Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:33:09.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preventing HIV Transmission via HIV Exposure Laws: Applying Logic and Mathematical Modeling to Compare Statutory Approaches to Penalizing Undisclosed Exposure to HIV

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Carol L. Galletly  and
Steven D. Pinkerton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Twenty-four U.S. states have enacted HIV exposure laws that prohibit HIV-positive persons from engaging in sexual activities with partners to whom they have not disclosed their HIV-status. From a public health perspective, HIV serostatus exposure laws can be viewed as structural interventions that seek to limit the spread of HIV by acting at the policy level. A central premise of these laws is that informed partners are more likely to protect themselves by declining sex, by substituting less risky activities for higher-risk ones, or by using condoms, than are uninformed partners. However, the effectiveness of these laws at preventing HIV transmission is not known.

There is little standardization among existing HIV exposure laws, which vary substantially with respect to the sexual activities that are prohibited without prior serostatus disclosure. Among the strictest laws are those in Arkansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio which mandate disclosure prior to almost any type of sexual contact.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , Fall 2008 , pp. 577 - 584
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-123; Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 120291; Fla. Stat. § 384.24; Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-60; Idaho Code § 39–608; 20 ILL. Comp. Ann. 5/12–16.2; Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 16-41-7-1; Iowa Code § 709C.1; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21–3435; La. Rev. Stat. § 14:43.5; Md. Code Ann. § 18–601.1; Mich. Comp. Law Serv. § 333.5210; Vernon's Mo. Rev. Stat. § 191.677; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.205; N.J. Stat. § 2C:34–5; N.D. Cent. Code, § 12.1-20-17; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.11; 21 Okla. Stat. § 1192.1; S.C. Code Ann. § 44-29-145; S.D. Codified Laws § 22-18-31; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-109; Va. Code Ann. § 18.2–67.4:1; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.36.011.Google Scholar
Galletly, C. L. and Pinkerton, S. D., “Toward Rational Criminal HIV Disclosure Laws,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32, no. 2 (2004): 327–337; Lazzarini, Z., Bray, S., and Burris, S., “Evaluating the Impact of Criminal Laws on HIV Risk Behavior,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 30, no. 2 (2002): 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, L. E. and Vezina, R., “Crime and Punishment: Is There a Role for Criminal Law in HIV Prevention Policy?” Whittier Law Review 25 (2004): 821–886.Google Scholar
See supra note 2.Google Scholar
Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-14-123; Michigan Compiled Laws Service § 333.5210; New Jersey Statutes § 2C:34–5; Ohio Revised Code Annotated § 2903.11.Google Scholar
Michigan Compiled Laws Service § 333.5210Google Scholar
California Health and Safety Code § 120291Google Scholar
Davis, K. R. and Weller, C., “The Effectiveness of Condoms in Reducing Heterosexual Transmission of HIV,” Family Planning Perspectives 31, no. 6 (1999): 272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbart, V. L., Evans, B. G., and Dougan, S. D., “HIV Transmission among Men Who Have Sex with Men through Oral Sex,” Sexually Transmitted Infections 80, no. 4 (2004): 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, G. and Crepaz, N., “HIV-Positive Men's Sexual Practices in the Context of Self-Disclosure of HIV Status,” Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 27, no. 1 (2001): 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Pinkerton, S. D. and Abramson, P. R., “Effectiveness of condoms in Preventing HIV Transmission,” Social Science and Medicine 44, no. 9 (1997): 1303–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkerton, S. D. and Galletly, C. L., “Reducing HIV Transmission Risk by Increasing Serostatus Disclosure: A Mathematical Modeling Analysis,” AIDS and Behavior 11, no. 5 (2007): 698–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Marks, and Crepaz, , supra note 10.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Galletly, C. L. and Pinkerton, S. D., “Conflicting Messages: How Criminal HIV Disclosure Laws Undermine Public Health Efforts to Control the Spread of HIV,” AIDS and Behavior 10, no. 5 (2006): 451–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catania, J. A., Stone, V., Binson, D., and Dolcici, M. M., “Changes in Condom Use among Heterosexuals in Wave 3 of the AMEN Survey,” Journal of Sex Research 32, no. 3 (1995): 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar