HIV in the UK poll thoughts

[lovingboth]

Hmm, publicising the poll on HIV in the UK on livejournal_uk certainly upped the numbers responding.

I'm surprised at how popular home tests for HIV would be... but then I'm in London, male and bisexual, so there are lots of clinics who would treat me well, plus I'm clued up enough to know how to find somewhere that can treat me now, rather than in a couple of weeks.

One of my objections to home kits is the possibility of using them to test someone else... not necessarily with their consent: "I had this dream that I was being bitten by an insect, and when I woke up, there was a spot of blood on the sheet." "Never mind that, why didn't you tell me you had HIV, you bastard?!?"

The main argument in favour is that it would increase the number of people testing. Modern treatments are a very good reason to know as soon as possible - the drugs aren't nice (many of them have all sorts of side-effects) but since 1996, they've absolutely slashed the number of people dying from Aids.

Is the roughly constant level of male-male infections a success or failure? I think it's both. As there are more men with HIV than there were in the mid 80s (those drugs again, so if you survived until the mid 90s, you're probably still alive now), the proportion who are 'just infected' is dropping, so it's a success seen in that light.

But the inability to reduce the level in almost twenty years is also a pretty dismal failure.

How many people are expected to be living with HIV in the UK in five years time? About 100,000, ie twice the number now.

Should sexual transmission of HIV be a criminal offence? I was surprised at how many thought so (even if no-one at the time of writing thought it should be if condoms were used).

Come on, everyone old enough to have sex should know that there are people who will lie - whatever the law - to get the sex they want.

"Of course I love you." "Of course I want a relationship with you, not a one-night stand." "Of course I won't come in your mouth." "Of course I'm not having sex with anyone else." "Of course I don't have HIV." Etc etc etc.

Now, of course, that's bad, and I'm sure most of the people reading this will go 'I've never done that'. But pretending it doesn't happen is foolish, particularly when you're risking your own health.

Most people with HIV don't tell new partners. Given the numbers who'd run away screaming if they did, I can understand why.

Mohammed Dica, who was convicted last year of 'grevious bodily harm' after being accused of infecting women with HIV, won a retrial earlier this year. Annoyingly, it was on the grounds that the judge at the first trial denied him a particular defence (that the women knew he was HIV+ before they had sex with him) rather than because it breached the absolutely clear precedent that it wasn't an offence...

Oh, which is the leading general sexual health organisation in the UK today? I dunno either, but it's what THT wants to become.

Comments

[zotz]

But pretending it doesn't happen is foolish

I would assume that those who think it should be illegal would be the last to deny that it happens - otherwise there'd be no need for it to be illegal.

Given the numbers who'd run away screaming if they did, I can understand why.

I take it you'd support my right to do the same if I contracted leprosy or became highly radioactive?

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

Not a very good analogy, surely? AFAIK barrier methods dont provide any protection against leprosy or radioactivity.

I am against criminalisation for the pragmatic reason that i dont believe the threat of criminalisation would deter those living with Hiv who behave in this way, and I believe the purpose of criminalisation shoul be deterrent not punitive.

[badriya.livejournal.com]

Rehabilitation or deterrence.

We were discussing whether Ronnie Biggs should be released from prison and bluerose was saying yes, because neither of those apply and so ther eis no point wasting the taxpayer's money keeping him in. It is more expensive to do so than to release him to his family or an NHS hospital.

[zotz]

AFAIK barrier methods dont provide any protection against leprosy or radioactivity.

Better than you'd think. Leprosy starts off as a skin infection, and those sealed-environment suits are pretty good against ingesting radioisotopes.

i dont believe the threat of criminalisation would deter those living with Hiv who behave in this way

Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just supposition?

[lovingboth]

Lots of people think that if you make something illegal, people will stop doing it. You know, like drugs and speeding.

If you make sexual transmission of HIV illegal, the main thing that will happen is that people won't test. If you don't know you're HIV+, you won't have the mens rea ('guilty mind') necessary for a conviction.

[zotz]

If you make sexual transmission of HIV illegal, the main thing that will happen is that people won't test.

Again - do we have any evidence that this is actually the case, or is it just supposition? After all, there have been prosecutions for this, so we should be able to tell if it's happening. Can we?

[misspotsitt.livejournal.com]

I personally woulnd't use a home test kit, because I thnk if I was facing the possibility of having HIV I would like to have acces to someone to talk to. If you did it at home, it came back positive you could be left with a lot of very scared newly diagnosed people out ther who the system knows nothing about and it may cause more problems that is solves.

The thing to remember about the figures of people living with HIV, is tht people with HIV live a lot loner now. Like you said the rate of new transfers has dropped. Whereas when it first started someone would only live a few years from infection with HIV, to developing AIDS and then death, now you can be infected with HIV and if you take combination therapy and can stand the side effects it could be many many years before you develop AIDS. Someone who was infected 15 years ago is still counted in the figures though. A more accurate success figure would be how many new cases were coming to light, though that does require there to be an understanding of what proportion fof infected people were being tested.

I think if you know you are HIV +, understand the implications, and knowingly have unprotected sex and infect another person without their consent (there is a trend particularly among some gay men to both become infected if one partner in a couple is HIV + so that they can both go through the ordeal together) and especially if it was done so maliciously then it should be a criminal offense. I do't see that as any different to poisoning someon or hitting them over the head with a hammer. It's a premediated form of causing somoen harm. However you have to be very clear about establishing prior knowledge and intent, which would be quite difficult.

[lovingboth]

I think one idea is that you'd send it off and get the results over the phone from someone like - gosh - THT who'd get a share of the money for providing the after-service. Entirely home-based tests (like modern pregnancy tests) are available in some other countries though.

There are a couple of studies that used a combination of questionnaires and anonymous testing which reckon that about a third of people with HIV don't know it.

there is a trend particularly among some gay men to both become infected

Urban myth, I suspect. There are some people who've talked about finding it difficult to be HIV-, especially in places like San Francisco, but I'm not aware of any serious evidence that this is an issue. It's difficult to spend much time with someone with Aids or on combination therapy without thinking that you really don't want to join them in this, no matter how much you love them.

[misspotsitt.livejournal.com]

It's difficult to spend much time with someone with Aids or on combination therapy without thinking that you really don't want to join them in this, no matter how much you love them.

I agreee, however it is something I've come across talking ot my firends, and also from my mother, who obviously comes across a fair few HIV and AIDS patients in her line of work. None of my friends want to do anything like that (and as far as I know none of them have + partners either) but they have seen people who do.

[haddion.livejournal.com]

not necessarily with their consent

Certainly not my intention. I would consider it foolish to ban home tests simply because the possibility of abuse exists. Cooking knives can be used to kill people, but you can still buy them. Perhaps their release should coincide with legislation making it illegal to conduct a test without permission.

everyone old enough to have sex should know that there are people who will lie

Yes, you should take precautions. No, that doesn't transfer a single tiny bit of a blame from the person who lies and infects somebody on purpose. I turn back to my trusty knife analogy: If a policeman enters a hostile situation knowing he could be stabbed but chooses not to wear armour under his shirt, yes he is foolish. No, it doesn't take any of the culpability away from somebody who stabs him.

In any case, an enlightening and interesting poll. I look forward to more such debates in livejournal_uk

[lovingboth]

As I understand it, it's a 1920s or 30s law relating to who can diagnose a sexually transmitted infection, the same one that made GUM clinics absolutely confidential.

I suspect the number of people who've infected someone 'on purpose' is minimal.