HIV/AIDS- Will law on Intentional spread reduce Infections?
Mar 08, 2009
WHEN Zubeida Najjuka discovered that her husband of 20 years was HIV-positive, she was devastated. <br>Her husband, Umar Kamoga, had known his status for five years but had not told her. Although her HIV test results were negative, Zubeida believes her h
By Milly Nattimba And Abbey Kibirango
WHEN Zubeida Najjuka discovered that her husband of 20 years was HIV-positive, she was devastated.
Her husband, Umar Kamoga, had known his status for five years but had not told her. Although her HIV test results were negative, Zubeida believes her husband is evil.
There are many reasons people do not reveal their sero-status to their partners. They range from fear of stigmatisation to fear of abandonment.
On the other hand are people who have sex with people who are not their regular partners without revealing their HIV status. Some may be malicious while others are simply trying to come to terms with being HIV-positive.
Against this background, the Government has drafted a Bill that criminalises intentional transmission of HIV, either through forceful sex or by deliberately withholding information on ones Sero-status.
The Bill gives Ugandans the responsibility to take ‘reasonable steps and precautions to protect themselves and others from HIV infection’.
The Bill also criminalises discrimination of HIV-positive individuals and provides legal parameters within which HIV testing and counselling services should be provided.
Tanzania, Mali, Kenya, Sierra Leone and Malawi have also come up with such legislation.
Criminalisation of intentional transmission of HIV has raised concerns among those involved in HIV programme planning and implementation.
The UN’s Joint AIDS Programme (UNAIDS) issued a policy brief urging governments to “limit criminalisation to cases of intentional transmission — where a person knows his or her HIV-positive status, acts with the intention to transmit HIV, and does, infact transmit itâ€.
Mariam Nalubega, the Youth MP sits on the standing committee on HIV/AIDS. She says: “The primary objective of this law is not to sentence people but to prevent transmission and in the process reduce new infectionsâ€.
However, analysts say there is no evidence to show that such laws can cause reduction in new infections. The HIV epidemic responds to population-based interventions and changes in behaviour, therefore locking up two or three people every year will not cause any difference in its progress.
Epidemiologists say the dynamics involved in calculating infection per sexual act are so many that ascertaining exactly where an individual picked an infection may be costly.
There are diverse views on how the Bill should be implemented. Margaret Muyimbwa of Makindye Kiruddu Zone says: “There are cases when people tell you: ‘I had sex with you to infect you’. This calls for disciplining.â€
But how far can the law go in dishing out punishment? For instance, should HIV-positive mothers be jailed if they give birth to positive babies, or should HIV-positive women be barred from getting pregnant?
In Sierra Leone, pregnant HIV-positive women were forced to abort. There is no evidence though to show that new HIV infections have gone down.
Richard Semakula of Bweyogerere feels the proposed law will mess up families. “We are going to see lots of children without fathers and mothers.
This law can work in cases of defilement but with married adults it is complicated. How will you prove that one deliberately infected the partner?†he asks.
The United Nations Development Programme’s HIV and Development Programme states that a law criminalising intentional transmission of HIV needs to be implemented with extreme care, otherwise it “may obstruct an appropriate response to the HIV epidemicâ€.
The argument is that many people may fear to seek HIV services like counselling and testing lest they are labelled ‘potential criminals’ in case they test HIV-positive.
In most cases, this kind of legislation is meant to protect women whose spouses do not reveal their HIV status, yet women do not have the socio-economic muscle to negotiate safe sex. This situation translates to young girls who have sex with older men for economic benefits.
Activists argue that it is such socio-economic imbalances that governments should focus on instead of criminalising HIV transmission.
Ronald Mubiru of Makindye says: “The law should target old men and women who initiate young people into sex for selfish ends.
The underlying issue here is to address conditions like poverty that render young people vulnerable to sexual exploitation and possible infection.â€
The International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS says since women are usually the first ones to know their HIV status due to their frequent interaction with the healthcare system, they may be victimised by their spouses and communities.
Paul Kaddu from Mukono says the law is double-edged and therefore caution should be taken. “On the face, it sounds good; but with issues of evidence, it gets complicated. It should be limited to rape, defilement and forced sex.
The Government should give out more information and re-awaken people to the dangers posed by HIV. With this law, we are holding the tail end of the snake; it can easily turn and bite us!†he says.
Judging from what has happened elsewhere; Uganda is taking a rocky path with this Bill. Implementing such a law may jeopardise what has been achieved and lead to stigma, yet it is not likely to cause any reduction in new infections.
Instead, existing laws like those on rape and defilement and intent to cause bodily harm or injury should be strengthened.
Highlights of the Bill
Clause 39, section 1 of the Bill reads: ‘A person who intentionally transmits or attempts to transmit HIV and AIDS to another person commits an offence of intentional transmission of HIV and AIDS and shall be liable, on conviction, to 10 years imprisonment or a fine not exceeding 50 currency points (sh1m) or both’.
The law exempts individuals who infect others without being aware that they are infected with HIV and cases where the other person is aware of the risk and voluntarily accepts the risk, or if attempts were made to use reliable protective measures like a condom before penetration.
WHEN Zubeida Najjuka discovered that her husband of 20 years was HIV-positive, she was devastated.
Her husband, Umar Kamoga, had known his status for five years but had not told her. Although her HIV test results were negative, Zubeida believes her husband is evil.
There are many reasons people do not reveal their sero-status to their partners. They range from fear of stigmatisation to fear of abandonment.
On the other hand are people who have sex with people who are not their regular partners without revealing their HIV status. Some may be malicious while others are simply trying to come to terms with being HIV-positive.
Against this background, the Government has drafted a Bill that criminalises intentional transmission of HIV, either through forceful sex or by deliberately withholding information on ones Sero-status.
The Bill gives Ugandans the responsibility to take ‘reasonable steps and precautions to protect themselves and others from HIV infection’.
The Bill also criminalises discrimination of HIV-positive individuals and provides legal parameters within which HIV testing and counselling services should be provided.
Tanzania, Mali, Kenya, Sierra Leone and Malawi have also come up with such legislation.
Criminalisation of intentional transmission of HIV has raised concerns among those involved in HIV programme planning and implementation.
The UN’s Joint AIDS Programme (UNAIDS) issued a policy brief urging governments to “limit criminalisation to cases of intentional transmission — where a person knows his or her HIV-positive status, acts with the intention to transmit HIV, and does, infact transmit itâ€.
Mariam Nalubega, the Youth MP sits on the standing committee on HIV/AIDS. She says: “The primary objective of this law is not to sentence people but to prevent transmission and in the process reduce new infectionsâ€.
However, analysts say there is no evidence to show that such laws can cause reduction in new infections. The HIV epidemic responds to population-based interventions and changes in behaviour, therefore locking up two or three people every year will not cause any difference in its progress.
Epidemiologists say the dynamics involved in calculating infection per sexual act are so many that ascertaining exactly where an individual picked an infection may be costly.
There are diverse views on how the Bill should be implemented. Margaret Muyimbwa of Makindye Kiruddu Zone says: “There are cases when people tell you: ‘I had sex with you to infect you’. This calls for disciplining.â€
But how far can the law go in dishing out punishment? For instance, should HIV-positive mothers be jailed if they give birth to positive babies, or should HIV-positive women be barred from getting pregnant?
In Sierra Leone, pregnant HIV-positive women were forced to abort. There is no evidence though to show that new HIV infections have gone down.
Richard Semakula of Bweyogerere feels the proposed law will mess up families. “We are going to see lots of children without fathers and mothers.
This law can work in cases of defilement but with married adults it is complicated. How will you prove that one deliberately infected the partner?†he asks.
The United Nations Development Programme’s HIV and Development Programme states that a law criminalising intentional transmission of HIV needs to be implemented with extreme care, otherwise it “may obstruct an appropriate response to the HIV epidemicâ€.
The argument is that many people may fear to seek HIV services like counselling and testing lest they are labelled ‘potential criminals’ in case they test HIV-positive.
In most cases, this kind of legislation is meant to protect women whose spouses do not reveal their HIV status, yet women do not have the socio-economic muscle to negotiate safe sex. This situation translates to young girls who have sex with older men for economic benefits.
Activists argue that it is such socio-economic imbalances that governments should focus on instead of criminalising HIV transmission.
Ronald Mubiru of Makindye says: “The law should target old men and women who initiate young people into sex for selfish ends.
The underlying issue here is to address conditions like poverty that render young people vulnerable to sexual exploitation and possible infection.â€
The International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS says since women are usually the first ones to know their HIV status due to their frequent interaction with the healthcare system, they may be victimised by their spouses and communities.
Paul Kaddu from Mukono says the law is double-edged and therefore caution should be taken. “On the face, it sounds good; but with issues of evidence, it gets complicated. It should be limited to rape, defilement and forced sex.
The Government should give out more information and re-awaken people to the dangers posed by HIV. With this law, we are holding the tail end of the snake; it can easily turn and bite us!†he says.
Judging from what has happened elsewhere; Uganda is taking a rocky path with this Bill. Implementing such a law may jeopardise what has been achieved and lead to stigma, yet it is not likely to cause any reduction in new infections.
Instead, existing laws like those on rape and defilement and intent to cause bodily harm or injury should be strengthened.
Highlights of the Bill
Clause 39, section 1 of the Bill reads: ‘A person who intentionally transmits or attempts to transmit HIV and AIDS to another person commits an offence of intentional transmission of HIV and AIDS and shall be liable, on conviction, to 10 years imprisonment or a fine not exceeding 50 currency points (sh1m) or both’.
The law exempts individuals who infect others without being aware that they are infected with HIV and cases where the other person is aware of the risk and voluntarily accepts the risk, or if attempts were made to use reliable protective measures like a condom before penetration.