Should people living with HIV be subject to imprisonment or other criminal penalties for: Engaging in voluntary, consensual protected sexual encounters? Without first disclosing their HIV status to prospective sex partners?

1. List the ethical issues.
2. List the relevant facts.
3. Choose the decision-making model(s).
   • Social Media Model
   • Utility Model
   • Rights Model
   • Exceptions Model
   • Choices Model
   • Justice Model
   • Common Good Model
   • Virtue Model

4.Apply the appropriate model(s).

5.Decide based on the model if the dilemma is ethical or unethical.

In Brief:

While RD was never infected with HIV, Adam Donald Musser was convicted under Iowa's HIV criminal transmission law for:

Engaging in protected sexual encounters (using a condom) three times with RD

Having encounters without informing RD that he was HIV-infected

At the time of the voluntary and consensual encounters, Musser was receiving medical treatment for his condition and was healthy.

Months later, when RD learned Musser was HIV-positive, she contacted the police.

Musser was charged with criminal transmission of HIV.

Knowing consent to exposure is an affirmative defense.

Successful treatment for HIV significantly lowers the risk of transmitting the AIDS disease.

HIV does not infect the human body easily and only a fraction of unprotected sexual encounters results in passing the virus from one person to another.

When the viral load of someone living with HIV is undetectable and they engage in protected sexual activity:

Transmission can generally be prevented 96 percent of the time.

Condoms help prevent and close off HIV transmission from one partner to another during sexual encounters, if used correctly and no mishaps occur.

Musser claimed RD, who was HIV-negative, was as responsible as he was for taking measures to reduce or avoid sexual behavior that could lead to HIV transmission.

Musser's defense to this criminal action was that he used a condom.