Ethical Issues Behind SB239

AIDS was detected in California and New York in 1981. In 1983, 3,000 cases of
HIV/AIDS had been reported in the United States and 1,000 people had died from the disease.
Little was known about HIV/AIDS in the 1980s and this fostered fear and discrimination.
HIV/AIDS criminalization laws were passed in California in 1988 and these laws highly stigmatized people living with HIV/AIDS. Societal understanding, prevention, and treatment of
HIV/AIDS have greatly improved since the 1980s while laws and regulations have remained stagnant.1 Current laws in California place 3 classes of criminal penalties on various acts performed by people with HIV/AIDS. The most severe law is one which makes it a felony punishable by 3-8 years in state prison to expose another person to

As such, current laws work against consequential ethics because they produce more harm than good.
Intentionally exposing someone to a communicable disease is unethical and violates the ethical principle of nonmaleficence as one is intentionally inflicting harm onto others. However, the pivotal point to keep in mind when examining the ethical issues behind SB239 is why current laws around HIV/AIDS criminalize this communicable disease more harshly than other communicable disease. Research has advanced the understanding and treatment of this disease since the 1980s and legislation should reflect these advancements. Differences in criminal penalties between different communicable diseases inherently creates stigmas and perpetuates stereotypes thereby violating the ethical principle of distributive justice, beneficence, and consequential ethics.
Examining the execution and application of current California laws dealing with
HIV/AIDS is important when considering their ethical implications. There have been 800 people prosecuted by the California criminal justice system from 1988 to June 2014 under