HIV criminalisation

This is one of those stories where I've had to pick my chin up off the floor. It's a good illustration of how wrong it is to criminalise a disease like HIV and the damage it can do to an innocents life.

Imagine this. You are HIV+ and meet up with a guy for sex. There's no discussion about HIV but as long as safe sex is followed it doesn't matter; in health they call it "universal precautions", or to put it plainly ways of having sex that are taught to you in this day and age. You have safe sex, including oral sex. Your viral load is undetectable. 

Later the guy finds out you're HIV+ and spits the dummy. You get taken to court. You are sentenced to 25 years in jail. For what? Practising safe sex according to all the literature on how not to pass on HIV? Well yes, this happened in the US state of Iowa. 

In 2008, Rhoades had a one-night-stand with Adam Plendi. After meeting online at Gay.com, Rhoades went to Plendi’s home in Cedar Falls and the two had consensual sex. Rhoades received unprotected oral sex, and then the two had protected anal sex in which Plendi was the receptive partner. Rhoades is HIV-positive, but didn’t disclose that information to Plendi, who wasn’t infected by the encounter. 

After later learning that Rhoades is HIV-positive, Plendi contacted the police, who charged Rhoades with criminal transmission of HIV. Under advice from his attorney, Rhoades pled guilty to the charges and was given the maximum sentence of 25 years in prison and classified as a sex offender. Several months later the court reconsidered the decision, suspended Rhoades’ prison sentence and placed him on supervised probation for five years. more

Gee, I wonder why the guy didn't disclose his status....... 

The only vaguely possible way HIV might be transmitted via oral sex is if you're bleeding from the mouth with an open sore, the guy has a detectable viral load and blows in your mouth. I myself have heard of only one case here in Sydney of a guy getting HIV by sucking, but I'm just going on what the guy said. There was no doctor confirming this. 

In the sentencing, the justices showed complete ignorance of simple health facts that HIV+ people know and live by; that is that oral sex is considered safe. This statement, by someone with the power to hand out a 25 year sentence, defies belief:

In a 3-0 ruling, the Iowa Court of Appeals ruled Nick Rhoades is ineligible for post-conviction relief because he may have transmitted HIV to his sexual partner in 2008 through oral sex. Judge Richard Doyle wrote the opinion. 

“Sexual intercourse may be committed through oral sex, and oral sex is a well-recongized means of transmission of HIV,” Doyle writes. “The person exposed to HIV need not become infected with the virus in order for the infected person to be prosecuted under section 709C.1(4).” more

No it's not.

The general consensus of research indicates while HIV infection through unprotected oral sex is possible, it’s extremely unlikely. According to the website for the Minnesota AIDS Project, the risk of HIV transmission is very low because the mouth is an unfriendly environment for HIV. 

“Saliva contains enzymes that break down the virus and the mucous membranes in the mouth are more protective than anal or vaginal tissue,” the website states. “There are a few documented cases where it appears that HIV was transmitted orally and those cases are attributed to ejaculation into the mouth.” more

I had a conversation couple of days back with someone talking about discrimination of HIV people in Australia (yes it still exists). He asked what would be the best way to reduce stigma and discrimination. My thoughts were for people to just get to know us. We're not monsters. We have a disease which discriminates against nobody. People discriminate, not HIV. The only criminal thing about this case was locking someone up for 25 years for practising safe sex.