the already existing legal framework is sufficient to cover all cases of malevolent transmission of HIV/AIDS, and an additional, HIV specific law is unnecessary.

As I was reading, that is what I was wondering - was it HIV specific laws or general laws being used to prosecute?  I too don't see the need for specific legislation on the transmission of HIV for that reason, any deliberate act of harm to another person is already covered by criminal law.

To further stigmatise HIV with separate legislation is as you say so counterproductive.  People can't seek help and advice when they are afraid to be checked or to discuss the issue with anyone.

Thanks for the diary, Nomad - it is always good to raise the profile of issues like this.

For your information, a couple of weeks ago, in a Dallas movie theater, a person sat on something sharp in one of the seats. When she stood up to see what it was, a needle was found poking through the seat with an attached note saying, "you have been infected with HIV". The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta reports similar events have taken place in several other cities recently. All of the needles tested HAVE been positive for HIV. The CDC also reports that needles have been found in the coin return areas of pay phones and soda machines.

A woman, told by her doctor she has AIDS, breast-feeds her newly born - who gets HIV as result.

The self-protecting delusion for lawmakers and health givers alike would be that by passing such a law they have actually done anything useful or humane.  It is, in effect, a status crime: by virtue of her status as HIV positive and a mother with a new-born without adequate resources, she is a criminal.  Either let the child get HIV, let it starve or immediately give it up, if there are even provisions for legally surrendering a new-born in that society.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."