AIDS: where to go from here

Put be in coach, I'm good
    By Sarah Holley

"AIDS obliges people to think of sex as having, possibly, the direst consequences: suicide. Or murder." So said essayist Susan Sontag in 1989, only eight years after the AIDS epidemic was first reported in America. At that time, AIDS redefined the public's attitude towards sex in America. People realized that by engaging in casual or unprotected sex, they could be putting their lives in danger by potentially exposing themselves to a fatal disease.

It is, however, the second consequence of Sontag's grim pronouncement that has risen to national attention and that brings into question the need for reforming HIV/AIDS legislation. In New York, Nushawn Williams, an HIV positive teenager, knowingly infected more than a dozen young women. In Tennessee, an HIV-infected woman confessed to sleeping with 50 men "to get revenge" for becoming infected with the virus herself. The states have reacted to these instances by getting new laws into the books. At least 29 states have introduced legislation that makes it a crime to knowingly transmit or expose others to HIV, and 16 state legislatures have introduced such bills this year alone.

In cases like Williams' where someone purposely infects someone else with the deadly virus, it seems obvious that there should be some punitive measures. But the circumstances of exposure and infection are not always so black and white. The 1.5 million reported cases in the United States represent only a fraction of the total number of Americans with HIV Of these people, an estimated 75-85 percent contracted the virus through unprotected intercourse, very few of whom probably contracted it from a partner who truly intended any harm. Therefore, it becomes apparent that we need to look at what is and can be done to prevent the "murder" of innocent victims by innocent carriers of the AIDS virus.

Since AIDS surfaced as a political issue in the '80s, the country has been concerned with protecting the civil rights of HIV-positive individuals. The campaign for AIDS awareness in the late '80s and early '90s carried a great deal of force, but has been eclipsed by other health and social issues. As a result, fear and ignorance about AIDS in the public's collective mind is on the rise.

This recent paranoia has resulted in new laws that deal with AIDS less as a "political disease" and more as a public threat. Thus far, New York has adopted the most stringent policies. In a law that takes effect on Fri., Jan. 1, doctors must report the names of HIV-positive people to the state. Local health officials will interview all these people and ask them to name all of their sexual partners so that officials can warn them that they are at risk. And across the country, states are increasingly requiring testing of specific groups of the population, especially prisoners and pregnant women.

While the catalyst for this legislative shift--cases like Williams's and the public's increasing ignorance--is unfortunate, the end result could ultimately be beneficial. Stronger HIV/AIDS regulation is necessary. In fact, HIV testing should be mandatory for everyone. If we are going to get serious about controlling the disease, we should do more than chip away at the core of the problem while the population of HIV-carriers increases all around us. Measures need to be taken to determine exactly who has the potential to spread the epidemic--mandatory testing would achieve just that.

The serious issue would become what to do with the results of these tests. Already, the primary complaint about the New York laws is that they invade privacy. Forcing everyone to be tested and then disclosing the results has the same feel as branding the infected population with a scarlet "A." But if the testing included a method of coded identification to ensure confidentiality, mandatory testing would allow health officials to track AIDS and control its spread while maintaining individual privacy and civil rights. Whatever measures are adopted, the one clear thing is that it is up to future legislation to design a way to contain this disease until a cure will be found.

Back to Opinion...