adminMonica Cheru-Mpambawashe Living life to the max
In a rare coincidence, the same health issue has been topical in Zimbabwe and Canada this week; the wilful spread of HIV by people who know that they are infected with the virus but still go on to have unprotected sex with partners to whom they do not disclose their status.In the Zimbabwean story a 39-year-old Chinhoyi man, Nyengedzai Bheka, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for infecting a 17-year-old girl with HIV. He was found guilty of contravening Section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.
In the Canadian story Winnipeg prosecutors are seeking a 10-year sentence against a man who has exposed three women to HIV, infecting two of them and has already been convicted for similar crimes.
The man, Apay Ogouk, who is from Sudan and spent much of his youth in an Ethiopian refugee camp before migrating to Canada in 2005, is claiming that his English is so bad that he did not understand what the health service providers were saying when they told him that he was HIV positive and how he would need to conduct his sexual liaisons in future.
The laws in most countries are clear. But I personally think that these laws are discriminating against people who have been tested for HIV because by implication if a person has not been tested then the law cannot convict them.
So in other words the millions of Zimbabweans who have not been tested for HIV are legally free to spread the virus if infected because it cannot be proved that they knew their HIV status at the time of having unprotected sex.
Therefore, we are saying that the crime is getting tested, not spreading the virus. On the other hand, unless there is rape involved, I think the State needs to prove that the person who gets infected is really a “victim”.
For me that means proving that the person who has been infected did not understand that unprotected sex exposes one to STIs including HIV. And the State must be able to prove that transmission really did occur at the alleged time.
As the saying goes “Saying yes to unprotected sex is saying yes to all the risks including pregnancy and HIV”. When you have unprotected sex you are ready for the consequences and should not then play the victim.
In Zimbabwe and many countries awareness campaigns including multi-media messages gobble up a lot of money each year as various Government and non-government players strive to get people informed on the basic information pertaining to HIV and other diseases.
How many people living in the world today can stand up and say that they do not know that HIV is a sexually transmitted disease? How many people can stand up and say that they do not know that there are people living with HIV who do not have any outward signs and symptoms of illness because they are not ill? How many people can stand up and say that they do not know that the only way to know the HIV status of any person is through clinical tests and not from eyesight evaluation?
How many people can stand up and say that they do not know that every person that you meet is a potential HIV carrier until proven otherwise?
Is there any person, especially those in urban areas, who can honestly say that they have no access to an HIV testing facility? Did these people know their HIV status before getting involved with the person that they accuse of infecting them?
For me, only if the “victim” answers yes to the above six questions can they then claim a moral right to blame another person for their HIV status, regardless of what the law says. HIV has been around for more than four decades in this country and it is high time we acknowledged the individual’s responsibility in avoiding infection.
As long as people indulge in unprotected sex, they should be prepared to bear the consequences without crying foul. On the other hand, I acknowledge the fact that there are many knowledge gaps concerning HIV in children.
This has been caused by various reasons including the traditional taboos surrounding talks on sex in families. But there are laws pertaining to statutory rape which covers disadvantaged people including minors and adults of limited mental capacity.
Only in such cases do I feel that the State is justified in prosecuting culprits for wilfully spreading HIV as the victim is not legally able to consent to sex.
Or alternately Government could make it mandatory for everyone to get tested for HIV annually to avoid discriminating against those who have been tested.
Statistics from the National Aids Council released earlier this year showed that in 2013 2 274 328 were tested for HIV, a massive leap from 1 150 933 in 2012.
But when you consider that our population is over 13 million, then the figure is just not good enough. We need 100 percent HIV testing otherwise the spread of HIV will continue to burden the country, especially the health delivery system thereby affecting the whole populace.
Online Reporter