Mandatory STD testing for sex workers?

I also hear this brought up by non sex workers. I agree that it is invasive and goes against human rights. If you make it mandatory for sex workers you need to make it mandatory for everyone. Otherwise, you see sex workers as vectors for disease and that is not necessarily the truth (teenagers, seniors, club goers etc... rarely get tested and rarely use condoms - look to them as vectors).

I also do not think mandatory testing is practical. The thing with testing is that it lets you know your STI status at one very particular point in time (with HIV it is for the time frame three months prior to the test). If your test is negative it doesn't reflect you in the present moment. Testing for other STIs have smaller windows, but still a person could have had sex in between the testing time and the present time (and most likely have). If you are seeing clients daily what do you do then?

If this were to become law there would be a false sense of security and clients would ask and even force non barrier sex.

I am all for making STI testing treatment accessible. I use it for MY peace of mind. Everyone should - but its not a preventative tool unless the tests improved and EVERYONE is getting tested.

I am of the view that common-sense and good judgment should prevail over forcing people to undergo prodedures they are already prepared to do given their chosen profession. An irresponsible person be they a sex-trade worker or a client will always be just that. In my fourty plus years, I've never caught so much as a common cold nor have I given anyone anything other than the assurance my ability to keep myself heathy. Besides, it would just be one more thing for the government to abuse.

I know in the Nevada brothels the ladies are shown how to screen guys for warts, herpes and other STI's that have physical signs. All guys must undergo a "inspection" from the ladies before any contact begins as far as I can tell as well. I think they use some UV/Blacklight thing to inspect the guys junk.

From Nevada State Heath:

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Q8899.html

.....................

In Nevada licensed brothels, by law, prostitutes prior to working MUST be screened for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and HIV. If they are found positive for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, or Syphilis, they cannot begin work until they are adequately treated, followed-up, and test negative on a subsequent test. For HIV, they are barred from working for life. There have been brothel applicants who have tested positive for HIV. Because of their HIV positive status, they were prohibited from working at all.

Under Nevada law, once a prostitute begins working in the legal brothels, they are tested weekly for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, and monthly for Syphilis and HIV. If they are found positive for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, or Syphilis, they are immediately prohibited from working, and cannot return to work until they are adequately treated, followed-up, and test negative on a subsequent test. For HIV, they would be immediately barred from working for life. To date, no actively working legal brothel prostitute has ever tested HIV positive. However, from time to time, there are cases of Chlamydia, Gonorrhea and rarely Syphilis, among active brothel workers. Chlamydia is the most common STD seen, however this is not a surprise, since Chlamydia is the most common STD in the USA overall.

Nevada law also requires that latex condoms must be used during all sexual activity.

.....................

Amsterdam's Red Light District: No mandatory STD/STI screening

.....................

AUSTRAILIA:

http://www.ashm.org.au/HIVLegal/Default.asp?publicationID=2&SectionID=337

Although there is no overt mandatory testing of sex workers in Australian states and territories, three jurisdictions (Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and Victoria) operate what might be considered a de facto system of mandatory testing of sex workers with resulting exclusion from the sex industry (or sections of it) if a worker refuses to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. The structure of legislation and guidelines combine to ensure brothels will only employ sex workers who undergo prescribed tests:

• In Queensland, a licensee or approved manager of a licensed brothel must not permit a sex worker to work if infected with an STI (including HIV). It is a defence if the licensee or approved manager believed on reasonable grounds that the person had regular medical examinations and was not living with HIV (Section 89, Prostitution Act 1999). Regular medical examinations are defined as occurring every 3 months (Section 9, Prostitution Regulations 2000).
  
• In Victoria, it is an offence to allow a sex worker with an STI (including HIV) to work in a brothel, escort agency or other business. It is a defence if the person reasonably believed that the sex worker was undergoing regular health checks (quarterly blood tests and monthly swab tests) and reasonably believed the person did not have an STI (Section 19, Prostitution Control Act 1994). (Of note, section 161 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 requires brothel and escort agency proprietors to take reasonable steps to ensure that evidence of a sex worker’s attendance at a medical examination or the results of the examination are not used to induce a client to believe a sex worker is free from HIV infection.)
   
  Private sex workers cannot work while they have an STI, including HIV ( Prostitution Control Act, section 20), so must also adhere to monthly testing (as a defence should transmission of an STI occur).
  
• In the Australian Capital Territory, each owner and operator of a brothel or escort agency must take reasonable steps to ensure a sex worker does not provide commercial sexual services if he or she has an STI, including HIV (Section 24, Prostitution Act 1992). ‘Reasonable steps’ is not defined, but is generally understood by owners and operators to mean that they must guarantee their workers are routinely tested. The Australian Capital Territory also requires registration of private workers.
  

The Prostitution Act also states (at section 25) that:

A person shall not, at a brothel or elsewhere, provide or receive commercial sexual services if the person knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that he or she is infected with a sexually transmitted disease

Unfortunately that section is erroneously named ‘Knowingly infecting’, implying that working while HIV positive or having an STI is equivalent to transmitting the infection to another person. The maximum penalty for working with HIV is six months imprisonment. Notably, section 25 of the Prostitution Act also makes it illegal for a client with HIV (or another STI) to receive commercial sexual services.

If a sex worker feels the need to verify that she is healthy, even if she used condoms always, (we know that Chlamydia can live in the throat of a person who was infected by a carrier) . She has the right to go to a doctor and ask to be checked even if she did not work in the sex industry.

I believe clients should do the same if they want to make 100% sure they are perfectly healthy.

STD's can have awful consequences in both, male and female, particularly in the reproductive capacity of a woman.

The point I want to make here is that everybody having multiple partners should have the genuine, non-stigmatized desire to know that they are healthy!

As Megan said, not only sex workers transmit diseases, they were infected by some male before they became carriers.....If prostitution laws change (?) everybody should be visiting clinics and having pee tests, vaginal swabs and throat swabs....it is a matter of caring for others and for oneself!

We sex workers are not the problem! It is deeper than a scratch in the surface!

LoraL.

Naomi:

Proactive people will always tend to be so and irresponsible people will continue to be irresponsible legislation/regulation notwithstanding. Your points are well taken though. As it stands now there are many different levels of the industry and all the legislation in the world will not force workers to go for regular testing and checkups if they are not of the mindset to do so. I don't think there's a clear answer in all this. With respect to my remarks concerning possible abuse at the hands of government I admit I am a cynic as I prefer less government in my/our lives. That's just my view, however. :wink: Some professions are subject to some sort of legislation, regulation or governing body. Some professions are totally unregulated and it becomes a case of "let the buyer beware" and we have to exercise caution and good judgment. Then there are others who will operate outside established regulations or plain old common-sense.

It would be nice if the world could work like this... as is now, it can't and won't.

 

I think we forget things when we are at a place like Cerb, like the fact that not all ladies choose this profession because they like it or want to do it.

 

Even some of the ladies here are just using escorting to get somewhere else, like further/obtain an education that will take them away from escorting.

 

Not all ladies want to be in this profession or know enough to be regularly tested... we have to think of those people and not just the intelligent "privileged" few we see here on Cerb.

 

I think there's going to have to be some give on the escort side should we want people to (at least on the surface) accept us and our profession, mandatory testing (where we can just go to a clinic and get a form filled out, similar to porn actors) may be something simple that could give us the power to make more important demands... If we're all going to the Doctors anyways, what's the big deal?

 

I think Canadians let their government abuse them... These people are supposed to be working for you, for us... not abuse whatever power they have, if people just let them then we're not doing our part as concerned citizens of what is called, "One of the most livable countries in the world."

RE: mandatory std testing

This is one of the negative consequences of opening up a dialogue on prostitution decriminalization... people are going to start adding standards, rules, regulations and *gasp* TAXES to our business and this is something I am really dreading. I can see how there could be an argument for making std testing mandatory for sex workers like escorts and porn artists but then again, shouldn't everyone including the Prime Minister be required to get regular std testing? Sure, we might be at higher risk to get a std just because of the frequency and number of sex partners we have but I'm sure many of us sex workers actually practice safe sex more often than non-sex workers.

Anyway, the creativity, openness and personal nature of this business is what drew it to me - that, and evading taxes, gettin to be glamorous, enjoy sex, learn/teach things and meet wonderful people and get paid to do it - but the possibility that people are going to add labels and standards and all that crap to our business really scares me. I applaud the SPOC for campaigning and being activists for sex workers' equal rights but we may have just opened pandora's box :(

1. how does "Sex worker" get classified ? compensation for sex ?

2. under what legislation would this fall under ? Occupational Health and Safety ?

3. how will this be enforced ? every "Sex worker" has to carry a visible tag ?

It is always easy to throw out a statement before thinking thru things.

Berlin - I get that too, the assumption that I'm single. One question I got was "Will you someday leave the industry and get married, and maybe have children?" As if I can't be married and be a sex worker.

How did your lecture at Chris' class go, btw? Mine went well. I just talked about stripping, not about massage or anything.

This is what i prsonally expect if the ndustry is decriminalized.... the cities would make bylaws and charge license fees high enough to cover policing costs, weekly and monthly health inspections for std/sti screening, and of course put money into the cities budgets. like exotic dancer and escort licenses each person would need to go into city hall and pay for a license, get a photo doe and receive a laminated licese with photo along with a licese number... same as exotic dancers. the dancers get fines if these licenses are not present during bylaw inspections (I worked in Hamilton running a strip club and had weekly bylaw inspections) and of course oe clubs would hide ladies when the inspectors came so it's not foolproof)

you can count on municipal licenses if its decriminalized completely as that leaves it up to the individual municipalities to license and zone.

if they legalize it we will see provisions made in the criminal code and I suspect they would use austrailia's approach as a reference as the laws are very detailed and the have a similar moral structure as us canadiens so it would probaly be the most acceptable.

it depends a lot on who is in power here in Canada when it comes to making a change as well.... conservatives will lobby to make I illegal or very highly regulated...liberals may lean towards decriminalizing (none moral and the easy way to deal with it for them). split as it is now.... probably something in the middle like austrailia.

that is my thoughts on it and I not see mandatory Health checks as too far fetched by any extent. they will see it as "you choose sex as your career you need to get monthly STD checks" you need a better defense to lobby as saying the politicians should also have mandatory checks is not e same (yes they screw people but it's not the same).... if you choose sex as a career like porn stars and they legalize it I could very well see the public wanting sti screens monthly.

The only 100% guarrantee against STD's is abstinence, and that's just not going to hppen...the only person's sexual history you can know, even in a monogomous relationship is your own (not even your partner you can know for sure)

Why are SP's going to be required to be tested, yet the woman in the bar who is sexually active and not in a monogomous relationship not required to be tested

Why if you are demanding sp's to be tested, you don't make the same demand of hobbiests...it takes two to tango after all.

Sounds discriminatory to me, STD's come from sex (duh pretty obvious I guess), so EVERYONE in any sexual relationship should require STD testing all the time, not just the SP/Hobbiest

Just some late night thoughts before I go to bed

RG

Exactly Berlin/Erin....this is the crux of the matter. How does one regulate clientele into education, testing, being proactive and intelligent/informed? Uniformed and uncaring clientele are more difficult to deal with in this area and as such are the source of STIs for the most part which causes sex workers to be even more proactive.

It's pretty one-sided to require mandatory STD testing of sex workers, but ignore their clientele. And it just reiterates to people that we are vectors of disease.

I as a client are more worried about the other clients and what they might be carrying and spreading. The workers I see I trust and confidence in them because they are good people. I worry about the last person that they saw. Some clients I am sure just don't give a shit.

Testing in the porn industry is limited to productions in one area of California not the entire industry in the USA much less Canada or worldwide. It is self regulated not government regulated. There is no law enforcing this.

Keep in mind in this area of mainstream straight porn both actors are required to be tested (typically once a month). They both are workers in the scenario. Except for one studio they do not use condoms for sex acts. In gay porn testing is not mandatory, but condoms usually are. In lesbian porn it depends on the nature of the production. Indie types tend to be more responsible about safer sex.

Personal partners are not required to get tested. In the recent HIV case in porn the person got it from a personal partner - not on set. Mandatory testing in this scene found out he had HIV fast. They do the PCR test which detects HIV based on genetic material within 2-3 weeks of infection. In Quebec clinics use the antibody test first which detects infection 3 months prior. I have not found a clinic that offers the PCR test. I do not know what the protocols are in the rest of Canada.Back to the porn example. The agency in charge of testing and documenting workers tracked all his partners both professional and personal. He was not allowed to have sex during this time - work or otherwise. Nor were any of his partners until they tested negative three weeks after. This is how they contained the HIV case.

I think when we consider any sort of implementation for safer sex requirements and mandatory testing we need to look at the ways it has been implemented. We need to ask 'what will this look like in prostitution'? The porn model cannot apply if only sex workers get tested and there is no logging of clients names and contact info for contact and tracking purposes.

As for the Nevada brothel situation the ladies must not live in the area of their work. They typically live for a few weeks at a time at the brothel and then are allowed a leave. They are not supposed to have other partners while working. It is highly regulated. This would be difficult to apply in an urban setting or to independents.

- - -

I don't have answers but believe this dialogue is sooo necessary. I took part in a project about law reform a few years back and it was many months in the making and we never had a complete consensus, but we did bring up very good points based on everyone's experience and realities.

Sex workers need to be part of the consultation process - not just politicians, religious groups and 'community members'. Health and social service professionals who work with vulnerable populations should also be a part of it.

We need to ask 'what will this look like in prostitution'?

Who gets tested and how often? How will this information be tracked? How will we know if it is working? Is this version of safety and control worth limiting personal freedoms.

You are on the spot Hornee69,

it is not the SP's, (and we are all good people, by the way, I resent - so do many more here, your remark).

The providers are not the ones who go purchasing STD's....they get them with their clients, working on and with them.....my point was and is that clients should be aware of their health condition as much as providers do, because they are both multi partnered and as you well said, who knows who the guy before you was???? she trusted him as she trusts you....and? they may be good people also, but absolutely unaware that they are carrying an std.....

right?

I agree and I have the same thoughts and reservations in the back of my head as well. My biggest fear is genital herpes coupled with as you put it "clients who don't give a shit."

I as a client are more worried about the other clients and what they might be carrying and spreading. The workers I see I trust and confidence in them because they are good people. I worry about the last person that they saw. Some clients I am sure just don't give a shit.

Firstly, I don't disagree that an individual should have the right to decide. At first thought though, I have little problem with respect to testing for STD/I; however, (IMO) the right to decide about what immunizations, etc.. should be up to the individual.

As an example I disagree with a mandatory requirement for health care workers to receive shots. Though, I do support the right of the employer to find better suited work for the individual if they do decide to refuse. Reducing the risk to both employee and patients.

I have to wonder about two points raised in objection to a mandatory testing for sex workers.

Let me begin by saying I haven't the foggiest clue how this will unfold. Yet, I would suspect that brothels would become legally mandatory work environs in order to provide for a safe and controllable area. As such anyone employed there-in would require testing presumably under a health and safety program.

Additionally, I find the comments about public perception interesting. I simply do not understand the logic used behind statements that mandatory STD/I testing strengthens negative public perception about the sex industry.

I suppose without concrete data to draw upon I have a hard time accepting arguments from either end of the spectrum on this point. I would suggest that perhaps if there is a significant amount of negative public perception, public awareness and educational programs would be required.

There are numerous sexual activities that I can think of which required public education, or perhaps, in your face media attention before being reduced to common place.

I will agree that we are a fickle lot when it comes to the general public and all things sexual. At least in North America it seems that way. I tend to think European countries seem to have loosened up the belts a bit so to speak.

Cheers...

Since many STDs are easier to transmit from male to female than from female to male, it would make more sense to have mandatory STD testing for hobbyists than for SPs. If there's some reason mandatory testing for hobbyists isn't being considered, perhaps it's worth asking why people show so little reluctance to suggest it for SPs.