Government: Remove the information requirement for HIV: 'Stigma'

This week, the government’s investigator Jan Albert presented proposals for what is described as an improved, flexible, and more modern infection control that strengthens society’s preparedness for future outbreaks. Among the suggestions is the removal of the information requirement for HIV.

According to Jan Albert, the information requirement for people living with HIV is not a critical element in preventing transmission; other factors are more decisive. He also argued that the burden and intrusion of the information requirement into an individual’s private life and freedom are not proportionate to its intended effect, and the requirement is considered unfit for purpose.

Social Affairs Minister Jakob Forssmed (Christian Democrats) also attended the press conference, stating that there is no reason to retain the information requirement. The inquiry, he said, has provided a clear basis proving this — and thus it is the government’s ambition to remove it.

Forssmed argued that the current system maintains the stigma surrounding HIV, and according to Albert, a person is not infectious if they are under effective treatment.

– There is no reason to keep a system that mainly perpetuates stigma, says Forssmed.

At HIV-Sweden, a national umbrella organization working for people living with HIV in Sweden, the proposal and Social Affairs Minister Jakob Forssmed’s comments about moving forward with abolishing the information requirement are welcomed.

“Changing the information requirement is an important step in updating the life conditions and individual freedom for people living with HIV,” the organization writes.

Press conference:

When HIV was included in the Communicable Diseases Act in 1985, the virus was seen as a potentially explosive epidemic with high mortality and limited knowledge about how it spread. Lawmakers believed that special measures were needed to slow the spread, and the information requirement was introduced as a criminally sanctioned obligation for those who knew they were carrying HIV to inform their sexual partners. The goal was to create a legal tool that could complement the limited medical options of the time and support infection control efforts.

The information requirement became one of several rules that HIV-positive individuals had to follow under the Communicable Diseases Act. The rule placed much of the responsibility to prevent infection during sexual situations on those who knew they had HIV. This was despite lawmakers noting as early as 1985 that future medical advancements — such as making a person non-infectious through treatment — should influence assessments of infectiousness. Thus, the information requirement was designed for the state of knowledge at the time, with room for change as research developed.

Over time, medical progress has meant that people who are on stable treatment do not transmit HIV during sex, something the Public Health Agency confirmed in 2013. This led to doctors exempting patients with undetectable virus levels from the information requirement. At the same time, criticism grew that the rule created stigma, placed a disproportionate burden on HIV-positive people, and did not reflect the actual risk of transmission — especially since most transmissions come from people unaware they have the virus. This has led to recurring political proposals to abolish the information requirement altogether.