Protection of Human Rights and Barriers for People with HIV/AIDS in Colombia: An Analysis of the Legal Framework

Examining legal and ethical challenges in HIV/AIDS disclosure obligations and medical practices: a case study from China

In accordance with China's regulations on the prevention and control of HIV/AIDS, individuals diagnosed with HIV are required to disclose their medical condition when soliciting medical care in Mainland China. Empirical field investigations, however, indicate that people living with HIV (PLHIV) predominantly comply with this mandate only under conditions of absolute necessity. The ensuing conundrum, juxtaposing the imperative of privacy against the duty of disclosure, has materialised into a recurrent vicious cycle in its practical application, intensifying the intrinsic trust disparities characterising doctor-patient interactions. A meticulous scrutiny of pertinent legal precedents, coupled with in-depth field studies, reveals that the genesis of these complications can be traced back to an unforeseen metamorphosis in the legislative intent underpinning HIV/AIDS prevention and therapeutic strategies. While the initial objective was risk mitigation, the effect of enactment in real-world scenarios has significantly decreased. Owing to factors including extensive media reporting as well as prevailing public discourse, PLHIV, rather than being perceived as rights-bearing entities in legal frameworks, are increasingly relegated to the restrictive and dehumanising labels of 'HIV/AIDS'. As these individuals navigate their rights through alternative non-regulatory channels, circumventing formal legal obligations, their efficacy in actualising these rights is concurrently undermined.

Balancing public health and privacy rights: a mixed-methods study on disclosure obligations of people living with HIV to their partners in China

BACKGROUND

In 2021, a Chinese court, based on the newly enacted Civil Code, first revoked a marriage license due to the spouse's failure to disclose their HIV infection before the marriage. This landmark case ignited a fresh debate on whether people living with HIV (PLHIV) have a legal duty to inform their spouses and sexual partners. Advances in medicine have partially isolated HIV transmission from sexual contact, extending the legal basis for the obligation to disclose beyond disease prevention. This study investigates some possibly unforeseen challenges for PLHIV in China to fulfill this duty, and the outcomes of their decisions in light of the government's goal to promote health.

METHODS

This study aims to provide a detailed examination of the legal provisions and practices concerning partner notification among PLHIV in China. A mixed-methods research approach was employed between 2019 and 2020, combining questionnaire surveys, in-depth interviews, and participatory observations. A total of 433 valid responses were obtained through a questionnaire posted on a Chinese online platform for PLHIV. Following the collection and random coding of the questionnaire data, 40 individuals living with HIV were selected for in-depth interviews. Subsequently, a six-month field investigation was conducted in Guan ai jia yuan (Caring Home) in Jinhua City to further explore this issue.

RESULTS

A considerable proportion of PLHIV exhibit a high rate of disclosure to their spouses (nearly 80%). In the context of sexual partners, 56% of PLHIV stated that their sexual partners were aware of their HIV infection. Whether married PLHIV disclosing to their spouses or unmarried/divorced PLHIV disclosing to sexual partners, however, a substantial majority expressed apprehension about the potential disruption to their relationships that the disclosure might cause. The sole exception was observed among married PLHIV in extramarital relationships who demonstrated a slightly diminished level of concern in this context. Reasons for non-disclosure predominantly included undetectable viral load and the adoption of protective measures.

DISCUSSION

This study reveals that a prevailing "HIV stigma" hinders PLHIV from voluntarily fulfilling the disclosure duties bestowed by Article 38 of the Regulations on the Prevention and Control of HIV/AIDS, and the unclear legal provisions of the new Civil Code play a significant role in this regard. Addressing this issue necessitates not only increasing societal tolerance toward PLHIV and reducing instances of social exclusion but also shifting the legal basis of disclosure duties from disease prevention to rights and obligations within the legal relationships of the parties involved. When it comes to the recipients of disclosure, for instance, it is crucial to differentiate between spouses and sexual partners. As for PLHIV failing to fulfill their disclosure duties, apart from interventions involving indirect notifications, the addition of further legal responsibilities may not be advisable. Intentional transmission actions, on the other hand, should still be subject to severe penalties.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

Not applicable.