A.I.D.S. Battlers Fear Fall-out From Detention (Press, 2 August 1989)

On 1 August 1989, the AIDS Council of New South Wales called for a revision of the Public Health Act following the detention of a prostitute known as Charlene, who was carrying the HIV virus. Bill Whittaker, the council’s executive director, argued that the current legislation was antiquated, with provisions that could ultimately drive the epidemic underground due to fear and mistrust. Charlene was detained in a Sydney hospital for medical and psychiatric assessment under a section of the 86-year-old Public Health Act, which was originally intended for containing tuberculosis. This law had never been previously invoked concerning HIV or AIDS cases. Dr. Morey, a health official, stated that Charlene's detention was seen as a last-resort measure, after all alternatives—including intensive counselling—had been exhausted. Whittaker highlighted the flaws of the outdated legislation, arguing it discouraged individuals from seeking AIDS testing or education. He suggested that reforms should mandate a court order for detention actions, limit the duration of such detentions, and introduce an appeals process. While Dr. Morey acknowledged that unprecedented actions like this might deter others from undergoing AIDS testing, she insisted it was necessary to prevent further disease transmission, stressing that the decision was not taken lightly. The Prostitutes' Rights Organisation (PRO) condemned the action, labelling it blatant victimisation. They expressed concern that such measures could threaten sex workers' willingness to cooperate with health authorities. A PRO spokesperson pointed out that Charlene had not consistently placed her clients at risk, implying that her behaviour had improved significantly during the period in question. Despite the complexities surrounding the case, Dr. Morey noted that the situation illustrated the urgent need for legislative reforms to address the legal and health system's approach to HIV and AIDS. The incident has highlighted the tensions between public health measures and individual rights, underlining the necessity for a more nuanced approach to such sensitive matters.

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