Editorial from The Guide	Editorials Archive

Recent reports from New York City suggest that one man there has died of a drug-resistant and potentially new and more virulent strain of HIV. While some debate the scientific validity of extrapolating too much from a single case (did the man have a genetic predisposition making him more vulnerable? did his drug habits contribute to his rapid demise?), others have used the avalanche of publicity to agitate for more coercive measures to stop HIV transmission. Some have called for breaching doctor/patient confidentiality in order to identify "those spreading disease," for turning health care providers into police informants, and even for quarantining HIV-positive gay men. Shockingly, among those voices have been some gay activists.

View our poll archive

Of course, such coercive measures would be a public health disaster.

People need to trust that seeking medical help will not result in being branded a criminal. If health care providers come to be seen as agents of the police, those who need treatment will avoid getting medical attention. The result will be worse health for those individuals, who in turn will be all the more infectious to their sex partners for not having gotten HIV-suppressing treatment.

If HIV testing means potentially criminalizing all of one's sexual activity, many will avoid getting tested so they can conduct their sex lives in ignorance-- again, an outcome counterproductive to public health.

And if disclosure of sexual histories means stigmatization and harassment, drug trials and treatment protocols will have trouble enrolling participants. The very people whose lives and sexual habits could shed the most light on transmission rates and treatment efficacies will be frightened underground.

Besides undermining public health, those calling for tracking, exposing, and possibly quarantining sexually active gay men err in three other substantial ways.

First, they seek to blame HIV-positive men for the endurance of the epidemic. They suggest that when a poz guy and an HIV-negative guy have sex, the blame for any possible HIV transmission lies with the HIV-positive participant. This is as foolish as blaming a guy for a girl's pregnancy as though the girl had no role in the outcome. A wiser approach would urge guys who want to remain HIV-negative (and girls who don't want to get pregnant) to take responsibility for their own actions and to realize that pretty words are no substitute for tangible precautions. Basing sexual decisions on a potential sex partner's reassurance that he's negative (which may be untruthful, either out of deceit or ignorance) is as foolhardy as a pregnancy-wary girl letting her boyfriend go all the way because he whispers, "I love you."

Secondly, those who rail that sexually active gay men are murderous fools for taking any sexual risks reveal their belief that gay sexual expression is itself debased and not worth much. Not everyone thinks the thrills of hang-gliding or auto racing are sufficient reward for the risks, but few label those that do as crazed. Indeed, most find something admirably adventurous about those willing to take risks in order to get something extra out of life. Why should we expect everyone to conform to the belief that any risk in the sexual arena should mean automatic abstinence?

And finally, calling for greater criminalization of gay sex in the current political climate is itself reckless. Washington is now run by people whose core supporters see all gay sex as profoundly wicked, an offense against God. Should quarantine camps actually become reality, you can be sure all of us will be at risk of being labeled diseased corrupters of decent society.

The next time you hear calls to punish and condemn, remember that a virus causes AIDS, not sex. Understand that civil liberties protect public health, they don't threaten it. And recognize that fear erodes what we need most: courage, compassion, and love.