NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4341142.stm

Hmm....well I'm not sure. I suppose it's wrong to keep the information from individuals that they have a fatal virus that can be spread.

As long as the tests are accurate, I'm in favour.

As long as the tests are accurate, I'm in favour.
Well, there's always a chance of error no matter what. Even in home-pregneancy tests.

Well, in general, it's a good idea.
I assume that people are being told that the result isn't 100% trustworthy, and that they will go and check if they get a positive result.

But the thing is that some sort of way would have to be found to make sure that infected people don't spread the virus through sex, or through hospitals etc.
But how you could do that without violating privacy is beyond me.

Well, there's always a chance of error no matter what. Even in home-pregneancy tests.

Yeah, obviously, you can't get 100%. But you know what I mean; reasonable accuracy, like 98%+ of cases, or something.

I think it would be a major weapon in the fight against HIV, therefore I am completely in favor of the approval of this test assuming it is reasonably accurate. Imagine being able to demand that your partner take a test before you have sex. 20 minutes later, the results are in and you are ready to go. If it is accurate and works as fast as the article claims, this could easily be the most powerful weapon against HIV ever invented.

Imagine being able to demand your partner take a test before you have sex, in 20 minutes you are ready to go.
I'm trying to imagine it....but I can't.

I've mentioned this before, but it's interesting still:

In many states, such as California, if you're going to marry someone, you must get a Marriage License and have a blood test to check for STD's and Rubella... your new husband or wife is legally informed of any such STD's, EXCEPT AIDS. AIDS (or HIV), cannot be tested for or disclosed to anyone, even if they're assured to get it (e.g. newlyweds), in most states. Until state governments allow for disclosure, or at least provide legal basis for it to occur, any effort to stem the disease is hobbled.

A quick and easy AIDS test is great, but it'll only benefit those who are reasonibly responsible to begin with.. most spreaders of the disease aren't the responsible type.

I've mentioned this before, but it's interesting still:

In many states, such as California, if you're going to marry someone, you must get a Marriage License and have a blood test to check for STD's and Rubella... your new husband or wife is legally informed of any such STD's, EXCEPT AIDS. AIDS (or HIV), cannot be tested for or disclosed to anyone, even if they're assured to get it (e.g. newlyweds), in most states. Until state governments allow for disclosure, or at least provide legal basis for it to occur, any effort to stem the disease is hobbled.

A quick and easy AIDS test is great, but it'll only benefit those who are reasonibly responsible to begin with.. most spreaders of the disease aren't the responsible type.


I think there are many high risk groups that would use the test if it were available. The gay community for example. The gay community is much more sensitive to the risks of HIV/AIDS than the community at large for various reasons. I am sure that if such a test were widely available and moderately affordable, it would find quick acceptance in the gay community as an important safeguard against the spread of infection. Such a testing kit could also find heavy use in parts of Africa that are ravaged by HIV if they were made available to people there (since they often cannot afford it themselves). The rest of the world would just have to catch up. Media and public education campaigns would be necessary for this to catch on, but because this is a commercial product you can count on those campaigns occuring without the need for taxpayer money. Eventually, people would learn to wait the 20 minutes to be sure rather than risk their lives.

. Eventually, people would learn to wait the 20 minutes to be sure rather than risk their lives.

If the test is at all accurate or affordable, maybe so, but if they're anything like most home drug testing kits, for example, they may be wasting their time.. but even a perfect test would still leave the gap I described earlier.. As it stands, you cannot for any reason demand your spouse or boy/girlfriend disclose to you whether they have AIDS or not, nor can you pursue that information through friends or acquaintances of theirs without risking a lawsuit if you're found out.. it just seems strange that you're legally protected if you spread the disease, so long as you don't directly promise that you're free of it (if you've been told by a physician that you're infected). Unlike old episodes of Law & Order, the law is on the disease carrier's side.

If it came with a free chew toy, I'd be set.

OraQuick® is the first FDA-approved rapid, point-of-care test designed to detect antibodies to HIV-1 within approximately 20 minutes. The FDA approval is based on clinical data submitted by OraSure indicating that the OraQuick® test had sensitivity of 99.6% and specificity of 100% in the clinical studies performed with finger-stick whole blood specimens

If those extraordinary numbers are correct, opposing this becomes harder for me. :\

As it stands, you cannot for any reason demand your spouse or boy/girlfriend disclose to you whether they have AIDS or not, nor can you pursue that information through friends or acquaintances of theirs without risking a lawsuit if you're found out.. it just seems strange that you're legally protected if you spread the disease, so long as you don't directly promise that you're free of it (if you've been told by a physician that you're infected). Unlike old episodes of Law & Order, the law is on the disease carrier's side.

This is incorrect. There is nothing in the law, civil or criminal, that says you cannot require that someone take an HIV test before agreeing to have sex with or marry them. The fact that the state cannot require you to take such a test does not mean your would-be spouse cannot require such a test before agreeing to marry you or have sex with you. Furthermore, though the case law is not yet well established, there is nothing protecting those who knowingly spread disease. In fact, there are laws in several states specifically addressing this issue http://www.aidslaw.ca/Maincontent/issues/criminallaw/finalreports/CRFR-APPENDIXE.html. Case in point, Dewayne Boyd http://www.keloland.com/News/NewsDetail5440.cfm?Id=0,41740 and also http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/24/colb.aids/ currently in jail awaiting trial on charges of infecting multiple women with HIV.

Those tests are a tool. Everything should be used for the right purposes.

If the test is at all accurate or affordable, maybe so, but if they're anything like most home drug testing kits, for example, they may be wasting their time.. but even a perfect test would still leave the gap I described earlier.. As it stands, you cannot for any reason demand your spouse or boy/girlfriend disclose to you whether they have AIDS or not, nor can you pursue that information through friends or acquaintances of theirs without risking a lawsuit if you're found out.. it just seems strange that you're legally protected if you spread the disease, so long as you don't directly promise that you're free of it (if you've been told by a physician that you're infected). Unlike old episodes of Law & Order, the law is on the disease carrier's side.
Yes you can. You can't force them to take the test, but you can demand that they test themselves and let you see that they are negative before you have sex with them. It might decrease your amount of sex, but it is certainly legal.