• Sale items. Buy now - stock going fast. Specials
  • You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > General, mandatory HIV testing in the US?

Login/Join to Participate
Page:
FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Read the NYT on possible mandatory HIV testing in the US



 Written by:

U.S. Urges H.I.V. Tests for Adults and Teenagers, Published: September 22, 2006



In a major shift of policy, the federal government recommended yesterday that all teenagers and most adults have H.I.V. tests as part of routine medical care because too many Americans infected with the AIDS virus don’t know it.



Is it a good idea to remove consent forms and pretest counseling to encourage more AIDS testing?



The recommendation, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, urges testing at least once for everyone aged 13 to 64 and annual tests for those with high-risk behavior.



The proposal is a sharp break from the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the stigma of the disease and the fear of social ostracism caused many people to avoid being tested.



That led to heated debate about whether positive test results could be shared by medical and governmental authorities in their effort to contain the epidemic by reaching out to partners of those who might be infected.



Under the agency’s plan, which states can adopt or modify if they choose, patients would be advised they were being tested, but the tests would be voluntary.



So that the tests could be easily administered, however, the agency urged the removal of two major barriers that some states now have: separate signed consent forms and lengthy counseling before each test.



That would require new laws in some states, however, which could take years because some civil liberties groups and lobbyists for people with AIDS oppose the changes.



Many doctors are expected to welcome the changes.



“These recommendations are important for early diagnosis and to reduce the stigma still associated with H.I.V. testing,” said Dr. Nancy Nielsen, a board member of the American Medical Association, which endorsed the new guidelines.



Dr. Julie Gerberding, the disease control agency’s director and a doctor who treated some of the first San Francisco AIDS patients in 1981, said: “Our traditional approaches have not been successful. People who don’t know their own H.I.V. status account for 50 to 70 percent of all new infections. If they knew, they would take steps to protect themselves and their partners.”



The new guidelines, if adopted, would move the agency toward its “ultimate goals,” which Dr. Gerberding described as: no more H.I.V.-infected children, no one living for years without antiretroviral treatment and, eventually, no more new cases of the disease.



About 40,000 Americans are newly infected each year, a number that has been remaining steady. In contrast to the early days of the epidemic, which struck gay men the hardest, many of those now infected are black or Hispanic, are teenagers and were infected by heterosexual sex. The agency estimates that 250,000 Americans, a quarter of those with the disease, do not know they are infected.



Moreover, 42 percent of those who find out they are infected are tested only because they are already seriously ill — which means they have been infected for up to 10 years and may have been passing the infection on all that time, Dr. Gerberding said.



The American Academy of H.I.V. Medicine, a group for AIDS specialists, gave a qualified endorsement of the guidelines, agreeing with the need for more testing but arguing that they gave counseling short shrift.



“Counseling just naturally goes with testing, as diet does to exercise,” said Dr. Jeff Schouten, the academy’s chairman.



Some civil liberties organizations and those representing people with AIDS, while favoring more testing, have lobbied against removing signed consent forms or pretest counseling for fear that such changes will make testing less voluntary.



Some states, including New York, have laws requiring such counseling and consent forms. They were passed in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when having the virus amounted to a death sentence, the disease’s stigma often led to denial of jobs or housing, and testing was done primarily to protect the blood supply.



Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, New York City’s health commissioner, said yesterday that he “absolutely” agreed with the new guidelines and had been lobbying the state Legislature for a law incorporating them.



A bill he supported was introduced late last year, Dr. Frieden said, but opponents kept it from coming up for a vote.



“I am optimistic that it will make it through this year,” he said.



Rose A. Saxe, a staff lawyer with the AIDS Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, said her group opposed the recommendation because it would remove the requirement for signed consent forms and pretest counseling. In settings like emergency rooms where doctors are strapped for time, Ms. Saxe said, “we’re concerned that what the C.D.C. calls routine testing will become mandatory testing.”



Patients, particularly teenagers, she said, “will be tested without an opportunity for understanding the magnitude of having a positive result.”



David Ernesto Munar, associate director of the AIDS Foundation of Chicago and a board member of the National Association of People With AIDS, said he favored more testing and faster counseling to encourage it.



“But our fear,” Dr. Munar said, “is that on the ground, the rush to get more blood samples is going to railroad right over any consent.”



Illinois, like New York, requires written consent before a test, he said.



Disease control agency experts deny that their guidelines would encourage such problems.



They oppose mandatory testing, secret testing or testing without informing patients, at least orally, that such a test will be done. They suggest that whatever general consent for routine medical care a state law requires include consent for H.I.V. testing.



Is it a good idea to remove consent forms and pretest counseling to encourage more AIDS testing?



They also want anyone who tests positive to be counseled that AIDS is a serious disease and taught where to get treatment and how to keep from infecting others.



As an example of success in a related program, Dr. Timothy Mastro, acting director of the agency’s AIDS prevention division, pointed to the agency’s guidelines to prevent infection of newborns.



The guidelines say that all pregnant women should be tested unless they refuse and that oral consent is acceptable. They also recommend tests again in late pregnancy for women who inject drugs, have sex with many men, have sex for money or live in neighborhoods where AIDS is common.



The number of babies born infected dropped to fewer than 240 a year now from 1,650 in 1991, Dr. Mastro said.



Laws for prisoners, which Dr. Mastro described as “a tricky area,” might also need revision. In some states, testing is mandatory for all prisoners. In New York, it is voluntary.



Health officials in other states appeared to welcome the new guidelines. Steve Huard, spokesman for the Hillsborough County Health Department, which includes Tampa, Fla., said: “We strongly believe in universal H.I.V. testing through anonymous and confidential testing. With the recommendations, it would be more widespread. It would go out to private physicians and we should see infection rates going down.”



Some states with few AIDS patients, like Wyoming, may be reluctant to adopt the guidelines on the ground that routine H.I.V. tests would be unnecessarily burdensome for doctors and patients.



To compensate for that, the guidelines suggest that routine tests might not be required in areas where fewer than 1 in 1,000 people test positive. But health care practitioners are not very good at guessing what rate will be found among their patients, said Dr. Bernard Branson, the C.D.C.’s associate director for laboratory diagnostics, so there should first be a period of routine testing.



The wholesale cost is about $1 for each test run in batches and about $8 for rapid tests done individually. Each positive test would require a second confirmation test and then counseling, which would raise the cost to about $80, Dr. Branson said.



That is far cheaper than many other routine screening tests like colonoscopies or mammograms, and Dr. Branson said most such tests were paid for by insurers because it was usually cheaper to treat diseases when they were caught early.









I have to admit, I am miserably uninformed upon the actual development of HIV research.



Is there a case reported that someone got actually cured of HIV?



But however the article says that the stigma of HIV infection is history and I wonder whether this is a pipe dream or reality... How do you experience people to be treated, when they have been tested HIV-positive? Is there a general social acceptance for people infected with HIV?



Or are there possible threats, if a HIV-test becomes mandatory? How will the data be processed, is there apossibly negative aspect to all this?



And to maybe take a look into the future: Will a HIV-test be mandatory (along with biometric datas and fingerprints) to enter the US?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


WOFTSILVER Member
Likes trees...
209 posts
Location: Cape Town, South Africa


Posted:
There is no cure for HIV or AIDS. There are reported cases of people living with HIV for over a decade and not getting AIDS though.

From a South African perspective, stigma is alive. It stems from stereotyping, which stems from lack of education. Pre-test and post-test counselling is a legal requirement for an HIV test. To remove this counselling session would make stigma worse, as people would be uninformed as to the truth of what being positive or negative means to them, and how it will impact their lives and the lives of those that they interact with.

To remove the requirement for consent is to disempower peoples control over their health. Yes, it would increase the capacity of the health department to control the disease; dictatorship also increases a governments control over its’ subjects. Hmm, that is a very extreme example, but I am trying to illustrate that a balance should be found.

Why should prisoners have different rights with regards to HIV testing? To restrict the rights of prisoners in general is a different topic. If, in your country/state, prisoners rights are already compromised (this is not the case in SA), then it is a different argument. Assuming that prisoners do have human rights in the USA, I fail to see how mandatory HIV tests will control HIV spreading in prisons without seriously infringing on other rights. To put HIV positive prisoners in individual cells will require massive resources. To put all HIV positive prisoners in cells separate from HIV negative prisoners is blatant discrimination.

Pregnant women pose a difficult scenario. There are treatments that minimise mother-to-child-transmission (they are not 100% effective. I can't remember the stats). Should a mother be able decide whether or not her child could be free of (possible) HIV whilst there is a programme to minimise the chance of transmission? I lean towards the side of mandatory testing (with counselling), as the child is a separate entity.

HIV tests are mandatory with blood donations in South Africa. Donating blood is voluntary of course. If you don't want to be tested for HIV, then don't donate blood. Each unit of blood you donate is tested each time you donate. You are informed (confidentially) if your result is positive, and receive counselling.

Everybody should receive education for HIV/AIDS. If you don't know much about it. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF:

Info
Wiki

Alternatively, just google HIV or AIDS. There are plenty of resources.

My brain is tired. I am in the process of moving house, so I probably missed a whole lot of issues.

'n Boer maak 'n plan.


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Well, apart from the usual punchline: "Safer Sex and Needles, etc." I have litle to no insight into the actual development of HIV-research.

You say that there is no cure for HIV - but they still use chemotherapy on people infected with HIV (in early stages), no? Someone also mentioned to me that there are people living with AIDS for over 2 decades already...

To make a test mandatory is IMHO infringing with my personal/ civil rights and I certainly oppose such move. Personally I am trying to protect myself and take all necessary precautions, including a yearly test (just to exclude all eventualities).

But to be forced for testing... confused

WOFT: Find me kindly opposing your comment in regards of seperate cells for HIV-positive/ negative inmates. I support this - not due to discrimination, but due to preserve the health of inmates.

So much for now...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


WOFTSILVER Member
Likes trees...
209 posts
Location: Cape Town, South Africa


Posted:
I should say that their is no known cure for AIDS, (my apologise for misleading anybody). I am unaware of chemotherapy being used to treat HIV. There is fairly effective treatment for needlestick injuries/victims of rape. treatment must begin within 70 odd hours of exposure. this isn't considered a "cure" for HIV though. I assume this is because it is very case specific? I'll do some reading up on the chemo though. Or maybe Doc Lightning can just tell us wink

Your opposed argument is kindly noted smile. I still feel that it is discrimination, yet agree 100% that it would preserve the health of inmates. coins should be thicker - it would easier to find a balance when there are 50/50 odds rolleyes

'n Boer maak 'n plan.


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
WOFT, I don't get the meaning of your last comment, sorry to say.

 Written by:

coins should be thicker - it would easier to find a balance when there are 50/50 odds




Inmates: As occasionally exposed to violence and maybe even rape, I would certainly appreciate to have "sorted" company in my cell... shrug

Interesting what you're saying about the treatment of rape victims and wonder what kind of treatment they receive... and especially why it is effective...

Haven't heard of an effective cure for AIDS myself, which is adding to my aversion against collective and mandatory HIV testing. Certainly I can understand the motif, yet i tshould be perfectly clear what is happening with the collected data... whether or not the CDC will join personal information, or keep the test results seperate is a key to the issue. Call me paranoid, or into George Orwells visions - up to you - IF the government, or others are able to match up names and test results... *shudders* for crying out loud, where is this leading to? devil

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


WOFTSILVER Member
Likes trees...
209 posts
Location: Cape Town, South Africa


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom

WOFT, I don't get the meaning of your last comment, sorry to say.


Written by:

coins should be thicker - it would easier to find a balance when there are 50/50 odds





I was just saying that it can be difficult to find a compromise if there are 2 factors that oppose each other - does that make more sense?

Rape victims: The treatment involves a post-exposure prophylaxes (sp?), or PEP. In essence, it is an anti-retroviral treatment that must be started within 72 hours of exposure. It takes out the HIV before it has a chance to invade healthy cells, which is why it must be taken ASAP to have a chance of working. If you test positive for HIV, PEP treatment is stopped (the virus has taken root in your body).

Inmates: To what extent should their human rights be limited? We have the right to confidentiality. Must prisoners forsake this right? How big a problem is rape in prison? We all know that it happens, but does anybody know how much of a risk it is?

Another case with confidentiality: In South Africa, if somebody tests positive for HIV, their status is confidential. However, their (sexual) partner will have his/her right to life compromised, as they are at risk of contracting HIV through unprotected sex. In this case, the HIV positive partner must inform the untested partner. If he/she refuses to do this, the doctor/health care worker must first inform the positive patient that his/her untested partner will be informed, before the untested partner may be informed. This process is in place to protect both the untested partners right to life, and also to try and protect the tested partners right to confidentiality. 2 rights are in conflict, but 1 has to go in order for the other to be exercised.

The risk of contracting AIDS through regular sexual intercourse is greater than contracting HIV through infrequent rape by a possibly infected person.

A slightly different thought - If somebody with HIV is (re)infected with HIV from another person, is there a probability of HIV progressing quicker to full blown AIDS? If so, then separating inmates would not be ethical.

'n Boer maak 'n plan.


_Aime_SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
4,172 posts
Location: Hastings, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom


WOFT: Find me kindly opposing your comment in regards of seperate cells for HIV-positive/ negative inmates. I support this - not due to discrimination, but due to preserve the health of inmates.




Lets just say hypothetically you were a prisoner in a jail, and had contracted HIV.
How would you feel if your were put into a cell by yourself, or with other suffers of HIV.
How would you feel?

And its not as if prisoners are in their cell 24/7. They go out to eat, to excersise, and to do other things.
Unless you are suggesting that HIV sufferers in prisons should be separated completly from the other prisoners? eek

If that is the case then this calls for all the HIV suffers in the general public to be hoarded up and sent away to a special facility for fear of 'contaminating' anyone else.


I did write alot more than this, but it involved statistics and maths, and I'm really poorly and my brain is frazzled so I wasn't sure if it came across properly or not....
I'll check back in the morning..

FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Thanks WOFT - another phrase learned... smile

Well my civil rights can't be reduced more, if my health is deliberately put at risk by the government. Rape IS a subject in prisons - the question how much of it to me is a bit cynical.

If one is serving a few months and years in prison, get's raped/ or involved in a fight that infects him with HIV - in fact he's on death row. As a government I have to protect my citizens, because after one paid his duty to society, he may aswell return to it and live in peace from then on.

If inmates were not told how their results are, the only company they can verifyably trust is the one of their cell... there wouldn't have to ba much or any discrimination.

The call of society to put away those who are already infected and therefore eliminate the threat - maybe even eradicate the HIV completely from the planets surface - would be the next step (depending on who is the majority)...

As is the fact that the sexual partner is informed about the test results (in modern society this means quite some effort ) - it's a logical consequence...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA


Posted:
HIV is a very treatable disease, although not curable. Properly managed, it has a prognosis similar to that of diabetes. In the case of rape or needlestick, antiretroviral therapy can be instituted and greatly reduces the risk of infection. However, once infected, always infected. Some patients maintain very low viral loads and normal CD4+ T-cell counts for many years. These are known as "Chronic Nonprogressors." They are still HIV positive, but they have some mutant immune system that is not susceptible to attack by the virus. These people are the subject of much research.

I support the new policies. Let me make a few points.

1: HIV TESTING IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE MANDATORY.

If a patient says "I don't want an HIV test." the patient doesn't get one. Plain and simple. To do so otherwise is battery. The only exception is that some patients, when they sign into a hospital, sign an agreement that in the event of an exposure of a health care worker to the patient's bodily fluids, they automatically consent to an HIV test although they can elect to not be informed that this has been done or of the results.

2: HIV IS NOT THE ONLY INCURABLE, CHRONIC VIRUS OUT THERE, BUT IT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT GETS THIS SPECIAL TREATMENT

Hepatitis B and C are both incurable, sexually-transmitted, chronic viral infections. Both are less treatable than HIV. Neither requires special consent or counseling.

3: HIV TESTING SHOULD BE PART OF ROUTINE HEALTH SURVEILLANCE AND PATIENTS SHOULD NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR HAVING ROUTINE TESTING

Patients have been dissuaded from HIV testing because of concern over the insurance company asking "why is he getting HIV tested every 6 months? He must be high risk, so let's increase his premiums or cancel his coverage!" In response the medical community started free anonymous or confidential HIV testing. In fact, HIV testing is a useful diagnostic test and the current paperwork dance that must be done is a barrier to care.

I had a young woman (17) come in with 3 facial abscesses and oral thrush. This was at 2AM in the emergency room. I couldn't obtain the counseling and as such I had to admit her to the hospital for the sole purpose of HIV testing because we were concerned she wouldn't follow up otherwise. The test, was, of course, positive. But because it was a Friday night, it took us three days to obtain the required consent because the HIV team isn't in on weekends. With new guidelines that treats HIV testing the same way as Hepatitis B or C testing, the hospital stay wouldn't have been necessary and we could have started her on antiretroviral therapy three days sooner.

HIV testing is also recommended as routine for all pregnant women and this is important so as to prevent transmission to the infant. Again, without the paperwork dance, this would reduce the cost of health care without compromising the quality.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura


Bek66Future Mrs Pogo
4,728 posts
Location: The wrong place


Posted:
Personally, I feel that it is a good idea to look after your health with any testing that would be relevent to an individuals situation.
I went two years w/o a routine pap because I was more concerned about others than myself. While this is supposed to be an admirable quality, it was one that turned out to be almost tragic.
I developed uterine cancer at 32 and had to have a radical hysterectomy. I already had my kids but there is something about having your fertility taken from you that makes you feel like less of a person.
I am glad to have survived with no more required treatment but, if I had taken care of myself in the first place...

Protect yourself and the ones you love. If you could be at risk...get tested. I do at every annual check up just for my own piece of mind!!!

"Absence is to love what wind is to fire...it extinguishes the small, enkindles the great."
--Comte Debussy-Rebutin


JTSpinnerSILVER Member
Learnin About Burnin
385 posts
Location: Michigan, USA


Posted:
Hello to the thread. Doc, thanks for the information on HIV being treatable verses curable.

The NYT article brings up a very interesting point on prisoners rights. Each State in the US specifies the policy on HIV testing of their prisoners. In Michigan, we have mandatory testing of all inmates when they enter the system. It is not done to isolate or segregate them, but to bring health issues to the front where treatment can be done. Also as Doc mentioned, HIV is not the only health concern or disease that is a concern. Hepatitis B and C are more of a concern to us than HIV. As employees who may come into contact with Hepatitis, we are REQUIRED to receive a series of shots for Hepatitis B; refusal to receive the series and no questions asked, you will be released from the job. In the case of a possible exposure to HIV, it is mandatory for the inmate to be tested and the staff are treated with a series of medications which is also mandatory. When people enter prison, they forfeit some of their basic rights. If a prisoner decides he doesn't want to eat and will starve himself to death, we WILL step in at a point where his health is at risk and make that decision for him and force feed him through a tube if necessary. They have a right to medical privacy, but if they choose to rape someone or be involved in a blood exposure, they do not have the right to decide if they will be tested or not, they just will be for their safety as well as others.

Oh, and on the subject of rape in prison?? If you watch the movies, tv shows, read newspapers or magazines, they would have you believe that EVERYONE who goes to prison WILL be raped. The actual figure (in Michigan this year) is actually approx. 1 out of 4,000 inmates in Michigan will be raped in a year. Now if you are aware of the new laws that are in effect in the US that interprets "rape" in a prison setting, then you would also understand that "rape" is not purely nonconsensual sex between inmates, but is actually ANY sexual contact between inmates and that is where the figure comes from. It is inflated and misreported by the "Press". I learned this point in my Statistics Class in College: "Statistics do not lie;liars use statistics". Another fine example of how the media portrays life in prison: Every guard (I resent that phrase as being unprofessional and consider myself an Officer) stands 6' 5", weighs 285lbs, looks and acts like a professional wrestler (my apologees if anyone out here is one) and walks around with their big club just waiting to hit someone over the head. I am 5'11" weigh approx. 180, stay in shape by jogging, treadmill and of course poi. I don't remember the last time I body slammed an inmate or anyone for that matter and the only thing I carry with me is a set of keys and a steady head on my shoulders. I work in a Maximum Security Prison where they are either murderers, rapists, escapees or more common now, just plain punks and gang members who do not know how to conduct themselves inside or outside of prison. Pardon me if I sound like I am venting here, but I AM. Heres one for all of you to think about: I received information last night, (sunday) at work that a very good friend of mine that I work with (female officer) will be off of work for about 6 weeks because her son-in-law beat, choked and molested her 2 1/2 year old grandson and as a result, the child died from trauma. He also beat and burned with a cigarette, her 1 year old grandson, who survived but is in terrible shape and hospitalized. This fine young man is sitting in a county jail awaiting trial and being afforded all of the privileges and constitutional rights that I and every other US Citizen has. Let me ask you?? Should he have the same rights and be granted the same privileges as someone who nurtures, cares for their child and raises them up to be a responsible person?? I have to consider him a human and a citizen with all of the rights that I have sworn to protect once he enters the prison system. Am I complaining, NOPE; am I venting a little, probably. When it comes to rights and freedoms, I live on both sides of the fence, literally.

Keep those thoughts coming. Later everyone.

Testing on the whole IS NOT and cannot be mandatory for a whole country. Can anyone possibly believe that a country that cannot provide a prescription to every senior citizen could possibly begin to monitor HIV testing?? Yes, Big Brother is and does watch us, but their biggest problem and our biggest saving grace is that they do not have a clue who has the mouse so that they can get the information off of the computer lolsign lolsign

I may be crazy but I ain't stupid

Life is to short to waste it on stupidity


PeleBRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA


Posted:
I have mixed opinions on this.

I think testing is fantastic and should be done. I think a responsible sexually or needle active person should get tested often.
A monogomously sexual person should be tested with the switch of partners, and every year after that.

This is what I believe.

I do think anyone enterting a hospital where bloodfluids will be done, anyone who is avid on donating, etc should be tested.

Inmates. I grew up between Attica prison (of the riot fame) and Albion (Amy Fisher was there). Two maximum security, not nice prisons. I've known *alot* of people to work in them.
The fear of transmission doesn't just come from rape but from violence. And the fear isn't just for the inmates but the guards who have to seperate the violence. The prison dr's who have to treat them, etc. Now, for some reason I thought that max inmates were tested, but I could be wrong. However, I think they should be.
And just so you know, rape is worse in women's prison than in mens but it is a very common practice in both.

I would also like to say I know how someone can be terrorized by the concept of AIDS. When I was student teaching we had this %$&hole of a kid who stabbed other students with a needle one day, injected them with something and informed them that the person who used the needle before had AIDS. The kids each had hospitalization worthy reactions to whatever they were injected with, and each had to wait out the testing process, which sucks.

I also volunteered in an HIV/AIDS hospice many years ago as well, when I had spare time. They way even the concept of the place was treated was saddening, not to mention how those who needed it were. There is less stigma now but it is still there.

Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK


JTSpinnerSILVER Member
Learnin About Burnin
385 posts
Location: Michigan, USA


Posted:
 Written by: Pele


Inmates. I grew up between Attica prison (of the riot fame) and Albion (Amy Fisher was there). Two maximum security, not nice prisons. I've known *alot* of people to work in them.
The fear of transmission doesn't just come from rape but from violence. And the fear isn't just for the inmates but the guards who have to seperate the violence. The prison dr's who have to treat them, etc. Now, for some reason I thought that max inmates were tested, but I could be wrong. However, I think they should be.
And just so you know, rape is worse in women's prison than in mens but it is a very common practice in both.

I would also like to say I know how someone can be terrorized by the concept of AIDS. When I was student teaching we had this %$&hole of a kid who stabbed other students with a needle one day, injected them with something and informed them that the person who used the needle before had AIDS. The kids each had hospitalization worthy reactions to whatever they were injected with, and each had to wait out the testing process, which sucks.




Attica huh?? Lousy place to visit and sure wouldn't want to live there.

Nice post Pele thankx

I may be crazy but I ain't stupid

Life is to short to waste it on stupidity


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
 Written by: Doc Lightning


1: HIV TESTING IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE MANDATORY.

3: HIV TESTING SHOULD BE PART OF ROUTINE HEALTH SURVEILLANCE AND PATIENTS SHOULD NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR HAVING ROUTINE TESTING




Certainly Hepatitis is widely unknown and disregarded. People have themselves tested for HIV, come out negative and think "Yippey, let's dance!", completely neglecting the fact that there are other STD's who are just as deadly and incurable. And I fully agree with you, saying that there should be no stigma upon people with frequent testing, nor on people infected with the virus. But fact of the matter is, that corporations want to work more "cost effective" and someone getting tested twice a year IS a potential threat to revenues ("high risk behaviour"). There are other interests/ issues and they are the reason why I am strongly opposing mandatory testing: I dislike the idea of a "Gattacan society"... But I am not agreeing with you, that HIV testing will never be mandatory...

I can understand why some people don't want to know their "status". Did you ever hear of someone, appearing perfectly healthy, receiving the news that they have developed AIDS or cancer and drop dead within 12 months or so? The psychological effect of the message itself... As long as someone practices safer sex ALL THE TIME there would be not much of a reason to have her/himself tested for HIV/ Hepatitis, right? On which grounds could the govt. force her/ him to undergo a test anyways?

As for the inmate/ patient/ mother issue I see other aspects . Rape might be not as common in jails as the TV tells us, hence it happens. Violence is more of a problem and someone knowing that they have HIV might even deliberately infect others. Whenever noninvolved people get involved and there is the opportunity to protect them, this opportunity should not be ruled out. How could you not wish to seperate a HIV+ murderer from others and therefore put their lives at stake?

Is there really no lawsuit pending against govt's from ex-inmates who got infected while serving their term? Do they have to sign a waiver, or is any compensation ruled out in advance, by law?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


WOFTSILVER Member
Likes trees...
209 posts
Location: Cape Town, South Africa


Posted:
 Written by: aimee

Unless you are suggesting that HIV sufferers in prisons should be separated completely from the other prisoners?

If that is the case then this calls for all the HIV suffers in the general public to be hoarded up and sent away to a special facility for fear of 'contaminating' anyone else.



That was my impression. I suppose I'm ignorant of prison life redface.

 Written by: FireTom

Well my civil rights can't be reduced more, if my health is deliberately put at risk by the government. Rape IS a subject in prisons - the question how much of it to me is a bit cynical.



I am not implying that I think that the occurrence of rape is infrequent. I simply don’t know. I do think that it is important to have an idea of the frequency of rape before passing laws based on the incidence of rapeshrug

 Written by: FireTom

If inmates were not told how their results are, the only company they can verifiably trust is the one of their cell... there wouldn't have to be much or any discrimination.



As Doc pointed out, HIV is not the only communicable disease. Should inmates be tested for STD’s, HIV, Hep A/B (surely if a fight broke out, they could be infected if fluids are exchange through wounds), and others? Do you separate inmates into cells based on type of disease?

 Written by: FireTom

The call of society to put away those who are already infected and therefore eliminate the threat - maybe even eradicate the HIV completely from the planets surface - would be the next step (depending on who is the majority)...

.

I suppose this is a way forward to control the disease. This targets the disease at a population level, but disregards the individual. I would hate to be excluded from society when there are ways of living with HIV and NOT spreading it.

jtfreeman - your post was very insightful. Thank you for clearing up some misconceptions.

'n Boer maak 'n plan.


PeleBRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA


Posted:
Jtfreeman, I went through the Scared Straight program in both of the prisons as part of my high school judicial studies program. The Attica one...wow, scary. The Albion one, far worse and terrifying. On the whole I think women's prisons are vastly underplayed compared to mens just because of sheer population differences, however, imo, womens facilities are far nastier.

I've known alot of populace guards, but also sharp shooters and the psychological warfare that is being a sharp shooter is something I admire them standing up to (in NYS we do have a mandatory rotation for them).

BTW, my thoughts on inmates is that the moment they commit a crime, they give up their civil rights. They took someone else's and trounced on them, they forfeit their rights until they do their time.
Therefore their rights to any testing are tossed away. *shrug*

I have a story about HIV prisoners that I had forgotten. It takes place in West Indies, so it is not under our jurisdiction. However, a relation of mine, of sorts, was an MP in the Army. He was stationed in the West Indies to guard a holding jail for refugees whose boats were stopped and their countries wouldn't take them back, so they were stuck in this limbo. A *very* high percentage of them are HIV positive and they would cut themselves and then rush the guards. They guards had to wear protective clothing and it was pretty bad.
I'm waiting for something like this to happen in a state side prison.

That being said, I think that first of all HIV is so prevelant because it is really only "common" since the 70's, but was very mysterious still, which is a really short amount of time.
Hepatitis is, I think, more livable. My sisters ex had C and is still alive and kicking over 25 years after diagnosis. While HIV is more livable, AIDS still is relatively not. It also has a very visible brutality to it that makes it so frightening.

I agree completely that it sadly overshadows all of the other STD's, and even unwanted pregnancy, and that is not good. But then, there are alot of high profile diseases which overshadow others so from a social sense, it is not uncommon.

Mandatory won't happen and I'd hate to be the one to keep track of it honestly.

Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK


JTSpinnerSILVER Member
Learnin About Burnin
385 posts
Location: Michigan, USA


Posted:
 Written by: Pele


Mandatory won't happen and I'd hate to be the one to keep track of it honestly.



Pele, have to agree with you totally and that is what I meant when I said that the people who are supposed to keep track of all sorts of things can't even hang onto their computers now days no less find any information that may be contained on them.

On womens prisons. I have never worked or even been inside a womens prison, but I have worked with plenty of people who have worked in one. When women fight in there, they gouge, bite and claw and clothes and flesh get ripped and torn and there is a whole lot more blood then there normally is the mens. I also understand that they are dirtier and have more sanitation problems than in a mens because most of the women are just plain pigs. I would not work in a womens prison if they paid me double wages to do it primarily for that reason.

FireTom, if we get into a discussion about the "press" and their reporting of events we should make that another forum because that is just to big a subject to go along with this one.

A lawsuit by some former inmate because he/she locked in the same cell with someone who was HIV positive?? I have no doubt that probably at least 1 if not a couple of hundred of them in each state have been filed. Lawsuits by inmates is a gimme; in other words, if they think about it and can come up with an excuse to sue they will. They must prove that (1) They were INTENTIONALLY put in danger (2) That the State knowingly and willfully put them in danger (3) That they (the inmate) felt that they were in danger (4) That they in fact were in danger. There are several other "stipulations" that go along with these and of course sub-paragraph a - z and sub-sub-paragraph 1 - 14000, but these are the essentials that will first be considered to see if the lawsuit even has merit. Now a good one that I personally witnessed (I took the guy to his Preliminary Hearing) was an inmate who filed a petition with a Federal Court to have any and all other inmates, staff and everyone except himself removed from the prison where I work. His reasoning for filing the lawsuit?? Because he was Jesus and we were "trespassing" on "HIS" land, breathing "HIS" air and drinking "HIS" water. When asked if he was Jesus why he didn't just remove himself from prison he stated "I did not remove myself from the Cross either". These type of suits are filed all of the time but they never get anyplace. So yes, I believe that somewhere there has to be a current or a former inmate who is filing a lawsuit.

Is violence, rape and the potential for contracting a disease greater in a prison than on the outside?? Of course due to the close and controlled enviornment that HAS to exist. My philosophy is essentially this: When I enlisted in the military in 1970, I put on the uniform realizing that I could go to war or be placed in a dangerous situation. I learned how to deal with that risk both physically and emotionally. The same holds true in my current occupation. I already know that I will earn 10% of my pay 90% of the time and I will earn 90% of my pay 10% of the time. Hazards come with the job and the territory. When you perform with fire, is there or is there not an understood risk that if you play with fire, you might get burned?? I have heard Peles story about her accident and I bet she is totally aware of the risks that go along with her "job", the same as I am and I hope any other staff member who enters into a profession like mine. I will add that in my household, not only am I "at risk", but my wife also. She works for the Michigan Department of Corrections also as a Teacher for Adult Education. She has different "risks" than I have, but we both understand our own and each others.

I may be crazy but I ain't stupid

Life is to short to waste it on stupidity


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Someone committing a crime throws away their civil rights? umm This is a bit too black and whitish to me. People commit crimes for myriad reasons.

But EVEN IF we - for a second - pretend that people who commit crimes are classified "sub-citizens" unless they served their term and have NO rights...

Hypothetically: Someone get arrested, charged and sentenced to life in prison, because alledgedly he killed someone. Now after 5 years in jail he gets caught up in a fight, infected with HIV. After 5 more years the cops catch the real murderer and this poor censored gets released. Not only he's missing 10 years of his life (which he will be generously compensated for), he also suffers from AIDS for the rest of his life, excluded from reproduction.

You know it's pretty damn easy to pick on other people when they did something wrong, made a mistake. It's a minority *thank goodness* - is it really? Look at yourself, for heavens sake - how many times did you do something wrong and nobody got aware? And if your child does something stupid and goes to jail... how about that? I can point out at least 10 kinds of stupidity that will lead to a term in jail, if you or your little one gets caught.

How about yourself, getting infected with HIV in jail, because of a fight???

If inmates get tested anyways, they should be seperated in HIV positive and HIV negative blocks.

As for society: Why would the majority of society accept the fact that there is a minority, infected with a deadly and contageous desease - potentially threatening the others? I am taking a strawmans' position here and now, okay? But why on earth should they in the long run accept this? Especially if a few or even many of them are not acting responsible - not practicing safer sex, not being careful exchanging needles and not being grown up and educated enough to verify their partners (sexual) behaviour, or demanding test results before being exposed.

The govt is educating us, it takes away our self responsibility in the first place (you simply can't coss a red light in the middle of the desert at 4am - if a cop observes that, you will get fined) - it's there to protect ourselves from ourselves and each other...

I tell you here and now: mandatory testing WILL COME - sooner or later - if an effective cure to the desease is not found.

@ jtfreeman: I like to find out some background of the incident you were describing... "her son-in-law beat, choked and molested her 2 1/2 year old grandson and as a result, the child died from trauma. He also beat and burned with a cigarette, her 1 year old grandson, who survived but is in terrible shape and hospitalized." ... no previous record of violence? No suspicious behaviour? Total freak incident, or something that was likely to happen at some certain point? I'm asking because people often put forth isolated informations, creating a judgement ("such a MF, hang him high"), when in fact the background is shedding a completely different light upon the incident...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom


I tell you here and now: mandatory testing WILL COME - sooner or later - if an effective cure to the desease is not found.



Can't. You may not force any adult to have any medical test or procedure against consent unless found to be psychiatrically unsound (screaming on the floor sort of unsound).

At least not in the USA. Vaccines on children are one thing, but HIV testing is another thing entirely.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
shrug your word in Gods most internal auditory canal... I hope you are right, but I doubt it.

Govt's were seriously considering mandatory vaccines for BirdFlu... However: Why are vaccines on children in the USA a different thing? I rule over my body and over that of my child. It doesn't belong to the government - they have zero rights to interfer with my freedom to decide, as long as I am using legal substances legally...

Tell me, why: "Can't" smile

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom


Govt's were seriously considering mandatory vaccines for BirdFlu... However: Why are vaccines on children in the USA a different thing? I rule over my body and over that of my child. It doesn't belong to the government - they have zero rights to interfer with my freedom to decide, as long as I am using legal substances legally...




Not so much. You DON'T rule over your child's body 100%. You cannot withhold life-saving treatment from your child without an agreement by a doctor. We have to get court orders to transfuse Jehova's Witness kids all the time.

Now, vaccines aren't truly mandatory, but to refuse them requires a LOT of paperwork and your kid can't go to public school and all sorts of stuff.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura


PeleBRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA


Posted:
 Written by: Doc Lightning


Now, vaccines aren't truly mandatory, but to refuse them requires a LOT of paperwork and your kid can't go to public school and all sorts of stuff.



It depends on the vaccine.
There are some which are more "optional". I got into a HUGE fight with my son's pediatrician over the Chicken Pox vaccine, which I do *not* believe in, at all.
We also live in a district which tries to seriously push the flu vaccine, which again, my household does not believe in.

And honestly, vaccines on kids are well and good, but I have seen adults who do not get boosters (not like I do), or even know they should get boosters, come down with Whooping Cough and worse. So, the "mandatory" nature only extends to children anyways, and it is okay if adults don't know they are supposed to be restabbed. rolleyes

Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK


WOFTSILVER Member
Likes trees...
209 posts
Location: Cape Town, South Africa


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom

I am taking a strawmans' position here and now, okay?



Please excuse my ignorance, but what/who is Strawman?

And JT - Were you not JTfreeman a moment ago? confused

'n Boer maak 'n plan.


MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA


Posted:
 Written by: Pele



It depends on the vaccine.
There are some which are more "optional". I got into a HUGE fight with my son's pediatrician over the Chicken Pox vaccine, which I do *not* believe in, at all.



I'm a bit of skeptic myself, truth be told.


 Written by:


We also live in a district which tries to seriously push the flu vaccine, which again, my household does not believe in.



I didn't... until I watched a 17-year-old come in on heart-lung bypass and wind up permanently brain damaged from influenza pneumonia. And then we had three kids get horribly sick (intubated, two month hospital stays, possible long-term brain damage) of it this year (two asthmatics, one healthy three-year-old). Now I jump and down and rant and rave and tell my parents that their kids could die. And I swear I want to sue the Bush administration for every year that they've mucked up the flu vaccine and undervaccinated the populace.

And YOU, Pele, should be getting it. Noah needs his mommy and mommy's lungs aren't going to handle a flu very well. I wouldn't say it if I didn't believe it with all my heart and soul. And I'm rolling up my sleeve for it in a month.

 Written by:


And honestly, vaccines on kids are well and good, but I have seen adults who do not get boosters (not like I do), or even know they should get boosters, come down with Whooping Cough and worse.



There was no adult pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine until about a year ago. Now there is. It's called "ADACELL" and everyone needs to get one. For teens it's "BOOSTRIX". Also known as TdaP. Not to be confused with DTaP, which is for the ickle ones.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura


PeleBRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA


Posted:
Chicken Pox only seems rational for infants and older folk, but infants can't have it. I expose Noah to the pox every chance I get. He's had it once, fairly mildly, but he was young so that may be all he gets. I can't see a vaccine for something that you develope a resistance to once having had it. However, adults who haven't had the pox need a vaccine as it shifts over to hospitalization to deadly worthy.

Every single person I know who has gotten the flu vaccine, has gotten the flu worse than those of us who didn't. All of them hands down. I appreciate your worry but I am not doing it. My lungs are doing well (they were checked two weeks ago) and are really building back up.

I have to say that I think that, as it is, we (the gov't) go to far with mandatory this or that, and with everything being labelled epidemic or pandemic and with media creating everything into a HUGE hype.
I don't buy into it.

However, and Mike, maybe you can answer this for me...
Is AIDS still a massive epidemic enough for mandatory testing to be concidered? I should think STD's on the whole are, yes, but is HIV/AIDS specifically?

Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK


JTSpinnerSILVER Member
Learnin About Burnin
385 posts
Location: Michigan, USA


Posted:
Had some catching up to do here, glad to see that!

@WOT: Yes, I was jtfreeman, but finally got the privilege of changing my posting name. Not trying to hide who I am, just liked this better and fits in better at HOP smile

@FT: I have a lot of first hand knowledge and information on the case that I referred to. I know the mother of the child, the grandmother (work with her), the father, the children who are involved, the investigating Police Officer and the Medical Emergency First Responders who cared for the children. The incident took place 10 miles from my home and I know all of the people involved in this one way or the other. It was not posted with the intent of anyone making a judgement on him or this particular case. As I read it now, I shouldn't have posted that at all because it really had nothing to do with this topic. As a member of the law enforcement community, I am exempt from serving on jury trials that could lead to imprisonment in the state system. If someone in my immediate family or someone I know is locked up in our system, that person will not be put in the same prison as the one I work in. This is to prevent any "prejudgement" of that individual and helps eliminate the possibility of any favortism or on the opposite side, abuse of authority. Lots of people in my occupation and in law enforcement in general, develop an opinion or an attitude towards a crime or an individual. This can lead to what are considered "small cases" of their rights being violated. (I could list a million of these but won't bother). When a case like this comes along, I have no choice but to try and prevent myself from creating an attitude about whether they are "guilty", "mentally ill" "just plain nuts" or whatever. I also am a human with feelings and emotions. I apologize for the posting of that because I was getting something that was and is horrific to me and affected me personally, off of my chest before I have to deal with it and him in the prison setting.

A person does not forfeit ALL of their rights as protected under the constitution of the US and State of Michigan when they enter prison. As mentioned by Doc, when a persons life is in proveable and imminent danger (or their childs), and they will not or cannot take the steps necessary to prevent death, the decision is made for them and the treatment is given. Before anyone says it, yeah, someone has to play "God" and decide whether they are "at risk", but that is just the way it is (at least here in the US).

@Pele: Couldn't agree with you more. The gov't (be it feds, state, county, city), make to many decisions for us and how to "live our lives safely". Agree even more that the media creates everything into a big huge pile of dog doo doo soapbox

I may be crazy but I ain't stupid

Life is to short to waste it on stupidity


JTSpinnerSILVER Member
Learnin About Burnin
385 posts
Location: Michigan, USA


Posted:
Sorry, I forgot something in my ramblings!!

@WOFT:A straw man "argument" is a bogus, distorted or deliberately flawed interpretation of an otherwise valid position that has been altered so it can be more easily attacked, delegitimized and disassembled (hence the straw man metaphor) before the eyes and ears of an otherwise impartial audience unfamiliar with the facts and history of an issue or case.

@FT: Why can't? To little return on the investment for the governments. They can use other means to control what we do, how we think and how we act. If you want to take on the "Conspiracy Theory", those who are actually controlling the Government(s) will be vacinnated, have the drugs available and the means to prevent the catching all of these foul nasty STD's and everything else. Let the rest of us kill ourselves off from them and they will just read the obituaries.

I may be crazy but I ain't stupid

Life is to short to waste it on stupidity


MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA


Posted:
 Written by: Pele


However, and Mike, maybe you can answer this for me...
Is AIDS still a massive epidemic enough for mandatory testing to be concidered? I should think STD's on the whole are, yes, but is HIV/AIDS specifically?



Let me ask you this: knowing that in Sub-Saharan Africa, as much as 30% of the population is HIV+, would you rather get on it now...or wait until it IS a huge epidemic?

No, it's not a huge epidemic in the West...

...yet.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
How many children are negatively affected by vaccines every years? How much damage occures only due to vaccines?

I don't hold exact figures at this point, but one could call certain vaccines even "life threatening". A treatment in case of an infection, or acute life threatening situation - no objection. But aren't most vaccines "prevention only"..?

Now as to mandatory HIV testing: Without wanting to paint the devil on the wall, but I wouldn't rule it out that easily (especially in the US, where a christian religious majority is having a strong influence)...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom


How many children are negatively affected by vaccines every years? How much damage occures only due to vaccines?




Less than 0.0001%

Yup. Far less than one in a million. Serious, life-altering reactions to modern vaccines are: allergic reaction, allergic reaction, allergic reaction.

Sorry, Tom. I'm a pediatrician. You're not winning a "Facts" war on vaccination with me. I've done way more research than you have and I've rolled up my sleeve for every single one after reading the research.

And we can start another thread and I can knock down any argument anyone can offer against any vaccine (Except maybe varicella).

But ONLY if you promise to be as open-minded as I was when I first started my studies into this subject.

If you think, for one second, that I would inject anything into one of my babies that I thought might even remotely cause them more harm than good, then you're off your rocker.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura


JTSpinnerSILVER Member
Learnin About Burnin
385 posts
Location: Michigan, USA


Posted:
 Written by: FireTom


Now as to mandatory HIV testing: Without wanting to paint the devil on the wall, but I wouldn't rule it out that easily (especially in the US, where a christian religious majority is having a strong influence)...



In todays world you cannot discount what the "world powers" (i.e. U.N.) will do next especially in the arena of knowing what is best for the world, so that said, I cannot say that Mandatory HIV testing will not ever happen.

offtopic The christian religious majority in this country is actually an Organization known as "Moral Majority". They are a self proclaimed "majority" of the population of this country because of the numbers of members they have, but they actually represent a small minority of even voting citizens in this country. biggrin

I may be crazy but I ain't stupid

Life is to short to waste it on stupidity


Page:

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [general mandatory hiv testing] we found the following existing topics.

  1. Forums > General, mandatory HIV testing in the US? [35 replies]

      Show more..

HOPニュースレター

Subscribe now for updates on sales, new arrivals, and exclusive offers!