The above translation didn’t really capture a whole lot of the legislation and the proposed amendments. (Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer)
The section (s. 6(1)) that is being amended in Chinese:
Breaking it down. The amendment proposes striking out the latter section of the first part. So, 感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者之人格與合法權益應受尊重及保障，不得予以歧視，拒絕其就學、就醫、就業或予其他不公平之待遇 becomes, as I understand it, 感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者之人格與合法權益應受尊重及保障.
The original first part of the sub-section in my rough estimation is:
The dignity and legal rights and benefits of people with AIDS are to be respected and protected, [they are] not to be discriminated against, refused schooling, medical services, employment or other unequal treatment.
The amendment would only read to the part about being protected and leave out the specific instances. The difference may or may not be important, depending on Taiwan’s judiciary is in interpreting what it looks to me as the declaratory aspect of the section. Without knowing more though, personally, I’m against this part of the amendment because while the declaratory aspect would appear to cover it, the specific instances of the discrimination make for easier identification.
未經感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者同意，不得對其錄音、錄影或攝影 is suppose to be removed entirely. The section on its own seems rather broad.
This part of the sub-section in English reads as: Cannot audio record, videotape or photograph (videotape and photograph may reverse positions in the Chinese!) people with AIDS without their consent. As it is, it seem rather broad as to who is covered by it and when is it applied? Can the media film a public protest from people with AIDS and they do not give the media their consent despite being in a public place? I can understand the reasoning in protecting privacy so that people with AIDS are not discriminated in the community if they are known, but the section as it is, is too broad and unclear.
If it is to be read with the main section where it deals with medical providers, where this sub-section applies to medical providers, who for whatever reason wish to engage in the above activities, then the amendment is a bad idea.
Finally,The last part of s.6(1) is also suppose to be removed entirely. This part of the translation I’m more unsure about as it seem to involve rather technical readings.
染於人，得予必要之限制 appears to me as saying The Central Health Agency, regarding employment of people with AIDS, in order to prevent transmission to others, may of necessity impose restriction. This reads more like a government restriction that was imposed and being lifted with the amendment.