Abstract
This article considers the necessary ingredients for an individual to consent to running the risk of the HIV virus being transmitted through high-risk unprotected sexual intercourse. In order to achieve this aim, an assessment of what should equate to a fully informed consent is evaluated. The article will provide a comparative jurisdictional analysis of the consent requirement in three particularised jurisdictions: England, Canada and the USA. A comparison of relational judicial precepts will follow the discussion of extant law in each country. It will be established that few jurisdictions fully consider the requirements of a fully informed consent. The final part of the article will suggest a bespoke new legislative framework that will account for the circumstances that are necessary for an individual to provide a fully informed consent to the risk of acquiring the virus.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.