News 
ACT slammed over sex worker case
ACT slammed over sex worker case
| ACT slammed over sex worker case |
|
Katrina Fox The ACT government’s handling of a case involving an HIV-positive sex worker has been branded ‘clumsy’ and ‘alarmist’ by National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS (NAPWA). Last week saw mainstream media headlines proclaiming ‘Sex worker exposes 250 to HIV’. Hector Scott, 41, of Kingston appeared in ACT Magistrates Court in January charged with knowingly infecting someone with a sexually transmitted disease and failing to register as a sex worker. At the time, the details of the disease were not known but last week ACT Chief Health Officer Charles Guest revealed it was HIV. NAPWA accused the ACT health department of failing to follow basic public health guidelines and of creating unnecessary community concern over the case. “We are really concerned about the way this has been handled,” said NAPWA Executive Director Jo Watson. “The appropriate public health approach has not been followed in the case of Mr Hector Scott; instead he’s been subjected to trial by media … It appears ACT Health has panicked and bypassed the significant public health interventions at its disposal, choosing instead to refer this case to the police. This is not helpful … it perpetuates stigma against people with HIV, and it discourages people at risk of HIV from testing and treatment.” NAPWA also slammed the decision by the ACT chief health officer to release personal details about the accused to the media. “For a government agency to release personal and confidential information in this way has been a great shock and affront to many of us … It is dangerous to the individual, dangerous to those who are by implication connected to his alleged activities, and dangerous for anyone living with HIV to see human rights and personal dignities trampled over in this way.” National sex worker organisation Scarlet Alliance also joined in the condemnation of the ACT health department. “Scarlet Alliance does not support the decision from ACT Health to release details on Mr Scott’s HIV status. In our opinion this information being released out of court will significantly prejudice a fair trial,” said CEO Janelle Fawkes.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (4)
...
written by john Yates , May 18, 2008 Garo is of the belief that clients of sex workers are not responsible for their own sexual health? Legislation in Canberra makes it illegal for the client and sex worker to engage in unsafe sex, yet no client has been charged. The article states clients were "exposed" to HIV. The term can be very ambiguous when considering the potential risk. And assuming Mr Scott had unsafe sex with all 250 people, which is pure speculation, there are a number of factors that contribute to a person seroconverting. The viral load would have to be quite high, and there needs to be a point of entry, compromised skin or mucous membranes. This wasn't considered in Garo's sensational calculation. And his calculation also acknowledges that the initial 250 people must not practice safe sex very often. And Garo, must be the first person, who is not a sex worker, to associate the professional ethics of a sex worker with that of nurses, doctors and dentists, and thank you for that. Don't sex workers deserve the same respect and courteous treatment given these professionals too. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Elena Jeffreys, President, Sca , February 12, 2008 here is the full text of the Scarlet Alliance media release: http://www.scarletalliance.org...2-07.5641/ "SEX WORK POSES NO RISK: Money Is Not A Health Risk" 7 Feb 08 Scarlet Alliance, Australian Sex Workers Association, calls for changes to S. 25 of the ACT Prostitution Act and an investigation into actions by health officials in relation to this case. Today, the ACT Magistrates Court heard charges against a sex worker under section 25 and 12 of the ACT Prostitution Act (1992). "Unfortunately s.25 of the Prostitution Act 1992 is poorly named ‘knowingly infecting’ which has caused much confusion amongst the public and media outlets. This charge relates to a person providing commercial sexual services when they knew, or were likely to know they are infected with a sexually transmissible infection. This charge has been misunderstood and misrepresented as though the person is charged with the transmission of an STI". Janelle Fawkes, CEO of Scarlet Alliance, the Australian Sex Workers Association, said: "This misleading terminology has resulted in a domino effect with public health officials taking unprecedented measures of publicly releasing a persons HIV status and media reports that people were put at risk when there is no evidence of such." "Clearly the case has not shown evidence of any person put at risk of transmission or any occasion of risk to clients. As such the handling of this matter by ACT Health and AFP has raised unnecessary community concern," says Ms. Fawkes. "The normal public health processes were not followed in this case due to over-reaction around sex work being practiced by someone with HIV. Safe sex poses very little risk of transmission and the risk is not increased when one party is a sex worker or cash is involved. Both sex work and having sex when someone has HIV is not criminalised in the ACT, unless the two are combined, even though the combination poses no additional risk when safe sex is practiced," said Janelle Fawkes, CEO, Scarlet Alliance. "Rather than taking a public health approach, the media has been used in such a way as to alarm the public, with little regard for providing accurate information about HIV, or prevention of transmission." said Janelle Fawkes, CEO, Scarlet Alliance. "Unfortunately the misleading terminology within the Act and the decisions by ACT Health to release private health information causes discrimination against sex workers, HIV positive people generally and the individual involved." said Janelle Fawkes, CEO, Scarlet Alliance "Potentially the approach to this matter will discourage people at risk of HIV from testing and treatment - and that is not an effective public health outcome." Janelle Fawkes, CEO, Scarlet Alliance. "Discrimination and stigma live on well after the details of specific cases are forgotten. We now have a responsibility to ensure the processes followed by ACT Health are not repeated and to ensure the successful implementation of safe sex in sex industry workplaces is acknowledged." Janelle Fawkes, CEO, Scarlet Alliance "Research shows that Australian sex workers are effectively implementing safe sex practices with their clients on a daily basis. Clients of sex workers often do not believe themselves to be at risk of HIV therefore it is most often the sex worker that must negotiate and implement safe sex practices." Janelle Fawkes, CEO, Scarlet Alliance "When safe sex is implemented, including the use of condoms and lubricant, the risk of HIV transmission is very low. Condom use amongst Australian sex workers is very high and works well, evidenced by the low rates of HIV amongst sex workers in Australia. But, as we all know, safe sex is a shared responsibility. Both client and sex worker are responsible for safe sex". Janelle Fawkes, CEO, Scarlet Alliance Scarlet Alliance believes that HIV positive sex workers should not be excluded from working in the sex industry. Discrimination doesn't stop HIV transmission, safe sex does. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Kane2 , February 09, 2008 I think your attitude is a little extreme! How many guys out there engage in unsafe sex all the time? How many hetero people engage in unsafe sex? Should they all be charged and jailed for putting people at risk? Cause that’s what they’re doing: putting themselves and others at risk. To put all the blame on one HIV guy is just plain stupid. If everyone always insists on using condoms for all casual sex, then no one would be at risk, no one would be infected, no one would catch HIV! Yippee! Everybody’s responsibility is to protect themselves. It’s the government’s responsibility to educate and encourage people to protect themselves. If people don’t protect themselves, perhaps THEY should be jailed! So how about we jail 80% of the population, ’cause I reckon that’s how many Australians have unsafe sex! Not practical. So how about educating people and promoting a culture of safe sex for casual sex and ensure everyone is responsible for his/her own behaviour and take actions to protect themselves, and always insist on having safe sex! The only reason I can see that anyone would want to prevent HIV people from having sex (paid or unpaid), or existing alongside us, is that they want to have unsafe sex, casual sex. I think, stop blaming others and take responsibility. If someone insists on having unsafe sex, and they catch something because of their own actions, then tough titties! I think that the ONLY case where a HIV person is liable is if they deliberately and forcibly make someone else have unsafe sex. And that would be rape, would it not? report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Garo Gabriel , February 07, 2008 ACT slammed over sex worker case by NAPWA Executive Director Jo Watson, who understands little about the ramifications of a sex aid worker posing a health risk to the rest of society. This association’s first priority is the well being and recognition of their members as normal contributing members of our society. It’s clear people living with HIV are normal every day people and I can relate to them the same way I can to someone who may have cancer. Hector Scott [chose sex work as his profession] and there are more sex workers than there are people living with HIV. As a sex worker he carried on with acts knowing and wilfully acknowledging that he is endangering other people’s lives. Mr Scott is no different to any other professional who carries on their profession with neglect to the extent that another person’s life is in danger. No different to a nurse, doctor, dentist, nutritionist, dietician or a gym instructor. The neglect was carried out to the extent it would be acceptable top say he used the virus as a weapon against other innocent people, those innocent people are the other people Hector Scott’s clients have a relationship with. Hector Scott should be treated as common criminal and a danger to society and should be banished from sharing the freedoms we all take for granted this side of the world. The common area between NAPWA and Hector Scott is the HIV virus, nothing more. Removing this man from endangering innocent members of the public is the first thing any government can do, the second would be to let people know the danger he has caused so any of his partners stop from passing HIV to others. If Hector Scott, being one person, passed on HIV to 250 people and the 250 people passed HIV on to another 250, we would have 62,500 people infected with HIV. This is how over 60,000 are infected and living with AIDS in Australia at present. It’s not being alarmist, it’s a warning sign to people to consider the consequences of having unprotected sex. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed