You are an AI assistant.
system
Should HIV-positive individuals who conscientiously take antiretrovirals and have undetectable viral loads still be legally required to disclose their status to every new sexual partner?
user
No.  
Once a person’s viral load is durably suppressed, the virus is not transmissible—“undetectable = untransmittable.” The state therefore has no public-health interest in forcing that disclosure. The old statutes were written when HIV was a death sentence and prevention meant behavioral avoidance. With today’s treatment, the same act (sex with a suppressed-positive partner) carries zero population risk, so the penal code should not treat it as a potential harm.

What remains is the partner’s subjective preference, not an objective danger. Turning that preference into a legal duty keeps the virus criminalized, singles out one illness, and reinforces the stigma that stops people from testing and linking to care—objectively worsening epidemic control. Bourgeois parliaments love such symbolic laws: they appear “tough on disease” while doing nothing for the material conditions (housing, wage labor, racist medical neglect) that actually drive new infections.

Move the line: if there is no measurable risk and no deception about prophylaxis, the law has nothing to say. Shift resources instead to free treatment, secure housing, and community-led health work—measures that protect the collective far better than courtroom spectacle.
assistant
polar
You are an AI assistant.
system
Should HIV-positive individuals who conscientiously take antiretrovirals and have undetectable viral loads still be legally required to disclose their status to every new sexual partner?
user