Prisoners May Be Tested For A.I.D.S. (Press, 10 June 1987)

On 10 June 1987, discussions were held in Melbourne among state prison ministers of Australia regarding the potential implementation of condoms and compulsory A.I.D.S. testing in prisons, driven by insights from the National A.I.D.S. Task Force led by Professor David Penington. Professor Penington highlighted the unique circumstances surrounding prisons that necessitate stronger measures against A.I.D.S. compared to the broader community. He pointed out that a heightened risk of non-consensual homosexual acts and violence in prisons creates an environment where A.I.D.S. could spread more easily. He argued that it would be irresponsible to ignore the reality of homosexuality in prisons, noting that when men are confined together, such behaviour is likely to occur. He stressed that the community would be outraged if individuals entering prison, even for minor offences, were subjected to coercion and returned home carrying the virus. The meeting included prison ministers from various states, such as Don Neal from Queensland and Jim Kennan from Victoria, who were tasked with addressing various challenges within their jurisdictions. Professor Penington advocated for the availability of condoms in prisons akin to cigarettes, emphasising their role in reducing the transmission risk of the virus. He also asserted that while isolated facilities for A.I.D.S. patients were not yet necessary, the landscape could change, suggesting that compulsory testing might soon be implemented across Australia, provided adequate safeguards and a focus on confidentiality were established. Currently, Queensland and the Northern Territory had already enacted compulsory A.I.D.S. testing, with voluntary testing available in many other regions. At this juncture, fewer than ten prisoners were known to be infected with the virus, and full-blown A.I.D.S. cases had not been reported. While acknowledging the potential benefit of providing clean needles to prevent A.I.D.S. transmission through intravenous drug use, Professor Penington dismissed this option, citing that such measures might inadvertently endorse illegal drug use. He reassured that the sharing of facilities with A.I.D.S. patients was not posing significant risks to other prisoners, although he mentioned that in the United States, fear of the disease had led to violence and fatalities within prisons. In conclusion, Professor Penington underscored the necessity of educating prison personnel about A.I.D.S. prevention and fostering an open dialogue about the issue as vital steps towards safeguarding both inmates and the community at large.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand