|
Gamma Project Newsletter
|
|
The Gamma Project Newsletter is produced bi-annualy by
The Australian Bisexual Men's Association Incorporated.
Editor: Bill Palmer
April 2009 Edition
Contents
From the Editor's Desk
Welcome to the April 2009 edition of the
Gamma Project Newsletter.In this edition of the newsletter we look at the
issue of criminalisation of HIV ransmission. We report a case where a bone
marrow transplant is reputed to have cured HIV and we also comment on the
increasing rate of infection with HIV in Australia.
The next edition of the Gamma Project Newsletter will appear at the end of
October 2009
Bill Palmer
The Franklin Centre
1B, Hamilton Street,
Mont Albert. Vic.
Australia 3127
Return to Contents Page
Rising HIV Figures
An article in HIV Australia Vol 6
No 4 reports that the rate of infection with HIV
increased by about 5% in 2007 comp[are with 2006. While the rate of infection
remained
relatively stable in New South Wales and Victoria the largest increase was
seen in
Queensland. The primary means of these new infections was through sexual
contact
between men. although there was also an increase in the number of heterosexuals
diagnosed.
According to the article pockets of HIV infections occurred among miners
from Western
Australia who had holidayed in Asia and a group of businessmen and miners
from the
Northern Territory who were working in Papua New Guinea, these infections
were a
result of unprotected sex.
Commenting on the increase Don Baxter Executive Director of the Australian
Federation
of AIDS Organisations said "These relentless increases show that our current
investments
in HIV are just not sufficient to reverse the rate of HIV infections in Australia"
He also
noted that "Gay tourists also need to be more vigilant than ever as it has
recently become
very clear that in most Asian cities HIV epidemics among gay and bisexual
men are
raging virtually unchecked".
Return to Contents Page
HIV Transmission Criminalisation
In HIV Australia Vol 6 No 4 there are two articles dealing with this issue
entitled
"Criminalisation of HIV transmission and exposure - risk , negotiation and
consent" by
Sally Cameron and "Risky behaviour, risk assessment and criminal prosecution
of HIV
positive people" by Matthew Groves.
These are both thought provoking articles which look at criminal prosecutions
both n
Australia and overseas. What is immediately apparent is the wide variation
in laws and
their implementation world wide. Even in Australia there is no uniformity
in the laws
between the States with some limited to a charge of grievous bodily hard
while others
mention disease transmission specifically.
Sally Cameron in her article details 75 individuals in the U.S.A. who have
been
prosecuted for biting, spitting and scratching offences, none of which are
considered
likely to transmit HIV. In a number of cases the person prosecuted was found
to be HIV
negative. Again the legislation in America varies considerably between States.
She also
cites prosecutions of sex workers which are often inappropriate. In Canada
a man has
been charged with murder following the deaths of two female sex partners.
He did not
disclose his status to them or use condoms.
Matthew Groves details a number of failed prosecutions in Victoria and raises
a range of
issues which were influential in their outcome. The risk of infection
from a single
episode of unsafe sex between men is relatively low and even lower for heterosexual
intercourse. The law in Victoria requires that the risk be appreciable and
it has been
argued successfully that the low risk of HIV transmission is not an appreciable
risk. He
also notes that in those cases where no transmission actually occurred conviction
is
unlikely since judges and juries are unlikely to accept that there really
was a risk.
Many object to the criminalisation of HIV transmission, some see it as taking
away
responsibility for safe sex practices from people who are HIV negative and
this is a valid
point. Others contend that suck laws discourage people from testing for the
virus and
again the point is valid. My personal opinion is that it is the responsibility
of both parties
to an unsafe sexual act, but I also think that someone who is infected with
HIV should
inform their sexual partners before engaging in unsafe sex.
It is a difficult area in which to legislate, largely because behaviours
vary so greatly. A
man who acquires HIV in the context of a darkened back room in a sex on premises
without any negotiation around safe sex is either prepared to accept the
risk of
transmission or is foolish enough to believe that they are seroconcordant
without asking if
this is the case. This is vastly different from a situation where some form
of negotiation
takes place and serostatus is concealed. Similarly, I feel that engaging
in an ongoing
unsafe sexual relationship without disclosing is unethical and dishonest.
Because of these complexities I believe it is difficult in most instances
to successfully
prosecute many of these cases. I certainly believe that there are occasion
where
prosecution should occur because the individual prosecuted poses and ongoing
threat to
the safety of others. On the whole though, I think that while people are
inclined to make
value judgements about the serostatus of their sexual partners, we are best
served by
reinforcing the safe sex message.
Return to Contents Page
Bone Marrow Transplant and HIV
There is a brief report in HIV Australia Vol 6 No 4 which details the
case of a man
with leukemia and HIV who received a bone marrow transplant which is said
to have
cured him of HIV. He received an engineered stem cell which would make his
new
blood cells resistant to HIV infection. Two years after the bone marrow transplant
he
is not taking any antiviral medication and his doctors have not detected
virus in his
blood.
It is acknowledged by his doctors that there may still be undetected HIV
virus in his
body as a result of a failure to destroy all infected cells with chemotherapy
and
radiotherapy prior to the transplant. He is regarded as "functionally cured"
in the
meantime.
The marrow donor had a genetic mutation that disrupts the enzyme which allows
HIV
to enter cell and thus the cells become resistant to HIV infection. This
in itself is not a
potential therapy for HIV, a fatal procedure for up to a third of patients
receiving,
however studies using gene therapy to achieve the same outcome are already
in
progress.
Return to Contents Page
