HIV testing for Everyone

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

There would be no consent form specifically for the HIV test; it would be covered in a clinic or hospital's standard care consent form. Patients would be allowed to decline the testing.

Standardizing HIV testing should reduce the stigma as well as transmission, CDC officials said. Nearly half of new HIV infections are discovered when doctors are trying to diagnose an illness in a patient who has come for care, they noted.

This is going to be resisted, and with good reason. HIV status will continue to have a severe stigma attached, and the combination of data mining and sloppy records handling makes it foolish to do HIV testing that isn't anonymous. It wasn't that long ago that people still proposed concentration camps for HIV+ people.

As it is, refusing to allow the test will likely also have consequences in terms of insurability. It's a good step for progress on the health issues, but terrible on the rest.

Agreed. If an infected person wants to have sex, they will. Prosecution won't do much but spread AIDS throughout the prison population. Like skydiving, if ya want to play, some will pay. It's a sad reality of both skyding and sex, but to have the government forcibly intrude into our bodies is too far for me.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't see why anyone would have a legitimate reason to resist the test.

Dealing with AIDS is an emotionally and financially crippling ordeal.

In some cases, it is simply better to not be aware that you are infected.

With our current health care system, many people simply cannot afford the treatment, why should they deal with a disease they can do nothing about?

Ignorance is bliss.

Use a condom.

I say jackoff to internet porn

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

With the attitude you all are taking, remind me not to ever have sex again with anyone (but especially you).

Get tested, damnit! You can't ignore the big pink elephant in the corner. How stubborn and ignorant are you going to be?

Getting tested is responsoble, having compulsory, non-annonymous testing is intrusive.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Some info:

America has billions of people and about 1.2 million people infected.
SADC (Very southern region of Africa including 4 countries) has around 60 million people and 25 million people infected. So I know a little about the disease.

In South Africa, you get additional points on your medical insurance if you are tested annually.
I get tested when I visit my GP for my annual Cholestrol, blood pressure and pap smear test.
Having been sexually active or not over that year.

Ignorance is the main cause of the disease spreading and the fact that people are unaware of their status is frightening.

In Africa, we unfortunately have to deal with the stigma attached to a man's virility wrt using a condom as it is seen as manly to procreate.
If a Zulu man does not bear children (Many) he is seen to be inadequate. They also have multiple wives and girlfriends.

The most shocking part was the witchdoctors saying that if you sleep with a virgin it will cure you. So baby rapes became a daily occurence.
But then again how is a nation supposed to learn safe sex when the ex-deputy president says that if you have unprotected sex, you can wash the aids away in the shower...

I have seen work mates and people die of this disease. It is not pretty.

Rather get tested, know your status and encourage others to do the same.

It is for your own good and well being.

Quote

The most shocking part was the witchdoctors saying that if you sleep with a virgin it will cure you.

That culture can't be all bad

Quote

America has billions of people

300 million. World has approx 6.3 Billion with China hogging 1.4B, India 1.2B or so.

Quote

Rather get tested, know your status and encourage others to do the same.

I did, annonymously, but I would hate to see it compulsory with teh gov classifying people if they were infected, especially since we have virtually no medical coverage for poor folk over here.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So, there would likely be some privacy protections in a mandatory testing program. These protections of privacy may have the practical effect of merely identifying a person who is HIV postivie, and then having no way to do anything else with the knowledge.

Identifying the people who are HIV positive so they know they have an infectious disease seems like a pretty good step to me. Your post makes it sound (to me) like you think that's not a worthwhile goal. Is that really what you were saying?

I'd also like the privacy of the afflicted to be protected. Let them make the decisions on who to tell. We have no right to make those decisions for them.

Blues,
Dave

What LAw is saying is that a gov database will do nothign but allow the gov to further harras and classify sick individuals, rather than to stop the spread. The database would work well for prosecution, but not prevention.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>What else can we do, tattoo their foreheads?

How bout this:

Make the information available on a public website for anyone with a specific ID number (say a SS number) and a password. If person A is planning to have sex with person B, then person B can give A his/her password so they can see for themselves. If not, then they are at least warned that the person _might_ have something to hide.

Wouldn't be effective in all cases but might help preserve privacy.

Talk about a deal breaker! It can be hard enough to arrange sex, let alone the break in continuity this would have!!! KInda ruins the moment

I say if ya wanna take a chance, ya do so at ur own risk using your own discretion.

[Flying-Wench 0]

mm.. interesting view.. i guess it depends on your experiences.. Intrusive.. ? perhaps, but could save a lot of people from being infected. What is the priority here?

The majority of positive people, once diagnosed, take a hell of a long time before they are capable of having sexual intercourse again (if at all), they are constantly freaked out about passing it on, its a huge mental f**k up.

Yes there are some that still continue to play dangerous games, but from my personal experience, they are a minority.

Most people consider that they have had a major kick in the pants, they wouldnt wish it on their worst enemy so.. risky activity tends to stop. From what i have seen.. and the people that i know, diagnosis has meant that the virus pretty much stops with them.

And a final thought as to the the blood test being intrusive...youd only have to worry if it came back positive, and when that result comes in.. youd have a whole lot more important stuff to think about, survival, the future. Government intrusion would be the last thing on your mind...

cheers