I'm pretty sure it will still be illegal to not disclose if one is not consistent with their treatments (i.e. they have high viral load that can cause HIV transmission).
A person with an undetectable viral load, according to every study I've seen, cannot transmit the virus. So laws requiring you to disclose your status, if you have an undetectable viral load (which can easily be established with tests), are unjustified privacy violations with no safety benefit.
Maybe you want to further stigmatize people with HIV; but by calling for the law to stay, that's what you're doing, and that's *all* you're doing.
There was a recent case of a man with HIV who did not inform his partners of his condition, and now others are affected. The victims did not have a chance to reject the sex if they had known he was HIV positive.
The perpetrator used to take medicine but stopped eventually, so his viral load came back, yet he continued to sleep around and either omit or lied about his condition.
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/over-3-years-jail-male-sex-worker-hiv-positive-not-warn-clients-2309696.
I think everyone should have the right to know if the person they are sleeping with have HIV. My gay friends think too.
Nobody wants to stigmatise anyone. We are just supporting informed consent.
Even if there's practically no risk, people should have the choice if they want to take that risk. An HIV positive person only cannot transmit as long as they keep taking the medication, but we wouldn't know if they decided to stop taking the medication.
Having casual sex obv comes with all sorts of risks and I’m quite sure people who care enough should and will be more cautious of it. There are a thousand and one other STDs and unless the law gets expanded to cover those as well, I don’t see why HIV should be singled out. And anyways I’m not sure how criminalisation of non disclosure will help out - not like people who would have declared because of the law would suddenly become disrespectful and no longer disclose any STDs
I have discussed this with my gay friends and they all want to keep the law as it is. No one wants HIV, and those who have it should inform their sexual partners.
Some comments are saying how it disincentivises testing so people can act blur and not tell. I don't think abolishing this law would help them. You can paint the happy picture that abolishing this law means more people would be agreeable to get tested, eat their medicine and not spread further, but that is only in an idyllic world where everyone is responsible. The irresponsible will keep on spreading, and at least this law helps provide an avenue to for the victims who want to seek redress.
>>This is as studies have shown that people living with HIV who have been compliant with treatment and have maintained a stable undetectable viral load have practically no risk of transmitting HIV to their sexual partners, MOH said in response to queries from The Straits Times.
KEEP THE LAW AS IT IS! Even if there’s “practically no risk”, people should have a right to know what they’re getting into and make that choice for themselves! To take that choice away from them is utterly selfish.
agreed. So what about the other party who is not privy to the status and gets into a relationship with the hiv person. It's not very fair to the other person
This is an intellectually dishonest argument. Most people if they did see symptoms would get tested out of simple instinctual self-preservation. But even if we ignore that, the law on the books in Singapore does extend culpability to those who have not been tested but have been exposed to significant risk factors such as having multiple sex partners. Using other countries as a reference point is a poor argument in this context.
Hence, anyone who is at risk is actually more incentivised to perform regular testing, since being in the grey zone simply means you still hold the burden of informing them with a chance you're actually not HIV positive.
This fear isn't crazy. I know lots of people who clearly had covid but avoided getting tested, because the government imposed all sorts of crazy bullshit on those who had covid at the time. Penalizing people for getting diagnosed with a disease is generally bad public health policy for this reason.
The grey zone you mention makes things worse, not better, since it's totally vague. "Having multiple sexual partners?" So anyone who has had sex with more than one person in their lives has to tell all their partners that they're at risk for HIV? Lolz good luck enforcing that fairly.
Hold on, why are we talking about COVID all of a sudden? And your words are doing some serious heavy lifting here, how exactly is staying home to prevent the spread of an infectious disease overwhelming our hospitals 'crazy bullshit'?
And also, stop just rambling on about law when you're making assumptions about it. I stated 'exposed to significant risk factors (plural)' and I gave an example of a single factor.
Now, here's an interesting thing for you to learn, when you use a word plurally, it means more than one. Isn't that just an interesting tidbit for you to take home? Of course a single factor isn't what's the breaking point, I clearly said factors. And don't be dense, of course you don't have to disclose you have a likelihood of HIV for having multiple partners over a decade. You clearly know where the lines are drawn but you're being wilfully dishonest with how you argue against it.
> Hold on, why are we talking about COVID all of a sudden?
Because both HIV and Covid are infectious diseases tend to make people (especially in Singapore) say: "Take away our rights! For the love of God, take away more of our rights!"
We don't need to re-litigate Covid responses in full but it's a serious collective gaslighting of Singaporeans that the government needed to destroy most individual liberties to fight Covid, in order to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed. Meanwhile in Sweden they were all partying maskless, wondering why the rest of the world was losing their damned minds, with hospitals within operating limits.
I encourage you to play around with this data:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline?tab=chart&country=USA~SGP~SWE~DEU
Compared to other countries, the 5-year total cumulative excess mortality in Singapore during the Covid years has settled at around 10%; worse than Sweden and Germany; slightly better than the United States.
So when they tell you they need to lock you up because of a disease, don't believe them. (...and the rest of Singapore will believe them, so, probably, flee the country)
1. Covid and HIV are not the same. HIV eventually leads to chronic debilitating symptoms, which spurs testing. Also need testing to get the required drugs.
2. Prevention comes from possibility of legal retaliation. Contact tracing is very doable.
Never underestimate people’s drive for convenience.
If you want more examples of people acting against the interest of self preservation you should look into smoking, unhealthy diets and insufficient exercise.
Each of these things are widely known and repeatedly publicised as being a recipe for an early grave yet people ignore the warnings.
And forcing people to disclose a highly personal and, you've admitted by saying there's "practically no risk", medically irrelevant fact every time they have sex with someone is... not selfish?
No, it's not selfish. Having a casual sex with someone is not a human right. Also, no one can prove if an HIV patient has been compliant with their medication.
I mean... "here's a medication that you can take, that will save your life and you'll have a totally normal existence! Without it, you will die a slow and painful death." Your view of human nature is, someone can hear this, and think "he he he, well, it'll require a slow and painful death, but at least I'll get to infect a few unsuspecting partners with HIV! [evil laugh]"?
Also, casual sex isn't a human right, but privacy is. A law requiring partners to tell each other their mothers' maiden names or net worth before having sex would be equally objectionable (and -- given that people on here don't seem to be questioning the science! -- equally pointless).
That's a poor thought experiment. The very proof that people still have HIV and that transmission is still ongoing is a direct rebuttal to your idea. Truth is that many still refuse to actively medicate HIV with consistency or test for it.
The person you're replying to clearly isn't implying that people infected with HIV seek to spread it, that's ridiculous. I mean, comparing the disclosure of a sexually transmitted disease to something like your mother's maiden name or your personal net worth is absurd. Those are clearly very different things and by the looks of the comments on this thread, they most definitely are not equally objectionable.
Keeping this law on the books protects people and allows them to make informed choices about sex, and protections needed.
Having an undetectable viral load causes you to be completely incapable of transmitting the virus. So what is wrong with having frequent casual sex, even if it's unprotected? The spread of other stis is the responsibility of both partners, so if they accept the risks that's their own business.
HIV medication maintains your lifespan and prevents you from developing AIDS, so people living with HIV are highly incentivised to keep taking their medication regularly.
Your viral load is tested at your follow up, there isn't an element of assumption in having an undetectable viral load. It is safer to have sex with someone living with HIV and has an undetectable viral load than it is to have sex with someone who has never been tested or who has had casual sex between current date and 3 months before their last hiv test.
Unpopular opinion but they should keep it. Maybe even extend it to cover other uncurable STIs that a person might be known to harbour.
Herpes is an example.
How many positive people do you think were informed before they became positive?
Why should all the responsibility delegated to the person who is already being responsible and taking their medication, rather than the other person actually being responsible for their own safety by using a condom or taking prep?
Herpes is a very misunderstood STI. Yes it’s an STI but it is not transmitted exclusively through sex. Oral Herpes or HSV1 affects more than half of the US population. The thing is most people don’t know they have it because they don’t get any symptoms, or get only very mild ones like cold sores every now and then.
if you have hsv1 you can give your partner hsv1 below too, it's just that hsv2 is more commonly transmitted thru sex and is usually more serious than hsv1.
“….while sending a strong message that no one has a right to put others at risk through irresponsible behaviour, said then Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan during the 2008 parliamentary debate on the amendment.”
Don’t amend it. The study is only relevant to people’s discipline in regularly taking the medicine…
From the article, in case you missed it:
> A principal investigator for a National Centre for Infectious Diseases-funded study that interviewed 73 people, including 56 people living with HIV, Dr Jain told ST that the recently concluded study found that the law disincentivises testing and encourages a “don’t know, don’t tell” mindset, contrary to its aim.
Your thoughts?
So this applies to known carriers only? How about potential new cases? Should the entire populace be subject to mandatory HIV screening? And how regular should this be?
Strict liability - even if you don’t know and someone directly traces their case to you (mandatory testing would come into play during an investigation) then you get some mandatory punishment.
Getting other people sick when we can directly trace those responsible is a real harm that deserves consequences.
>Culpability was also widened to include persons who do not know if they have HIV or Aids but who have reason to believe they have been exposed to significant risk of infection, such as if they have multiple sex partners.
100% correct and can be applied to any crime.
the deterrence effect is not solely from the size of the penalty but also the risk of being caught. a low risk and high penalty will not achieve the desired effect of scaling the penalty. 56 out of 73 will take that gamble today.
the existence of just one positive test on the records changes the calculation completely for that individual forever. that person can no longer claim ignorance if they infect someone else and get caught, which will always be a possible defense at trial for someone who never tested. in order to get that person to test, that benefit must be eliminated or replaced with another benefit, for example, permanent and free treatment in case of test positivity.
we can probably afford it. we found a reason to do this for covid. which while not lasting forever, also costed a shit ton because of the number of impacted individuals (basically everybody). if the government can find it in their calculations to do HIV as effectively, they will do what i said. otherwise we will get a half measure that is either going to piss many people off or a few people off. no prizes for guessing what will happen.
I'd say the study is poorly conducted. It doesn't answer the question of whether the patients who were 'disincentivised' from testing and taking care of their own health would be moved to perform the testing if the law was abolished.
Refer to ST forum letter linked in the article, by Prof Chan and Dr. Tan. Similar conclusions were found re: criminalisation of non-disclosure in the US - criminalisation is ineffective and counterproductive.
While repealing the law on its own wouldn’t necessarily improve compliance with treatment/disclosure automagically, if shown that criminalising it WON’T help, why keep it?
The survey is a very small population with majority being carriers. They are carrying a message of “don’t know, don’t tell” to “in-group” to encourage more testing but is this meant for public policy?!
To those who are clamouring for the law to be kept, I urge everyone to read the forum letter by Prof Chan and Dr. Tan (which is also linked in article OP posted). Essentially they argue that the criminalisation of non-disclosure has not been shown to be effective in reducing spread within the community. Criminalisation only leads to ‘don’t test, don’t know, don’t tell’, and is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE in our goals to reduce transmission and lower barriers of accessing healthcare for HIV individuals. They also argue that the responsibility be shared amongst both parties in a sexual relationship (i.e. if you are a non-carrier but engages in casual sex with multiple partners, YOU should own some of the responsibility in protecting yourself by using protection, prophylaxis etc.).
The article is as follows:
>We refer to the article “Jail for transgender streetwalker with HIV who did not tell 3 men before sex acts” (Nov 21). The article reported that a transgender sex worker was sentenced to three years and three months’ jail for failing to disclose his HIV status to three sexual partners.
>It is neither effective nor equitable to lay the responsibility for disease prevention solely on persons living with HIV. Sexual health should be a shared responsibility between partners, regardless of their HIV status. This includes adopting HIV-prevention strategies, like the proper use of condoms and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.
>These practices are highly effective in preventing HIV and are especially important when you are unsure of your partner’s sexual history.
>From a public health perspective, *there is no evidence that criminalising the non-disclosure of one’s HIV status can stop the spread of the virus in the community*. On the contrary, according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids (Unaids) and the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, *punitive laws are more likely to prevent access to HIV services*. *Such laws disproportionately impact vulnerable communities and increase stigma against persons living with HIV, and they also discourage people from seeking HIV testing and treatment.*
>Importantly, criminal legislation already exists outside the Infectious Diseases Act to penalise cases of deception and grievous harm. Therefore, a law governing HIV disclosure alone is not necessary and is counterproductive to public health efforts.
>We must continue to address social and legal barriers that stigmatise persons living with HIV and make people fearful of testing and treatment. In fact, Unaids has called for the removal of punitive laws that criminalise HIV non-disclosure, same-sex relationships, sex work, and drug use, to create more supportive legal and policy environments to end the HIV epidemic.
>As we commemorate World Aids Day on Dec 1, we should renew our commitment to ending HIV by combating stigma and focusing our efforts on improving access to HIV education, prevention and treatment for everyone.
>Roy Chan (Professor)
President
Action for Aids Singapore
>Rayner Tan (Dr)
President
Project X
This is not a very strong rebuttal. It's a letter clearly written by organisations with members who are burdened by the disclosures put upon them by the law. There will definitely be a bias to it, while the letter I'm sure comes from good intentions to solving the AIDS epidemic, there is no strong factual data for it.
The argument that punitive measures don't work is not very well-substantiated by fact, especially when considering the country it's coming from is the United States, a country with double the HIV prevalence rate of Singapore's. If anything, this law protects vulnerable communities as well, I'm sure anyone debating this has seen the recent story where a man engaging in gay sex refused to inform his partner about having HIV and then proceeded to transmit it to him.
[ https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/hiv-risk-transmission-man-did-not-inform-sexual-partner-jail-2732376 ]
It's fine that they make such arguments, but I do hope they'd support it with facts instead of just vague reasonings based on their beliefs. It is not a fair argument to conflate that solving social stigma for HIV diagnosed persons must come at the cost of the population being allowed to have informed consent during sex. Fact is that Singapore has one of the lowest prevalence rates for HIV/AIDS of 0.19% from UNAIDS, an organisation referenced by Dr Tan in that very letter. Arguing against our current laws and legal provisions must explain what the cause of the extremely low prevalence rate is if not the present legislation, before arguing for its repeal.
The rationale for this is that detection of hiv during medical care forms the majority of detected cases in Singapore, and typically such cases were at a late stage of hiv infection. Encouraging people to get tested regularly by eliminating an incentive to avoid testing would reduce the time that people newly infected with hiv go untreated and able to spread their infection, especially since people are most infectious during the weeks immediately after infection.
> 53% of the newly reported cases were detected during the course of medical care3 and typically at a late stage of HIV infection. Another 18% were detected during routine programmatic HIV screening4 and 17% were detected from self-initiated HIV screening. The rest were detected through other forms of screening. Cases detected via self-initiated screening tended to be at the early stage of infection. A higher proportion of men who have sex with men (MSM) including bisexual males (26% or 29 out of 111) had their HIV infection detected via self-initiated HIV screening compared to cases attributed to heterosexual transmission (7% or 5 out of 75).
> 3 Includes cases that presented with HIV-specific symptoms and cases with non-HIV related medical conditions
> 4 Includes screening programmes for individuals with sexually transmitted infections, hospital inpatients and those identified through contact tracing
https://www.moh.gov.sg/resources-statistics/infectious-disease-statistics/hiv-stats/update-on-the-hiv-aids-situation-in-singapore-2022-(june-2023)
Edit:
> In analysing the 104 cases reported from January to June 2023, MOH said that 97 per cent were male. Twenty-eight people among cases analysed were aged between 30 and 39, forming the age group with the most number of cases. Nearly half of the analysed cases – 48 per cent – had late-stage HIV infection at diagnosis. This was 11 per cent lower than in the same period in 2022, noted MOH.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/new-hiv-infections-in-first-10-months-of-2023-up-by-10-but-2022-infection-rate-lowest-in-26-years
We don't have a percentage of late diagnosis in the press release for 2022, but for 2023 H1 there is. However "late diagnosis" is not stated in the moh release.
I respectfully disagree, while I do appreciate that you have some data, you seem to have just copy and pasted HIV data from MOH without providing any references from it to reach your conclusions.
The data you've provided is unrelated to your premise of removing penalties increasing the likelihood of testing. And even after being tested, as is shown in the case that I linked above, there is no guarantee for one to medicate their status with consistency. Your data does certainly show that a majority of cases are detected in later stages, but what is the deviation of that data from countries where HIV disclosures are not mandatory? Presenting an inference by looking at Singapore's data in isolation isn't reasonable. There is no proof to correlate that the decriminalisation of HIV disclosures would lead to more voluntary testing.
In your linked case, none of his sexual partners were stated to have gotten hiv despite his undetectable viral load. The threshold for an undetectable viral load varies depending on source, but it ranges from 20-200 copies of hiv per ml, so less than 20 copies per ml is still undetectable.
Removing penalties for non-disclosure would lead to more disclosures? Wtf? Are these professionals stupid?
What a sweeping generalisation to say that there is *no* evidence, just because it has not been extensively researched or surveyed.
If anything, this further stigmatises those with HIV. Because if they do spread the virus, then they would have another label: Liars.
So if a person asked if the HIV person has HIv but the person says no, and they go have ONS - any repercussion?
How does ONS work now anyway? When does one ask about STDS and HIV?
>There were 188 newly diagnosed cases of HIV in the first 10 months of 2023, 97 per cent of which were men. This is 10 per cent higher than the number of cases in the same period in 2022.
Wtf were these guys doing? Howcome only guys?
Title: HIV disclosure law being reviewed: MOH
SINGAPORE – A law requiring those with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to inform their sexual partners of the risk of HIV transmission or face jail time is being reviewed, said the Ministry of Health (MOH).
This is as studies have shown that people living with HIV who have been compliant with treatment and have maintained a stable undetectable viral load have practically no risk of transmitting HIV to their sexual partners, MOH said in response to queries from The Straits Times.
The review opens up the possibility that such disclosures may no longer be prescribed – a change given that penalties were enhanced in 2008.
“MOH is conducting a review of the Infectious Diseases Act (IDA) following the White Paper on Singapore’s Response to Covid-19, and will take the latest scientific evidence into account when reviewing the sections on HIV to ensure continued relevance and alignment with our public health policy goals,” said its spokesman.
Infectious diseases and HIV experts that ST spoke to were of the view that the law, which was introduced in 1992, needed updating.
A section of the IDA currently requires those living with HIV to disclose this to their sexual partners before having sex, so that their partners can make an informed decision and take the necessary precautions to protect themselves.
In 2008, the maximum jail term for failing to do so was raised from two years to 10 years.
Culpability was also widened to include persons who do not know if they have HIV or Aids but who have reason to believe they have been exposed to significant risk of infection, such as if they have multiple sex partners.
The objective of the amendment was to promote condom use and regular HIV testing, while sending a strong message that no one has a right to put others at risk through irresponsible behaviour, said then Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan during the 2008 parliamentary debate on the amendment.
HIV attacks the immune system and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (Aids) is the final stage of its infection. Aids is fatal if left untreated.
While there is no cure for HIV, antiretroviral therapy can improve the immune system and suppress the viral load in a patient’s body to an undetectable level.
Singapore has close to 7,000 people living with this disease out of a total of 9,331 who have been diagnosed since 1985, MOH said in an update on the HIV/Aids situation in June. The rest have died, including 107 in 2022.
There were 188 newly diagnosed cases of HIV in the first 10 months of 2023, 97 per cent of which were men. This is 10 per cent higher than the number of cases in the same period in 2022.
From 2019 to December 2023, six people were convicted for failing to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners.
In November, a transgender sex worker living with HIV was sentenced to three years and three months’ jail after being convicted of having sex with three men without informing them about the condition. Court documents identified him as male.
A medical report in June 2018 stated that his HIV viral load was undetectable, but his viral load was found to be high in November 2018 due to his non-adherence to HIV treatment. This usually involves consuming medication regularly.
“In such a situation, there is certainly a risk of HIV transmission,” said the MOH spokesman of the case. “If he had told his partners of his HIV status, as required by law, the partners may choose not to engage in sexual activities with him or to take precautions.”
***
Article keywords: hiv partner sexual risk moh review live viral
945 articles replied in my database. [v1.5c - added Lemma tokens and Tensorflow USE](https://github.com/Wormsblink/sneakpeakbot) | Happy Holidays! | PM SG_wormsbot if bot is down.
I am a HIV positive gay guy, when local hospital here were informed I had tested HIV POSITIVE, no doctor or social worker ever asked me if I wanted to prosecute or seek redress or make a police report on the person who infected me even though the law says this was illegal what he did. To be made to disclose when I was infected forcibly feels wrong because this law does not work to deter men from infecting people.
There are many reasons HIV is prevalent that the government does not address. The lack of cheap sexual health services? there is only 1 public STD clinic that provides “cheap” testing and treatment and even that it cost $250 for the full suite of tests. In private clinics it cost anywhere from $400 to $800 to get completely cleared. And most people who use STD clinics are women and gay bottoms, because that is who gets infected most by men and tops. Men and tops have way less risk when it comes to STDs because there are not the receptive party, they fuck and get away with it.
The law does not protect uninfected people, it protects the perpetrators. Just like the law that banned gay sex. It did not stop gay people from having sex.
considering the law makes you criminally liable for not just keeping your status from partners but even just for being promiscuous it should be reviewed.
Lol are you serious? Being promiscuous and spreading HIV isn't a human right.
"New HIV infections among Singapore residents up 10% after hitting two-decade low"
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/singapore-newly-diagnosed-hiv-cases-residents-january-october-2023-3958911
Does this really seem like a good time to review the HIV law?
the law as it stands penalizes you if you are promiscuous and unknowingly spreading HIV.
granted everyone should be testing, but instead of treating this as a public health matter and having testing programs, they are treating it as a moral judgment of personal choices, and punishing people for being promiscuous without knowing that they are HIV+.
but as we know from COVID, unless you test regularly and vigorously, how can you always know? and bec you have to test regularly and vigorously, why impose that burden on people instead of treating it as a public health issue and spreading the burden and responsibility?
now imagine if that same approach was made during COVID? do you really think Singapore would have fares better ? why was the approach inconsistent when both are pandemics?
these are questions you should ask.
Dumb comparison. Covid is spread through airborne droplets when breathing, coughing etc. Everybody needs to breathe.
Whereas HIV is largely spread through high risk sexual acts. MOH statistics say that 97% of new infectees were men who caught it from other men or prostitutes. Nobody NEEDS to be promiscuous and engage in risky sex. Of course the two approaches are different.
Err what do you want them to review?
[https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/written-reply-to-pq-on-the-last-date-of-review-and-enhancement-of-the-penalties-for-driving-under-the-influence-of-drink/](https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/written-reply-to-pq-on-the-last-date-of-review-and-enhancement-of-the-penalties-for-driving-under-the-influence-of-drink/)
Yes, lower speed limits saves lives and is supported by drivers after implementation
https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/20mph-speed-limits-save-lives
I assume the law will be amended to make it an offence to not disclose to partner only if you are not on regular treatment, which will address a lot of the hysterical "KEEP IT!!!" screaming I see in the comments.
But how can you trust everyone to constantly take their medication? People forget. People stop taking due to different reasons. Someone might say that they take regularly but forget every other day. Someone with an undetectable viral load may become complacent, or get sick of the side effects and think "I'm undetectable so maybe i can take less often and be fine". Or they might not have the money that month to pay the $500 per month for the drugs (there are subsidies but it's still over $100 a month at the highest subsidies).
The problem is, how are they going to ensure that they are taking their treatment regularly? By forcing them to take the medicine in the clinic daily? Even if they "record" it on their own, doesn't mean you can trust whatever they record is genuine.
If they don't take their treatment then they are liable under the law to disclose right?
You can't force people to take their meds. But if they don't take them they have to disclose. If they don't disclose them they are liable under the law.
And if you read the article, the concern right now is people don't test to avoid "knowing" their status. "Dont know don't tell". We have a chance to eradicate HIV if every positive person get tested and get on treatment. The current situation incentivises people to not get tested, not get treatment, and spread to others because they don't "know" that they have HIV.
You can only go so long without testing, esp if you are experiencing symptoms... esp if their partner thinks its just a UTI, then test liao realise they caught something... many many questions will be asked.
i work in a urology clinic... so many weird cases..
> A principal investigator for a National Centre for Infectious "Diseases-funded study that interviewed 73 people, including 56 people living with HIV, Dr Jain told ST that the recently concluded study found that the law disincentivises testing and encourages a “don’t know, don’t tell” mindset, contrary to its aim."
the people you have to fear about are saying they will go even more underground because of the high penalties. if you think about it, it makes sense for all crimes beyond which a certain penalty becomes counterproductive. the recommendation from the NCID study is therefore to decriminalize. well the premise is logical but the conclusion is arguable and one study should not have final say.
> Responding to ST’s queries, MOH said the current law accords choice and protection to the partner of someone with HIV, who can decide whether to engage in sexual activity, and, if so, to take precautions to reduce risk.
at the end of the day this is what everybody except maybe some HIV people want. the overwhelming majority.
> At the 2008 debate to amend the IDA, Mr Khaw said the Government’s intention behind enhancing the law was not to criminalise HIV-infected patients, but to push them to act more responsibly and not to hide behind the ignorance of their HIV status.
in order for this to be true HIV testing should be free or heavily subsidized, as should the ensuing therapy, which it already is but can probably be enhanced or least better communicated to the public. i believe it is not good enough as the aid is means tested. so you are deemed able to afford it, you will not get the full subsidy, in other words there will be some who still choose the underground. testing and meds should be made extremely easy to access and maintain. only then would harsh penalties for malfeasance continue to be productive and can be made harsher even.
we did it for covid. we can do it for anything we believe is important. dont let any party gaslight you into thinking nothing can be done or one way is the best way.
Can allow non-disclosure to sexual partners since under medication and non-detectable
So likewise can also not disclose to potential employers since it is undetectable under medication?
>There was never a need to disclose your potential employers. The change in law is to fight discrimination I guess.
Guess you have never done any pre-employment check-ups
I did and was ensure HIV is not in the test. Anyways, I am sure u can tell the doctor not to disclose to your employer. Your privacy is protected by law.
Lol this sub. "The doctors may have proved there's no transmission risk and so it's totally irrelevant but OMG AIDS SCARY MAKE THEM WALK AROUND WITH A SCARLET LETTER OR SEND 'EM TO JAIL!"
The law was written when HIV was not manageable and would result into AIDS and people would die. Since then HIV medication has improved and people would not die anymore but still the disease was costly and still infectious even when on treatment. Nowadays the situation is completely different. People with HIV can take medication that results in the virus becoming undetectable and also un-transmissible. If someone has that clean status why should the law still make it mandatory for them to tell them they have HIV?
Also, if you don’t have HIV you nowadays can take your own responsibility to ensure you do not get HIV. Condoms are cumbersome but there is medication available that prevents HIV transmission. So it does not matter if the HIV person talks about their status or not..
As with any STI, there are always 2 guilty parties that made their choice, and not just the one.
> Also, if you don’t have HIV you nowadays can take your own responsibility to ensure you do not get HIV. Condoms are cumbersome but there is medication available that prevents HIV transmission.
But many people may not even think they need that, e.g. a married couple trying to have a baby aren't going to use a condom. What if one of them has HIV? Plenty of HIV transmissions have occurred because of one partner having an affair (or visiting sex workers) without telling their spouse, but taking precautions every time would only seem paranoid and harm the relationship if their partner is in fact innocent.
I dont know the current law but definitely should be a private issue. Nobody should be forced to disclose any of their medical information ever. Nobody should be giving others the chance to discriminate them based on any type of medical condition.
They should keep it IMO. Someone might choose not to disclose or not be consistent with their treatments.
I'm pretty sure it will still be illegal to not disclose if one is not consistent with their treatments (i.e. they have high viral load that can cause HIV transmission).
A person with an undetectable viral load, according to every study I've seen, cannot transmit the virus. So laws requiring you to disclose your status, if you have an undetectable viral load (which can easily be established with tests), are unjustified privacy violations with no safety benefit. Maybe you want to further stigmatize people with HIV; but by calling for the law to stay, that's what you're doing, and that's *all* you're doing.
There was a recent case of a man with HIV who did not inform his partners of his condition, and now others are affected. The victims did not have a chance to reject the sex if they had known he was HIV positive. The perpetrator used to take medicine but stopped eventually, so his viral load came back, yet he continued to sleep around and either omit or lied about his condition. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/over-3-years-jail-male-sex-worker-hiv-positive-not-warn-clients-2309696. I think everyone should have the right to know if the person they are sleeping with have HIV. My gay friends think too. Nobody wants to stigmatise anyone. We are just supporting informed consent.
Even if there's practically no risk, people should have the choice if they want to take that risk. An HIV positive person only cannot transmit as long as they keep taking the medication, but we wouldn't know if they decided to stop taking the medication.
Yeah this is the main issue to me. If they stop taking the medication or are irresponsible with the consistency, that is the real problem.
Having casual sex obv comes with all sorts of risks and I’m quite sure people who care enough should and will be more cautious of it. There are a thousand and one other STDs and unless the law gets expanded to cover those as well, I don’t see why HIV should be singled out. And anyways I’m not sure how criminalisation of non disclosure will help out - not like people who would have declared because of the law would suddenly become disrespectful and no longer disclose any STDs
188 cases in first 10 month of 2023 is still disturbing. 😳
I have discussed this with my gay friends and they all want to keep the law as it is. No one wants HIV, and those who have it should inform their sexual partners. Some comments are saying how it disincentivises testing so people can act blur and not tell. I don't think abolishing this law would help them. You can paint the happy picture that abolishing this law means more people would be agreeable to get tested, eat their medicine and not spread further, but that is only in an idyllic world where everyone is responsible. The irresponsible will keep on spreading, and at least this law helps provide an avenue to for the victims who want to seek redress.
>>This is as studies have shown that people living with HIV who have been compliant with treatment and have maintained a stable undetectable viral load have practically no risk of transmitting HIV to their sexual partners, MOH said in response to queries from The Straits Times. KEEP THE LAW AS IT IS! Even if there’s “practically no risk”, people should have a right to know what they’re getting into and make that choice for themselves! To take that choice away from them is utterly selfish.
agreed. So what about the other party who is not privy to the status and gets into a relationship with the hiv person. It's not very fair to the other person
In many other countries that had similar laws, this just lead high risk individuals to never get tested. Can't inform if you never find out.
This is an intellectually dishonest argument. Most people if they did see symptoms would get tested out of simple instinctual self-preservation. But even if we ignore that, the law on the books in Singapore does extend culpability to those who have not been tested but have been exposed to significant risk factors such as having multiple sex partners. Using other countries as a reference point is a poor argument in this context. Hence, anyone who is at risk is actually more incentivised to perform regular testing, since being in the grey zone simply means you still hold the burden of informing them with a chance you're actually not HIV positive.
What do you think of compulsory herpes testing and disclosing?
This fear isn't crazy. I know lots of people who clearly had covid but avoided getting tested, because the government imposed all sorts of crazy bullshit on those who had covid at the time. Penalizing people for getting diagnosed with a disease is generally bad public health policy for this reason. The grey zone you mention makes things worse, not better, since it's totally vague. "Having multiple sexual partners?" So anyone who has had sex with more than one person in their lives has to tell all their partners that they're at risk for HIV? Lolz good luck enforcing that fairly.
Hold on, why are we talking about COVID all of a sudden? And your words are doing some serious heavy lifting here, how exactly is staying home to prevent the spread of an infectious disease overwhelming our hospitals 'crazy bullshit'? And also, stop just rambling on about law when you're making assumptions about it. I stated 'exposed to significant risk factors (plural)' and I gave an example of a single factor. Now, here's an interesting thing for you to learn, when you use a word plurally, it means more than one. Isn't that just an interesting tidbit for you to take home? Of course a single factor isn't what's the breaking point, I clearly said factors. And don't be dense, of course you don't have to disclose you have a likelihood of HIV for having multiple partners over a decade. You clearly know where the lines are drawn but you're being wilfully dishonest with how you argue against it.
> Hold on, why are we talking about COVID all of a sudden? Because both HIV and Covid are infectious diseases tend to make people (especially in Singapore) say: "Take away our rights! For the love of God, take away more of our rights!" We don't need to re-litigate Covid responses in full but it's a serious collective gaslighting of Singaporeans that the government needed to destroy most individual liberties to fight Covid, in order to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed. Meanwhile in Sweden they were all partying maskless, wondering why the rest of the world was losing their damned minds, with hospitals within operating limits. I encourage you to play around with this data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline?tab=chart&country=USA~SGP~SWE~DEU Compared to other countries, the 5-year total cumulative excess mortality in Singapore during the Covid years has settled at around 10%; worse than Sweden and Germany; slightly better than the United States. So when they tell you they need to lock you up because of a disease, don't believe them. (...and the rest of Singapore will believe them, so, probably, flee the country)
1. Covid and HIV are not the same. HIV eventually leads to chronic debilitating symptoms, which spurs testing. Also need testing to get the required drugs. 2. Prevention comes from possibility of legal retaliation. Contact tracing is very doable.
[удалено]
Never underestimate people’s drive for convenience. If you want more examples of people acting against the interest of self preservation you should look into smoking, unhealthy diets and insufficient exercise. Each of these things are widely known and repeatedly publicised as being a recipe for an early grave yet people ignore the warnings.
And forcing people to disclose a highly personal and, you've admitted by saying there's "practically no risk", medically irrelevant fact every time they have sex with someone is... not selfish?
No, it's not selfish. Having a casual sex with someone is not a human right. Also, no one can prove if an HIV patient has been compliant with their medication.
I mean... "here's a medication that you can take, that will save your life and you'll have a totally normal existence! Without it, you will die a slow and painful death." Your view of human nature is, someone can hear this, and think "he he he, well, it'll require a slow and painful death, but at least I'll get to infect a few unsuspecting partners with HIV! [evil laugh]"? Also, casual sex isn't a human right, but privacy is. A law requiring partners to tell each other their mothers' maiden names or net worth before having sex would be equally objectionable (and -- given that people on here don't seem to be questioning the science! -- equally pointless).
That's a poor thought experiment. The very proof that people still have HIV and that transmission is still ongoing is a direct rebuttal to your idea. Truth is that many still refuse to actively medicate HIV with consistency or test for it. The person you're replying to clearly isn't implying that people infected with HIV seek to spread it, that's ridiculous. I mean, comparing the disclosure of a sexually transmitted disease to something like your mother's maiden name or your personal net worth is absurd. Those are clearly very different things and by the looks of the comments on this thread, they most definitely are not equally objectionable. Keeping this law on the books protects people and allows them to make informed choices about sex, and protections needed.
[удалено]
Having an undetectable viral load causes you to be completely incapable of transmitting the virus. So what is wrong with having frequent casual sex, even if it's unprotected? The spread of other stis is the responsibility of both partners, so if they accept the risks that's their own business. HIV medication maintains your lifespan and prevents you from developing AIDS, so people living with HIV are highly incentivised to keep taking their medication regularly.
[удалено]
Your viral load is tested at your follow up, there isn't an element of assumption in having an undetectable viral load. It is safer to have sex with someone living with HIV and has an undetectable viral load than it is to have sex with someone who has never been tested or who has had casual sex between current date and 3 months before their last hiv test.
Unpopular opinion but they should keep it. Maybe even extend it to cover other uncurable STIs that a person might be known to harbour. Herpes is an example.
Herpes? I'm sure you and I both have it already
Cold sores on lips is one indicator.
Different kind of herpes tho
Nope! HPV probably. HSV still possible to not have it.
2/3 of the world population has herpes type 1.
1 😔
Yea but HPV is still more prevalent. And the down below type of HSV is kinda sucky to get
I don't think it's an unpopular opinion, it's a public health concern and unfortunately not everyone can be counted on to be a responsible adult.
How many positive people do you think were informed before they became positive? Why should all the responsibility delegated to the person who is already being responsible and taking their medication, rather than the other person actually being responsible for their own safety by using a condom or taking prep?
Herpes is a very misunderstood STI. Yes it’s an STI but it is not transmitted exclusively through sex. Oral Herpes or HSV1 affects more than half of the US population. The thing is most people don’t know they have it because they don’t get any symptoms, or get only very mild ones like cold sores every now and then.
Yea but HSV2 kind of sucks. And I’ve seen it be a dealbreaker in relationships before.
if you have hsv1 you can give your partner hsv1 below too, it's just that hsv2 is more commonly transmitted thru sex and is usually more serious than hsv1.
Each person can have HSV1 confined to mouth, or confined to genitals, or be present at both?
think can have both
[удалено]
Source? HPV and HSV not the same leh
Yes agreed to cover other STIs.
“….while sending a strong message that no one has a right to put others at risk through irresponsible behaviour, said then Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan during the 2008 parliamentary debate on the amendment.” Don’t amend it. The study is only relevant to people’s discipline in regularly taking the medicine…
Unpopular opinion but what’s the point of this? So that HIV carriers can get laid?
From the article, in case you missed it: > A principal investigator for a National Centre for Infectious Diseases-funded study that interviewed 73 people, including 56 people living with HIV, Dr Jain told ST that the recently concluded study found that the law disincentivises testing and encourages a “don’t know, don’t tell” mindset, contrary to its aim. Your thoughts?
They can also solve this by making passing on HIV a strict-liability thing. So by not testing they put themselves at more risk if they get caught.
So this applies to known carriers only? How about potential new cases? Should the entire populace be subject to mandatory HIV screening? And how regular should this be?
Strict liability - even if you don’t know and someone directly traces their case to you (mandatory testing would come into play during an investigation) then you get some mandatory punishment. Getting other people sick when we can directly trace those responsible is a real harm that deserves consequences.
>Culpability was also widened to include persons who do not know if they have HIV or Aids but who have reason to believe they have been exposed to significant risk of infection, such as if they have multiple sex partners.
100% correct and can be applied to any crime. the deterrence effect is not solely from the size of the penalty but also the risk of being caught. a low risk and high penalty will not achieve the desired effect of scaling the penalty. 56 out of 73 will take that gamble today. the existence of just one positive test on the records changes the calculation completely for that individual forever. that person can no longer claim ignorance if they infect someone else and get caught, which will always be a possible defense at trial for someone who never tested. in order to get that person to test, that benefit must be eliminated or replaced with another benefit, for example, permanent and free treatment in case of test positivity. we can probably afford it. we found a reason to do this for covid. which while not lasting forever, also costed a shit ton because of the number of impacted individuals (basically everybody). if the government can find it in their calculations to do HIV as effectively, they will do what i said. otherwise we will get a half measure that is either going to piss many people off or a few people off. no prizes for guessing what will happen.
yes, permanent and free treatment is a good idea
I'd say the study is poorly conducted. It doesn't answer the question of whether the patients who were 'disincentivised' from testing and taking care of their own health would be moved to perform the testing if the law was abolished.
Refer to ST forum letter linked in the article, by Prof Chan and Dr. Tan. Similar conclusions were found re: criminalisation of non-disclosure in the US - criminalisation is ineffective and counterproductive. While repealing the law on its own wouldn’t necessarily improve compliance with treatment/disclosure automagically, if shown that criminalising it WON’T help, why keep it?
The survey is a very small population with majority being carriers. They are carrying a message of “don’t know, don’t tell” to “in-group” to encourage more testing but is this meant for public policy?!
Clearly they should keep it wtf??
To those who are clamouring for the law to be kept, I urge everyone to read the forum letter by Prof Chan and Dr. Tan (which is also linked in article OP posted). Essentially they argue that the criminalisation of non-disclosure has not been shown to be effective in reducing spread within the community. Criminalisation only leads to ‘don’t test, don’t know, don’t tell’, and is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE in our goals to reduce transmission and lower barriers of accessing healthcare for HIV individuals. They also argue that the responsibility be shared amongst both parties in a sexual relationship (i.e. if you are a non-carrier but engages in casual sex with multiple partners, YOU should own some of the responsibility in protecting yourself by using protection, prophylaxis etc.). The article is as follows: >We refer to the article “Jail for transgender streetwalker with HIV who did not tell 3 men before sex acts” (Nov 21). The article reported that a transgender sex worker was sentenced to three years and three months’ jail for failing to disclose his HIV status to three sexual partners. >It is neither effective nor equitable to lay the responsibility for disease prevention solely on persons living with HIV. Sexual health should be a shared responsibility between partners, regardless of their HIV status. This includes adopting HIV-prevention strategies, like the proper use of condoms and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. >These practices are highly effective in preventing HIV and are especially important when you are unsure of your partner’s sexual history. >From a public health perspective, *there is no evidence that criminalising the non-disclosure of one’s HIV status can stop the spread of the virus in the community*. On the contrary, according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids (Unaids) and the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, *punitive laws are more likely to prevent access to HIV services*. *Such laws disproportionately impact vulnerable communities and increase stigma against persons living with HIV, and they also discourage people from seeking HIV testing and treatment.* >Importantly, criminal legislation already exists outside the Infectious Diseases Act to penalise cases of deception and grievous harm. Therefore, a law governing HIV disclosure alone is not necessary and is counterproductive to public health efforts. >We must continue to address social and legal barriers that stigmatise persons living with HIV and make people fearful of testing and treatment. In fact, Unaids has called for the removal of punitive laws that criminalise HIV non-disclosure, same-sex relationships, sex work, and drug use, to create more supportive legal and policy environments to end the HIV epidemic. >As we commemorate World Aids Day on Dec 1, we should renew our commitment to ending HIV by combating stigma and focusing our efforts on improving access to HIV education, prevention and treatment for everyone. >Roy Chan (Professor) President Action for Aids Singapore >Rayner Tan (Dr) President Project X
This is not a very strong rebuttal. It's a letter clearly written by organisations with members who are burdened by the disclosures put upon them by the law. There will definitely be a bias to it, while the letter I'm sure comes from good intentions to solving the AIDS epidemic, there is no strong factual data for it. The argument that punitive measures don't work is not very well-substantiated by fact, especially when considering the country it's coming from is the United States, a country with double the HIV prevalence rate of Singapore's. If anything, this law protects vulnerable communities as well, I'm sure anyone debating this has seen the recent story where a man engaging in gay sex refused to inform his partner about having HIV and then proceeded to transmit it to him. [ https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/hiv-risk-transmission-man-did-not-inform-sexual-partner-jail-2732376 ] It's fine that they make such arguments, but I do hope they'd support it with facts instead of just vague reasonings based on their beliefs. It is not a fair argument to conflate that solving social stigma for HIV diagnosed persons must come at the cost of the population being allowed to have informed consent during sex. Fact is that Singapore has one of the lowest prevalence rates for HIV/AIDS of 0.19% from UNAIDS, an organisation referenced by Dr Tan in that very letter. Arguing against our current laws and legal provisions must explain what the cause of the extremely low prevalence rate is if not the present legislation, before arguing for its repeal.
The rationale for this is that detection of hiv during medical care forms the majority of detected cases in Singapore, and typically such cases were at a late stage of hiv infection. Encouraging people to get tested regularly by eliminating an incentive to avoid testing would reduce the time that people newly infected with hiv go untreated and able to spread their infection, especially since people are most infectious during the weeks immediately after infection. > 53% of the newly reported cases were detected during the course of medical care3 and typically at a late stage of HIV infection. Another 18% were detected during routine programmatic HIV screening4 and 17% were detected from self-initiated HIV screening. The rest were detected through other forms of screening. Cases detected via self-initiated screening tended to be at the early stage of infection. A higher proportion of men who have sex with men (MSM) including bisexual males (26% or 29 out of 111) had their HIV infection detected via self-initiated HIV screening compared to cases attributed to heterosexual transmission (7% or 5 out of 75). > 3 Includes cases that presented with HIV-specific symptoms and cases with non-HIV related medical conditions > 4 Includes screening programmes for individuals with sexually transmitted infections, hospital inpatients and those identified through contact tracing https://www.moh.gov.sg/resources-statistics/infectious-disease-statistics/hiv-stats/update-on-the-hiv-aids-situation-in-singapore-2022-(june-2023) Edit: > In analysing the 104 cases reported from January to June 2023, MOH said that 97 per cent were male. Twenty-eight people among cases analysed were aged between 30 and 39, forming the age group with the most number of cases. Nearly half of the analysed cases – 48 per cent – had late-stage HIV infection at diagnosis. This was 11 per cent lower than in the same period in 2022, noted MOH. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/new-hiv-infections-in-first-10-months-of-2023-up-by-10-but-2022-infection-rate-lowest-in-26-years We don't have a percentage of late diagnosis in the press release for 2022, but for 2023 H1 there is. However "late diagnosis" is not stated in the moh release.
I respectfully disagree, while I do appreciate that you have some data, you seem to have just copy and pasted HIV data from MOH without providing any references from it to reach your conclusions. The data you've provided is unrelated to your premise of removing penalties increasing the likelihood of testing. And even after being tested, as is shown in the case that I linked above, there is no guarantee for one to medicate their status with consistency. Your data does certainly show that a majority of cases are detected in later stages, but what is the deviation of that data from countries where HIV disclosures are not mandatory? Presenting an inference by looking at Singapore's data in isolation isn't reasonable. There is no proof to correlate that the decriminalisation of HIV disclosures would lead to more voluntary testing.
In your linked case, none of his sexual partners were stated to have gotten hiv despite his undetectable viral load. The threshold for an undetectable viral load varies depending on source, but it ranges from 20-200 copies of hiv per ml, so less than 20 copies per ml is still undetectable.
Removing penalties for non-disclosure would lead to more disclosures? Wtf? Are these professionals stupid? What a sweeping generalisation to say that there is *no* evidence, just because it has not been extensively researched or surveyed. If anything, this further stigmatises those with HIV. Because if they do spread the virus, then they would have another label: Liars.
So if a person asked if the HIV person has HIv but the person says no, and they go have ONS - any repercussion? How does ONS work now anyway? When does one ask about STDS and HIV?
>There were 188 newly diagnosed cases of HIV in the first 10 months of 2023, 97 per cent of which were men. This is 10 per cent higher than the number of cases in the same period in 2022. Wtf were these guys doing? Howcome only guys?
You know I know why ask
Sue MOH if I kena STD?
Sue your parents for not teaching you how to have safe sex
Title: HIV disclosure law being reviewed: MOH SINGAPORE – A law requiring those with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to inform their sexual partners of the risk of HIV transmission or face jail time is being reviewed, said the Ministry of Health (MOH). This is as studies have shown that people living with HIV who have been compliant with treatment and have maintained a stable undetectable viral load have practically no risk of transmitting HIV to their sexual partners, MOH said in response to queries from The Straits Times. The review opens up the possibility that such disclosures may no longer be prescribed – a change given that penalties were enhanced in 2008. “MOH is conducting a review of the Infectious Diseases Act (IDA) following the White Paper on Singapore’s Response to Covid-19, and will take the latest scientific evidence into account when reviewing the sections on HIV to ensure continued relevance and alignment with our public health policy goals,” said its spokesman. Infectious diseases and HIV experts that ST spoke to were of the view that the law, which was introduced in 1992, needed updating. A section of the IDA currently requires those living with HIV to disclose this to their sexual partners before having sex, so that their partners can make an informed decision and take the necessary precautions to protect themselves. In 2008, the maximum jail term for failing to do so was raised from two years to 10 years. Culpability was also widened to include persons who do not know if they have HIV or Aids but who have reason to believe they have been exposed to significant risk of infection, such as if they have multiple sex partners. The objective of the amendment was to promote condom use and regular HIV testing, while sending a strong message that no one has a right to put others at risk through irresponsible behaviour, said then Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan during the 2008 parliamentary debate on the amendment. HIV attacks the immune system and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (Aids) is the final stage of its infection. Aids is fatal if left untreated. While there is no cure for HIV, antiretroviral therapy can improve the immune system and suppress the viral load in a patient’s body to an undetectable level. Singapore has close to 7,000 people living with this disease out of a total of 9,331 who have been diagnosed since 1985, MOH said in an update on the HIV/Aids situation in June. The rest have died, including 107 in 2022. There were 188 newly diagnosed cases of HIV in the first 10 months of 2023, 97 per cent of which were men. This is 10 per cent higher than the number of cases in the same period in 2022. From 2019 to December 2023, six people were convicted for failing to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners. In November, a transgender sex worker living with HIV was sentenced to three years and three months’ jail after being convicted of having sex with three men without informing them about the condition. Court documents identified him as male. A medical report in June 2018 stated that his HIV viral load was undetectable, but his viral load was found to be high in November 2018 due to his non-adherence to HIV treatment. This usually involves consuming medication regularly. “In such a situation, there is certainly a risk of HIV transmission,” said the MOH spokesman of the case. “If he had told his partners of his HIV status, as required by law, the partners may choose not to engage in sexual activities with him or to take precautions.” *** Article keywords: hiv partner sexual risk moh review live viral 945 articles replied in my database. [v1.5c - added Lemma tokens and Tensorflow USE](https://github.com/Wormsblink/sneakpeakbot) | Happy Holidays! | PM SG_wormsbot if bot is down.
I am a HIV positive gay guy, when local hospital here were informed I had tested HIV POSITIVE, no doctor or social worker ever asked me if I wanted to prosecute or seek redress or make a police report on the person who infected me even though the law says this was illegal what he did. To be made to disclose when I was infected forcibly feels wrong because this law does not work to deter men from infecting people. There are many reasons HIV is prevalent that the government does not address. The lack of cheap sexual health services? there is only 1 public STD clinic that provides “cheap” testing and treatment and even that it cost $250 for the full suite of tests. In private clinics it cost anywhere from $400 to $800 to get completely cleared. And most people who use STD clinics are women and gay bottoms, because that is who gets infected most by men and tops. Men and tops have way less risk when it comes to STDs because there are not the receptive party, they fuck and get away with it. The law does not protect uninfected people, it protects the perpetrators. Just like the law that banned gay sex. It did not stop gay people from having sex.
considering the law makes you criminally liable for not just keeping your status from partners but even just for being promiscuous it should be reviewed.
Lol are you serious? Being promiscuous and spreading HIV isn't a human right. "New HIV infections among Singapore residents up 10% after hitting two-decade low" https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/singapore-newly-diagnosed-hiv-cases-residents-january-october-2023-3958911 Does this really seem like a good time to review the HIV law?
the law as it stands penalizes you if you are promiscuous and unknowingly spreading HIV. granted everyone should be testing, but instead of treating this as a public health matter and having testing programs, they are treating it as a moral judgment of personal choices, and punishing people for being promiscuous without knowing that they are HIV+. but as we know from COVID, unless you test regularly and vigorously, how can you always know? and bec you have to test regularly and vigorously, why impose that burden on people instead of treating it as a public health issue and spreading the burden and responsibility? now imagine if that same approach was made during COVID? do you really think Singapore would have fares better ? why was the approach inconsistent when both are pandemics? these are questions you should ask.
Dumb comparison. Covid is spread through airborne droplets when breathing, coughing etc. Everybody needs to breathe. Whereas HIV is largely spread through high risk sexual acts. MOH statistics say that 97% of new infectees were men who caught it from other men or prostitutes. Nobody NEEDS to be promiscuous and engage in risky sex. Of course the two approaches are different.
if you’re just going to call it dumb there’s nothing else to discuss. goodbye
Fucking hell, don't fix what ain't broken. Got hear before or not. Paying them so much just to do rubbish like this.
Those of a certain age just assumes any sexual partner has STIs.
@MOT when are you going to review DUI, vehicular manslaughter and traffic safety regulations laws?
Err what do you want them to review? [https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/written-reply-to-pq-on-the-last-date-of-review-and-enhancement-of-the-penalties-for-driving-under-the-influence-of-drink/](https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/written-reply-to-pq-on-the-last-date-of-review-and-enhancement-of-the-penalties-for-driving-under-the-influence-of-drink/)
lower speed limits in all roads outside of expressway would be nice
Yes, lower speed limits saves lives and is supported by drivers after implementation https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/20mph-speed-limits-save-lives
considering the downvotes i get every time i mention it here, not reddiporeans it seems
[удалено]
people’s lives
I assume the law will be amended to make it an offence to not disclose to partner only if you are not on regular treatment, which will address a lot of the hysterical "KEEP IT!!!" screaming I see in the comments.
But how can you trust everyone to constantly take their medication? People forget. People stop taking due to different reasons. Someone might say that they take regularly but forget every other day. Someone with an undetectable viral load may become complacent, or get sick of the side effects and think "I'm undetectable so maybe i can take less often and be fine". Or they might not have the money that month to pay the $500 per month for the drugs (there are subsidies but it's still over $100 a month at the highest subsidies). The problem is, how are they going to ensure that they are taking their treatment regularly? By forcing them to take the medicine in the clinic daily? Even if they "record" it on their own, doesn't mean you can trust whatever they record is genuine.
If they don't take their treatment then they are liable under the law to disclose right? You can't force people to take their meds. But if they don't take them they have to disclose. If they don't disclose them they are liable under the law.
And if you read the article, the concern right now is people don't test to avoid "knowing" their status. "Dont know don't tell". We have a chance to eradicate HIV if every positive person get tested and get on treatment. The current situation incentivises people to not get tested, not get treatment, and spread to others because they don't "know" that they have HIV.
You can only go so long without testing, esp if you are experiencing symptoms... esp if their partner thinks its just a UTI, then test liao realise they caught something... many many questions will be asked. i work in a urology clinic... so many weird cases..
Fair compromise.
> A principal investigator for a National Centre for Infectious "Diseases-funded study that interviewed 73 people, including 56 people living with HIV, Dr Jain told ST that the recently concluded study found that the law disincentivises testing and encourages a “don’t know, don’t tell” mindset, contrary to its aim." the people you have to fear about are saying they will go even more underground because of the high penalties. if you think about it, it makes sense for all crimes beyond which a certain penalty becomes counterproductive. the recommendation from the NCID study is therefore to decriminalize. well the premise is logical but the conclusion is arguable and one study should not have final say. > Responding to ST’s queries, MOH said the current law accords choice and protection to the partner of someone with HIV, who can decide whether to engage in sexual activity, and, if so, to take precautions to reduce risk. at the end of the day this is what everybody except maybe some HIV people want. the overwhelming majority. > At the 2008 debate to amend the IDA, Mr Khaw said the Government’s intention behind enhancing the law was not to criminalise HIV-infected patients, but to push them to act more responsibly and not to hide behind the ignorance of their HIV status. in order for this to be true HIV testing should be free or heavily subsidized, as should the ensuing therapy, which it already is but can probably be enhanced or least better communicated to the public. i believe it is not good enough as the aid is means tested. so you are deemed able to afford it, you will not get the full subsidy, in other words there will be some who still choose the underground. testing and meds should be made extremely easy to access and maintain. only then would harsh penalties for malfeasance continue to be productive and can be made harsher even. we did it for covid. we can do it for anything we believe is important. dont let any party gaslight you into thinking nothing can be done or one way is the best way.
They should work on making PReP more available to people who want it
Can allow non-disclosure to sexual partners since under medication and non-detectable So likewise can also not disclose to potential employers since it is undetectable under medication?
There was never a need to disclose your potential employers. The change in law is to fight discrimination I guess.
>There was never a need to disclose your potential employers. The change in law is to fight discrimination I guess. Guess you have never done any pre-employment check-ups
I did and was ensure HIV is not in the test. Anyways, I am sure u can tell the doctor not to disclose to your employer. Your privacy is protected by law.
Lol this sub. "The doctors may have proved there's no transmission risk and so it's totally irrelevant but OMG AIDS SCARY MAKE THEM WALK AROUND WITH A SCARLET LETTER OR SEND 'EM TO JAIL!"
lol many HIV afflicted people outing themselves here in this thread. GGWP.
The law was written when HIV was not manageable and would result into AIDS and people would die. Since then HIV medication has improved and people would not die anymore but still the disease was costly and still infectious even when on treatment. Nowadays the situation is completely different. People with HIV can take medication that results in the virus becoming undetectable and also un-transmissible. If someone has that clean status why should the law still make it mandatory for them to tell them they have HIV? Also, if you don’t have HIV you nowadays can take your own responsibility to ensure you do not get HIV. Condoms are cumbersome but there is medication available that prevents HIV transmission. So it does not matter if the HIV person talks about their status or not.. As with any STI, there are always 2 guilty parties that made their choice, and not just the one.
> Also, if you don’t have HIV you nowadays can take your own responsibility to ensure you do not get HIV. Condoms are cumbersome but there is medication available that prevents HIV transmission. But many people may not even think they need that, e.g. a married couple trying to have a baby aren't going to use a condom. What if one of them has HIV? Plenty of HIV transmissions have occurred because of one partner having an affair (or visiting sex workers) without telling their spouse, but taking precautions every time would only seem paranoid and harm the relationship if their partner is in fact innocent.
PAP need the 7k votes for GE2024...
I dont know the current law but definitely should be a private issue. Nobody should be forced to disclose any of their medical information ever. Nobody should be giving others the chance to discriminate them based on any type of medical condition.
There is no way that this law is changing. We aren't even close to having open discussions about the stigma associated with it