan Africa, little research has been conducted on factors related to prevention, testing and treatment services.
Since the beginning of the epidemic, the protection of human rights has been an integral componen... more Since the beginning of the epidemic, the protection of human rights has been an integral component in the response to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). The high degree of stigma and discrimination associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) has made human rights protection not only a priority to ensure the rights of people living with and at-risk for HIV, but to address public health goals as well. Advances in understanding the impact of antiretroviral treatment on HIV prevention provide exciting opportunities and even a paradigm shift in terms of AIDS prevention. However, this potential cannot be reached unless the advancement of human rights is a primary component of treatment and prevention programme and policy development. The use of antiretroviral treatment as prevention reinforces the value of basic principles related to the dignity and agency of people living with HIV to participate in the design and implementation of programmes, to be informed and to make informed decisions about their health and lives, to be protected from harm, and to have opportunities to seek redress and accountability for abuses. The possibility of using HIV treatment as a prevention tool means that now, more than ever, legal reform and community empowerment and mobilisation are necessary to realize the rights and health of people affected by HIV.
HIV/AIDS policy & law review / Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2008
Criminalization of HIV transmission is an ineffective tool for combating AIDS and a costly distra... more Criminalization of HIV transmission is an ineffective tool for combating AIDS and a costly distraction from programmes that we know work--programmes such as effective prevention, protection against discrimination, reducing stigma, empowering women and providing access to testing and treatment. In this article, which is based on a plenary presentation by Edwin Cameron, the authors advance ten reasons why criminalization is poor public health policy.
Recent years have seen a push to apply criminal law to HIV exposure and transmission, often drive... more Recent years have seen a push to apply criminal law to HIV exposure and transmission, often driven by the wish to respond to concerns about the ongoing rapid spread of HIV in many countries. Particularly in Africa, some groups have begun to advocate for criminalization in response to the serious phenomenon of women being infected with HIV through sexual violence or by partners who do not reveal their HIV diagnoses to them. While these issues must be urgently addressed, a closer analysis of the complex issues raised by criminalization of HIV exposure or transmission reveals that criminalization is unlikely to prevent new infections or reduce women's vulnerability to HIV. In fact, it may harm women rather than assist them, and have a negative impact on public health and human rights. This paper is a slightly revised version of a document originally released in December 2008 by a coalition of HIV, women's and human rights organizations. It provides ten reasons why criminalizing HIV exposure or transmission is generally an unjust and ineffective public policy. The obvious exception involves cases where individuals purposely or maliciously transmit HIV with the intent to harm others. In these rare cases, existing criminal laws – rather than new, HIV-specific laws – can and should be used.Ces dernières années, l’application du droit pénal à l’exposition au VIH ou à sa transmission a été préconisée, souvent pour répondre aux préoccupations suscitées par la propagation continue du VIH dans beaucoup de pays. En particulier en Afrique, certains groupes ont commencé à demander la criminalisation pour répondre au grave phénomène des femmes infectées par le VIH suite à des violences sexuelles ou par des partenaires leur ayant caché leur séropositivité. S’il faut aborder de toute urgence ces problèmes, une analyse plus approfondie des questions complexes soulevées par la criminalisation de l’exposition au VIH ou de sa transmission révèle que cette mesure a peu de chances de prévenir de nouvelles infections ou réduire la vulnérabilité des femmes au VIH. En fait, elle risque plutôt de faire du tort aux femmes et de nuire à la santé publique et aux droits de la personne. Cet article est une version légèrement révisée d’un document publié en décembre 2008 par une coalition d’organisations s’occupant du VIH, des droits de la personne et du statut de la femme. Il donne dix raisons pour lesquelles la criminalisation de l’exposition au VIH ou de sa transmission est généralement une politique publique injuste et inefficace. L’exception évidente concerne la transmission intentionnelle du VIH ou dans le dessein de porter préjudice. Dans ces rares cas, le droit pénal existant, plutôt que de nouvelles lois spécifiques au VIH, peut et doit être utilisé.En los últimos años se ha visto más presión por aplicar el derecho penal a la exposición y transmisión del VIH, por lo general motivada por el deseo de responder a las inquietudes respecto a la continua y rápida transmisión del VIH en muchos países. Particularmente en África, algunos grupos han empezado a abogar por la penalización en respuesta al grave fenómeno de mujeres infectada con VIH mediante violencia sexual o por parejas que no les revelan su diagnóstico de VIH. Aunque se debe tratar estos problemas urgentemente, un análisis más detenido de los aspectos complejos que surgen de la penalización de la exposición o transmisión del VIH, revela que es improbable que la penalización impida nuevas infecciones o reduzca la vulnerabilidad de las mujeres al VIH. Es más, podría perjudicar a las mujeres en vez de ayudarlas, y tener un impacto negativo en la salud pública y los derechos humanos. Este artículo es una versión algo modificada de un documento publicado originalmente en diciembre de 2008 por una coalición de organizaciones de VIH, mujeres y derechos humanos. Expone diez razones por las que la penalización de la exposición o transmisión del VIH generalmente es una política pública injusta e ineficaz. La excepción obvia es los casos en que las personas transmiten VIH deliberada o maliciosamente con la intención de perjudicar a los demás. En estos casos raros, se puede y se debe usar las leyes penales vigentes, en vez de nuevas leyes específicas al VIH.
Although HIV and tuberculosis (TB) prevalence are high in prisons throughout sub-Saharan Africa, ... more Although HIV and tuberculosis (TB) prevalence are high in prisons throughout sub-Saharan Africa, little research has been conducted on factors related to prevention, testing and treatment services.
Since the beginning of the epidemic, the protection of human rights has been an integral componen... more Since the beginning of the epidemic, the protection of human rights has been an integral component in the response to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). The high degree of stigma and discrimination associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) has made human rights protection not only a priority to ensure the rights of people living with and at-risk for HIV, but to address public health goals as well. Advances in understanding the impact of antiretroviral treatment on HIV prevention provide exciting opportunities and even a paradigm shift in terms of AIDS prevention. However, this potential cannot be reached unless the advancement of human rights is a primary component of treatment and prevention programme and policy development. The use of antiretroviral treatment as prevention reinforces the value of basic principles related to the dignity and agency of people living with HIV to participate in the design and implementation of programmes, to be informed and to make informed decisions about their health and lives, to be protected from harm, and to have opportunities to seek redress and accountability for abuses. The possibility of using HIV treatment as a prevention tool means that now, more than ever, legal reform and community empowerment and mobilisation are necessary to realize the rights and health of people affected by HIV.
HIV/AIDS policy & law review / Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2008
Criminalization of HIV transmission is an ineffective tool for combating AIDS and a costly distra... more Criminalization of HIV transmission is an ineffective tool for combating AIDS and a costly distraction from programmes that we know work--programmes such as effective prevention, protection against discrimination, reducing stigma, empowering women and providing access to testing and treatment. In this article, which is based on a plenary presentation by Edwin Cameron, the authors advance ten reasons why criminalization is poor public health policy.
Uploads
Papers by Michaela Clayton