"In addition, many HIV scientists believe that if a person is knowingly living with HIV and is consistently taking antiretroviral treatment, they will have low viral load and therefore, their potential to transmit the virus, even during unprotected sex is negligible. Swiss authorities even went ahead and made a public health announcement to this effect."

However, if there greater likelihood a virus will be transmitted (genes passed-on) freely, there is less pressure on the virus to allow its host to survive. The related risk is, the one in a million virus-under-pressure is passed-on to another community of sexually active people not taking antiretroviral drugs.

StevieC,
"The truth is that condoms are closer to 99.5% effective.
.........
It is equally true that the majority of people with HIV are responsible people who go out of their way to ensure that they do not pass on the infection."

Taking those two statements together, what you are saying is that after contracting HIV they suddenly become responsible and take the precautions they obviously didn't take before.

What prevented them from taking the precautions first up to reduce the risk?

'Majority' isn't good enough.

Why should spreading HIV be a criminal offence if spreading other category 3 communicable diseases isn't?

I would agree that if there was malicious intent then there should be a criminal charge, but it should be the same for all communicable diseases spread with malicious intent.

Influenza is also a category 3 communicable disease & kills more people in Australia each year than HIV, Hep C & Hep B combined yet nobody seems to mind.

Just as the transmission of HIV can be prevented with safer sex practices the transmission of influenza can be prevented with safer hygiene practices (handwashing, not touching the "T-zone" etc).

Why aren't people that have the flu but don't use safer hygiene practices guilty of a criminal offence if people that have HIV that don't use safer sex practices are? (In fact in some Australian States it is an offence for someone with HIV to have sex even if they use safer sex practices if they don't disclose their condition first!)

Runner <" I see Suzie so this man should not be charged and left to continue sleeping with loose women. But its not a moral issue."

I never said he shouldn't be charged Runner. Because he has knowingly put these women's health at risk, he should certainly be charged with assault at the very least....but preferably attempted murder.

This story was not about whether these women were 'loose' or not (except in your mind), but rather about the huge public health risk this man's actions caused.

I hope he get's what he deserves.

Swampy. It used to be the case that if you had a notifiable disease such as Syphilis or Tuberculosis you were legally obliged to submit to treatment. This may have meant an isolation setting and it may not have been your 'cup of tea'. However refusal meant police could collect and force you to undergo treatment in the same way Mental Health patients under Involuntary Treatment orders are today. Refusal could also lead to charges. Whether this has changed I don't know.

I actually agree with your argument - the unexaggerated version! To knowingly (maliciously) place another person at risk of infection (sexually transmitted disease is often the main concern as the mode of transmission is so specific and so preventable) is akin to GBH and other infections like flu, measles, whooping cough, where the sufferer 'soldiers on' despite knowing they have that disease and infect others along the way - ditto. Especially when advised to stay at home by their Doctor.

However, while such diseases do cause fatalities in the vulnerable, all are either curable or the immune system kills off the bug. Not so HIV. Treatable yes, curable no. When the condition develops into AIDS you are doomed. In other words this complaint is a death sentence sooner or later. In this respect I believe the current approach in terms of preventative medicine and education and legal deterrents are correct.

Thanks for your comments divine_msn, I'm glad that you agree, more or less, with my argument.

People with active TB that are considered likely to expose other people to TB can be, & still are, placed into isolation in a single hospital room with negative air pressure & airborne precautions. Patients can be allowed to stay home if the risk of transmission is considered low, but will receive extensive counselling on TB and prevention of it's transmission. If a patient is considered high risk for transmission and is unwilling to undertake steps to prevent transmission they can be placed into isolation under a mandatory health order if the risk is considered great enough. All services relating to the care and management of TB are performed at no charge to the patient.

There are similar steps that can be undertaken if a person is found to be recklessly transmitting HIV (or other communicable diseases). Counselling and education on risks of transmission including regular follow up should always be undertaken in the first instance & criminal prosecution should only be undertaken as a last resort.

What would be ideal is if all treatment & services relating to the care and management of HIV were performed free of charge (it's done that way in the UK) and that the antiviral medications could be collected from community pharmacies instead of just from hospital pharmacies. The limited number of hospital pharmacies, their limited opening hours & the increasing costs of the antivirals make adherence to the medications very difficult for a large number of HIV positive people. The resulting increase in the viral pool due to poor adherence contributes to increased risk of transmission.

A few years ago the idea of a "chronic illness healthcare card", which would allow anyone with a chronic illness to obtain the medications needed to manage their condition at a discounted rate, was put before the Government, but unfortunately the idea was not taken up. In the long run it would have saved the Government and taxpayers many millions in avoided healthcare costs and hospital presentations.