In an age where many sexual encounters do not necessarily occur in trusting and committed relationships, it comes as no surprise that informing a sexual partner of one’s relevant medical background is not exactly a pillar of what we deem foreplay. Quite often this important step of intimacy is completely removed from the process, and although not everyone experiences negative effects afterwards, for some the outcome can be life-changing. Take Daniel Decu, a 25-year-old man from Romania who recently passed away from tuberculosis. Decu contracted HIV in a hospital when he was only five years old and went forward in life knowing the implications of the virus and the precautions he must take sexually. Eight of Decu’s sexual partners recently tested HIV positive after finding out at his funeral that he had been carrying the virus. More are currently being informed, and two other victims have been confirmed. I won’t pretend to know the details of Decu’s encounters with the various women who now must live with a life-threatening virus, but it is clear Decu should have been the one to inform them, not a coroner’s report following an autopsy.
Twenty-four states currently uphold partner-notification laws, and 25 states enforce criminal laws pertaining to those who knowingly expose the disease without informing their sexual partners. Today, more than 1.1 million people in the United States are living with HIV, and one in six people are completely unaware of this fact. If this number could be lessened even minutely by enforcing prosecution of those who criminally transmit the virus, then the legislation would be worth it.
Of course, not all transmission of HIV should be deemed criminal activity. There are three facets of transmission: intentional transmission, in which an HIV positive individual shares a needle or has sex with another person with the sole intent to infect them with the virus; reckless transmission, in which the HIV positive individual knowingly shares a needle or has sex with another person for sexual gratification; and accidental transmission, in which an individual, unaware that they are HIV positive, shares a needle or has sex with another person. The latter should be criminalized, but for those who viciously intend to pass on the virus or simply favor their own pleasure over the safety and well-being of their partner, there should be some consequence. Trials of these sorts are undoubtedly tricky, but they still have a place in the judicial system.
States across the nation should broaden their current HIV exposure laws to protect everyone, not just prisoners and sex workers. Knowingly endangering another’s life is deemed criminal in all other instances, and the same should be said for those who are HIV positive. If an individual refuses to use protection during a sexual encounter and purposely passes on the virus, they should be held accountable for that selfish and wrong action. In addition, enforcing this kind of law could push more people to get tested so that we could also lessen the accidental instances of transmission. Legislation should never be used to stigmatize a group of people, but as evident in Decu’s case, it is exponentially worse to find out later.