In Online Opinion this morning, Dr Joe Thomas, a social commentator on HIV and AIDS in Asia Pacific region, wrote a piece about Godfrey Zaburoni, the Zimbabwe-born Australian citizen and circus acrobat, who knowingly spread HIV by having unprotected sex with a series of women:
The acrobat, Mr Godfrey Zaburoni, 31, is due to face a court of law soon. Australian print, TV and online media extensively covered this story and published photographs of Mr Zaburoni along with intimate details of his alleged behaviour.
It is unfortunate that the Australian public health authorities’ response was not based on the sound public health principles of respect to privacy and confidentially. Breach of confidentially and the criminalisation of alleged behaviours which facilitate HIV transmission is not a sound HIV prevention policy.
This was a golden opportunity for the public health authorities to reinforce the message of “protected sex during every sexual encounter” and it has been squandered.
Read more here. I think Thomas raises an interesting point when he argues that the criminalisation of alleged behaviours which facilitate HIV transmission is not a sound HIV prevention policy. But it also raises a series of complex questions.
First, does that mean that it should not be a criminal offence to knowingly spread HIV by having unprotected sex?
Second, Thomas also noted that "In a consensual sexual relationship, responsibility to protect from sexually transmitted infection must be shared equally among the parties." Does this mean that the women who contacted HIV from Zaburoni should accept some responsibility? And if they should accept some responsibility, what impact, if any, should that have on the criminal charges Zaburoni now faces?
My own personal answers to these two questions leads me to an uneasy, somewhat contradictory conclusion. First, while I accept the public health arguments against criminalising HIV, I do feel there should be some criminal penalty for knowingly spreading HIV by having unprotected sex. Second, I also accept that the other person does have to accept some responsibility. In 2010 we all know that you need to use protection when having sex, especially when it is outside a committed, monogamous relationship.
How do you reconcile these two conclusions when it comes to apportioning culpability, either morally or legally? I really have no idea. But I would be interested to know what you think.
