Everything listed under: Canada

by B.J. Caldwell, Educator

CATIE's Positive Side magazine has a great article on SimonThwaites (by Jennifer McPhee). Simon first made headlines taking the Canadian Armed Forces to court for firing him for being HIV positive in 1989 (which was upheld by the Federal Court of Canada in 1994 in a landmark decision) and has since found a new way to connect with others via his art.[Above Artwork: Frustration, by Simon Thwaites]

by B.J. Caldwell, Educator

An article in the Ottawa Citizen online edition on Nov. 8th highlights a pilot project aiming to reduce the number of people who are unkowingly infected with HIV by vastly increasing the numbers of HIV tests offered. The Seek and Treat project is being tried in select cities in the U.S. as well. During this project anyone who enters a hospital, lab, clinic, and perhaps their doctor's office will be likely offered an HIV test.

The effectiveness?:

British research has demonstrated a cost benefit when the prevalence of diagnosis is one or two out of every 1,000 tests.

"We expect our diagnostic yield be higher than that," Gustafson said.

Detecting and treating HIV, especially in its early stage, helps reduce medical costs and prevents further transmission. Highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) suppresses the virus to undetectable levels. B.C. research has shown that 40 per cent of those who died of HIV-related causes between 1997 and 2005 had never received the life-saving medication. Citing U.S. Center for Disease Control research, Gustafson said lifetime HIV treatment costs nearly $400,000 per patient, but patients diagnosed early enough require less treatment, saving the health-care system up to $61,000 per patient.

About 14 per cent of people newly diagnosed have advanced disease at the time of diagnosis, which suggests they ignored symptoms or had no symptoms before they were tested.

The screening program will be evaluated for effectiveness, including cost benefits, and if it is deemed to be successful, it is expected it will become part of routine health care.

 WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!!! (See below for information on how to get involved)

Update on the Ontario Prosecutorial Guidelines Campaign

& Community Consultations

 Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law & HIV Exposure, June 2011.

 The Campaign Background

In the fall of 2010 the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law & HIV Exposure (the Working Group) publicly launched the Campaign for Ontario Guidelines for Criminal Prosecutions of HIV Non-disclosure.  We called on Ontario’s Attorney General to immediately undertake a process to develop guidelines for Crown counsel in cases involving allegations of non-disclosure of HIV status.  Guidelines are needed to ensure that:

•  HIV-related criminal complaints are handled in a fair and non-discriminatory manner
• decisions to investigate and prosecute such cases are informed by a complete and accurate understanding of current scientific and medical research about HIV, and take into account the social contexts of living with HIV

 In December 2010, Ontario’s Attorney General committed to developing prosecutorial guidelines.

 In Spring 2011, we consulted with people living with HIV, service providers, academics, scientists, lawyers and activists across Ontario.  The consultation was a partnership between the Working Group, the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.  We wanted community input into the recommendations we would be making to the Attorney General.  We consulted with over 200 people across Ontario, in face-to-face meetings and through an on-line survey.  Thanks to all of you who took the time to participate—we appreciate that this is an exceptionally complex, difficult and emotionally charged issue. [Ed: ACG took part in these consultations]

 Highlights of the Report & Recommendations

 The Report & Recommendations is based on discussions, feedback and suggestions from the consultations, as well as discussion and analysis from among Working Group members.  Overall, we recommended that the Attorney General keep in mind four key directions when writing prosecutorial guidelines:

• HIV non-disclosure cases are complex
• HIV is a chronic manageable infection, not a death sentence, and HIV is not easy to transmit
• People living with HIV/AIDS face significant challenges, including social marginalization, stigma and discrimination
• Crown prosecutors should act with caution and restraint in HIV non-disclosure cases

 Engaging with the Ministry of the Attorney General

 In June we submitted our Report & Recommendations to Ontario’s Attorney General. 

 In early July we met with a representative from the Ministry of the Attorney General to discuss the Report & Recommendations.  At that meeting we asked the Attorney General to provide a timeline for completing their draft prosecutorial guidelines.  We are awaiting a response and will let you know as soon as we get one.

ACTION: What You Can Do Now

We need to continue to press to the Attorney General to draft prosecutorial guidelines as quickly as possible.  We are asking community members to contact the Attorney General, the Honourable Chris Bentley, and urge him to draft prosecutorial guidelines by the end of August.  We have written and posted on the Working Group website an electronic letter that you can sign and automatically send to the Attorney General: ontarioaidsnetwork.on.ca/clhe/letter.html 

For More Information

 www.ontarioaidsnetwork.on.ca/clhe/

 Or contact Ryan Peck, Co-chair of the Working Group at peckr@lao.on.ca.

by B.J. Caldwell, Educator and Tom Hammond, Executive Director

The Candian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has released a press release welcoming the recent announcement that the Crown Prosecution in Hamilton has decided not to charge Justus Zela with aggravated sexual assault. Zela was charged in February 2009 after an ex-partner alleged they had oral sex without disclosing that he had HIV. The ex-partner has not tested HIV positive.

According to the claim, oral sex had taken place a few times --- and mostly with Mr. Zela performing the act. Oral sex is a low risk activity for HIV transmission --- and that risk is for the performer of the act, not the receiver. There has never been a documented case of a person living with HIV transmitting their infection by performing oral sex on someone. The low risk for HIV acquisition is for the performer. To be clear, HIV infections have transmitted via oral sex, but compared to unprotected vaginal or anal sex, or sharing needles, the risk in the case of oral sex is quite low.

The Supreme Court decided in 1998 (R.v.Currier) that a person living with HIV must disclose their status to sexual and drug using partners IF they put their partners at "significant risk of serious bodily harm". Unfortunately, they declined to define their terms clearly. While 'serious bodily harm' obviously refers to HIV infection, 'significant risk' was never defined. We know that it most likely refers to high risk activities only (unprotected anal/vaginal sex, sharing needles) and not low risk activities (oral sex), but since they weren't clear in their ruling, it is up to Crown Prosecutors to decide whether to charge someone (and this leaves it open for abuse). And, HIV doesn't actually have to transmit to another person for the criminal code to be usedtwork --- attempted aggravated sexual assault carries significant jail time.

The press release also argues the need for guidelines for Crown Prosecutors in these situations so that the law is applied equally.

From the press release:

"We’re pleased with the Crown’s announcement this morning, but it must go further.  This case should never have proceeded in the first place, and the charges should be withdrawn entirely,” said Richard Elliott, Executive Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.  “There was never any solid basis for significant risk of transmission.  It’s a misguided overreaction to lay and pursue some of the most serious charges in the Criminal Code when no harm has occurred and the risk of HIV transmission was miniscule at most.”

...

“This case is yet another example of why the Attorney General of the province should work with community groups to develop some clear guidelines for prosecutors and police about when criminal charges are, and are not, warranted,” said Elliott.  “Guidelines should be informed by the evidence about actual risks of transmission.  They should also consider the damage that misusing the criminal law does to individual lives, and how it undermines public health, including HIV prevention efforts, through contributing to misinformation, fear and stigma.”

...

Over the past decade, there has been an alarming increase in both the frequency and severity of charges against individuals with HIV for not disclosing their status to a sexual partner.  Prosecutors have pursued serious assault charges even in circumstances where the risk of HIV transmission, already statistically small in any single sexual encounter, has been lowered further by the responsible practise of safer sex.  In light of this “criminalization creep,” it is all the more urgent to address legitimate questions about where, as a matter of public policy, we should draw the lines.

Crossposted to Qlinks.ca Blog:

Edge Magazine in Boston was the first to break the story of 60 Canadians living with HIV who were planning to attend the North American Housing and HIV/AIDS Research Summit in Washington D.C. who were denied entry into the U.S. The U.S. Congress has repealed the law that bans HIV positive travelers to the U.S. however, the repeal has not been translated into policy implemented by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The article can be found here.

For more information about the travel ban to the U.S. check out this past week's Xtra for an article (that went to print before the 60 people were barred from entry) 

The U.S. remains one of a few countries that still bar any HIV+ people from entering the country. Other countries in line with the U.S. policy include: Armenia, Brunei, China (which has since been removed), Iraq, Quatar, South Korea, Libya, Moldava, Oman, The Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia & Sudan.

Former US President GW Bush passed legislation to change this ban, but the government agency responsible has not yet changed its policies.