Obligation to provide information can be removed in case of HIV infection – Tanjit

The obligation to provide information in the Infection Prevention Act means that anyone with a disease that is classified as dangerous to the general public is obliged to “provide information about the infection to those with whom the person comes into contact so that there is a large amount of information about the risk of transmission”. HIV is considered such a disease, but according to Social Affairs Minister Jakob Forsmed (KD), medical development has advanced so much that it is time to review this requirement.

– This is important and has been long awaited by many. The vast majority of people living with HIV today receive well-adjusted treatment, which means that there is no risk of transmission during sexual contact. Today, treating doctors can exempt people who are receiving good treatment from the obligation to provide information, but knowledge about this possibility and its implementation vary, and it is therefore urgent to reconsider the obligation to provide information, says Social Affairs Minister Jakob Forsmed in a report. press release.

Added to the current investigation

This task is part of an ongoing investigation into the new infection control law, which is being carried out by Professor Jan Albert. This investigation is looking, among other things, at whether the principle of action should be introduced.

according to Supplementary guidance The investigator must:

• Analyse and decide whether the regulation of information obligations in the case of HIV infection is appropriate and proportionate.
• Analyse and determine whether other provisions in the Infection Prevention Act relating to an individual's obligations to prevent the spread of infection are appropriate and proportionate.
• Analyse and determine whether the code of conduct that doctors can provide to patients, particularly in the case of HIV and hepatitis, is appropriate and proportionate.
• To decide whether additional rules of conduct should be given to persons who carry, or are suspected of carrying, a disease that poses a danger to the public, and, if necessary, to make proposals for this.
• Taking a position on whether there should be a possibility of imposing exemptions from mandatory measures in relation to a disease classified as a public risk or a risk to society.
• Decide whether the obligations and rules of conduct in the Infection Prevention Act should be based on criteria other than general risk, e.g. risk of infection.
• Submitting the necessary constitutional proposals.

Change the name of infection control doctors

The inquiry should also review whether the current system of national laws is adequate. In a letter to the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Association of Physicians for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases proposed changing the reporting system for certain diseases that contain incomplete personal data. The association justifies the proposal by citing a lack of patient safety and the fact that it can be difficult to find an encrypted medical record. The inquiry is therefore tasked with proposing changes to adequately protect privacy.

The government also wants to change the name of the infection prevention physician to make it clear that the infection prevention physician is an authority with a regionally divided area of ​​responsibility. What the new name might be is up to the investigator to suggest.

The entire investigation will be given another year and must report in January 2026. However, the tasks related to strengthening constitutional preparedness and the national strategy for dealing with epidemics must be reported in February next year.