Nadja Benaissa: Sentenced for spreading HIV?

You've probably heard about Nadja Benaissa, a 28-year-old German pop star who was recently slammed with a 2-year suspended sentence for infecting a former partner with HIV. Nadja Benaissa was dragged to court on accusations of failing to inform her lovers that she was HIV positive. She faced up to 10 years imprisonment, but a German court tampered justice with mercy because the celebrity confessed and showed remorse.

Nadja Benaissa was arrested in April 2009 and charged with causing bodily harm by having unprotected sex without telling her partners that she was HIV positive. On August 26, 2010, the court found Nadja Benaissa guilty of causing "grievous bodily harm" and "attempted bodily harm." Nadja denied to have deliberately infected her former partner who contracted HIV during their relationship.

This verdict has sparked criticism from AIDS organisations. Many argue that Nadja Benaissa has been unfairly treated and stigmatized. Others argue that "safe sex" is the responsibility of everyone involved in a relationship; not the sole responsibility of the infected partner.

I sympathise with Nadja Benaissa because she discovered that she was HIV positive when she was only 16 years old and pregnant, and kept the infection secret to protect her child. But in the interest of public health, I concur with the verdict of the court.

Practicing protected sex is the responsibility of everyone involved in a relationship, but mindful of the high risk of transmitting HIV, Nadja should have abstained from [unprotected] sex or disclosed her HIV status to her partners. Perhaps, such a disclosure would have discouraged her former partners from recklessly participating in unprotected sex.

It is worth mentioning that Nadja Benaissa infected one of her partners and one remains free of HIV. The court ordered her to do 300 hours of community service (possibly helping people with HIV).

Share

Tweet

Free HIV Tests for Immigrants in Finland

The Finnish AIDS Council offered free HIV tests for immigrants and foreigners in Oulu and Helsinki, Finland on Monday April 12, 2010. The tests were anonymous and no prior time-booking was required - this means you could just walk into one of the Council's facilities and get tested. Results were available in 15 minutes. No doubt, free HIV tests for immigrants is good news! But, one question remains unanswered - why was the HIV testing explicitly reserved for immigrants?

In Finland, according to Helsinki Times - there are about 500 to 1,000 people infected with HIV, but are unaware of the infection. Mindful of the fact that the later the diagnosis, the less effective the treatment, HIV testing should be a matter of urgency! Common sense tells you that it is important for you to know your HIV status, so that you can commence treatment as soon as possible - if you are infected.

Correct me if I am wrong - every individual is vulnerable to HIV; not just immigrants. Limiting free HIV tests to immigrants and foreigners in Finland somehow sends across a different message. Are immigrants more vulnerable? Why should the Council target a particular group for HIV testing?

Has every Finnish citizen already been tested?

According to the National Institute for Health and Welfare, in 2009, there were 180 HIV cases in Finland, out of which 82 were foreigners. Could this be the cause for concern?

Before you jump into any conclusions, note that there are about 2,600 confirmed HIV infected persons in Finland and Finnish citizens account for more than half - about 1,800 of the confirmed cases.

As you'd expect, 80% of the confirmed cases in Finland were sexually transmitted.

Make no mistake about it - free HIV test for immigrants in Finland is a good idea. However, the goal of the free tests should be to identify and support immigrants infected with HIV. It would be dehumanizing if the motive is simply to obtain statistics; statistics that would further polarize the on-going immigration debate - which is already in a sorry-state, and expose immigrants to more discrimination and unequal treatment.

Share

Tweet