Safe sex - whose responsibility?

Dennie Quill, Contributor

A German pop star tearfully apologised in court Monday for keeping her HIV-positive status a secret from three lovers as she went on trial for allegedly infecting one of them. She is charged with causing grievous bodily harm and attempted aggravated assault, and faces up to 10 years in jail. A verdict is expected next week.

The trial of 28-year-old Nadja Benaissa in Germany has drawn worldwide media attention. A half-Moroccan, the stunning beauty is the lead singer of Germany's most successful girl band called 'No Angels'. After becoming pregnant at age 16, she also discovered she was HIV positive. Faced with a life-threatening disease and trying to protect a career dream and a young daughter, Benaissa hid her HIV status.

BBC radio had a full discussion on the issue Monday, with contributions from across the globe. Opinions differed widely on whether or not prosecution was justified for non-disclosure of one's HIV-positive status. While some applauded Benaissa's prosecution, others felt that criminalising HIV transmission was counterproductive. There was consensus on one thing: People are responsible for their own sexual health and should take the necessary precaution and ought not to rely on others.

Assault equivalent

In Germany, not telling a partner about one's HIV-positive status before sex is punishable under the law. In other words, not telling is considered the equivalent of an assault. Although this trial is taking place half a world away, it raises questions about HIV transmission and the criminal law in every jurisdiction. One wonders whether such a prosecution would be possible under Jamaican law. More than 600 persons have been convicted in HIV transmissions cases in 40 countries, my research shows. Although I cannot recall hearing of any case in Jamaica, are there enough powers under the Offences of the Person Act to secure conviction of someone who intentionally transmits a sexual disease?

As a society, one that is often described as promiscuous, where "man have woman in a bungle", we need to start a robust debate on the issue of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The experts say most new transmissions result from persons being unaware of their status. Testing is, therefore, critical, especially among people with multiple partners.

Broaden the debate

I suggest that the debate be broadened to include all STDs because gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis and herpes all have dire consequences. In the case of herpes, while it is manageable, it is not curable. The presence of these STDs increases the risk of HIV transmission. In any event, why should we single out people with an HIV diagnosis for punishment? Any person who intentionally infects a sexual partner should be punished because the burden of STD protection ought not to be carried solely by one consensual partner.

We live in a country where incest and rape are commonplace and where folklore foolishly recommends that men affected with STDs can be cured by having sex with a virgin. What protection is there for a woman who has been raped by an HIV-infected person? Can she get redress in the courts?

Sexual etiquette is not a popular subject, especially among those who came of age in the pre-HIV era. And the stigma associated with STDs and fear of rejection may prevent some people from being honest about their sexual health. But in this age of HIV/AIDS, partnerships should arrive at a place where communication is frank - the bedroom should not resemble a battlefield where one partner emerges winner and the other loses. Safe sex is everyone's responsibility.

denniequill@hotmail.com

The bedroom should not resemble a battlefield where one partner emerges winner and the other loses.