Mandatory HIV testing?

I think in this debate (4.00 / 1)

public health necessities overrule libertarian sensibilities. You put it exactly right. HIV/AIDS is a crisis, one that is exacerbated by ignorance and fear. This process will bring openness to New Jersey. Obviously, it's criticaly important to protect the privacy of these test results. But with 1 in 4 persons living with the virus unaware of their status, mandatory testing will dramatically reduce the rate of unknowing transmission.

---

by: Brian McGinnis @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 07:03:44 AM CDT

All for it (4.00 / 1)

It's not about the mothers - it's about the newborns. So there may be some libertarian concerns on the part of the mothers, but that doesn't stack up against the health concerns for the children, who can't speak up for themselves. This may make some people uncomfortable, but the public benefit far outweighs that discomfort.

---

by: Somewhere In The Swamps @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 07:22:40 AM CDT

I'm comfortable with this (0.00 / 0)

The adults can opt out, preserving privacy; but society has a responsibility towards children and thus HIV testing at birth works for me.

I would like to encourage everyone who has health insurance to get tested for HIV on your insurance company's dime, even if there isn't the remotest possibility in your mind that you have ever been exposed.

Why? Because it dilutes the ability of the insurance company to discriminate against persons voluntarily requesting HIV testing.

Sure, anonymous testing is available for those who think they are at risk and who don't want to tip off the insurance companies, but it's a a hassle and a barrier to knowing your status, and there should be NO barriers to knowing one's status. Getting tested by your plan's lab, at their (and yours, too, of course) expense, is so much more convenient and reliable. You KNOW you're going to get blood drawn sometime this year -- get an HIV test when you do. No research into neighborhood clinics or special trips to uusual parts of town required.

So if you're handed a script by your doctor for the usual cholesterol/liver enzyme screen, tell 'em to check off the HIV box, too (and while you're at it, C-reactive protein and prostate antigens (PSA), too). Costs him or her nothing, you get peace of mind, we the people get another chance to reduce institutional stigma against persons living with HIV/AIDS.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 07:27:14 AM CDT

Mandatory testing is (0.00 / 0)

the most humane way to find this out.  Most folks avoid knowing their status out of fear. 

Years ago, in pschology class, I remember being told that if you want to raise awareness about a health issue, fear can be useful, but extreme fear makes people try to avoid even thinking about the subject.  Most of us have known someone who is HIV positive or who has had full blown AIDS.  The abject horror and fear that HIV engenders is what makes it so hard for people to come out and ask for the test.  The stigma of asking in our society is a factor too- you are admitting to someone that you may have engaged in "risky" behaviour. 

Testing everyone in a routine manner takes the stigma and the avoidance due to fear out of the question.  The real question should be how to provide counseling and help when the diagnosis is HIV positive. 

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 09:30:31 AM CDT

All for it (0.00 / 0)

Particularly because there's no discriminatory selection of whom to test or not test.  That, to me, takes any civil rights objections out of the picture.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 11:13:37 AM CDT

Just another intrusion by government (0.00 / 0)

Of course, HIV testing is a good thing, and parents should have these tests done.  But there are lots of good things that shouldn't be mandated by the government as they are fundamentally choices that should be made by families.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Some problems with the mandatory HIV test:

1.  It's essentially mandatory testing of the mother.  The mother may not want her status known (or even to know it).  Not my choice, but I respect everyone's right to choices regarding their body/privacy issues.

2.  How do you distinguish this from many other tests that could be made mandatory?  It doesn't require much imagination to see this as just another erosion of parents/family rights at the hand of the government.  There are lots of other tests that the government (or insurance companies or employers, etc ...) would like to make mandatory.  For example, how would anyone feel about mandatory HIV testing for prospective employees by businesses.  It's not the same situation, but it's similar [shouldn't all employess know their status, for example?]. 

Here's my suggestion:  Try to convince parents to have the test, but respect their right to say no.

Best,
pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 13:20:22 PM CDT

Here's the distinction ... (4.00 / 1)

HIV can easily be passed from mother to baby during childbirth, though not before.  It is therefore in the public's interest to protect the BABY which cannot protect itself. 

The concern for the mother's privacy is laudable, but federal HIPPA rules already preclude anyone of her medical team from spilling the beans on her status.  It's not a situation where the government gets to know she is HIV positive, or can call up a list of HIV positive mothers.  Only medical practitioners with the mother's permission can access the results of the test in connection with her identity.

Her privacy IS protected by HIPPA, and the baby's life is protected.

---

by: huntsu @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 14:43:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A view on testing newborns for HIV from a friend with a personal perspective (4.00 / 1)

Hi, all, from Steven.  My Garden State Equality colleague and great friend David M. Smith, who is registering as we speak to post on Blue Jersey, felt so strongly about this issue, he didn't want to wait the day for processing.  He asked me to post the below for him. 

---------------

From David M. Smith: 

As someone who came into this world with a HIV+ parent I fully support this bill and applaud Senate President Codey, Senator Weinberg and every member of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. When I found out at the
late age of 14 that my Father was HIV+, and that I could have been exposed, I was furious that my parents let me spend 14 years of my life without knowing. My mother never got tested.  From 14 to 16, I lived through an emotional ordeal I can't even describe.  I lived 2 years of my life waking up every day and struggling with the decision of whether or not to get tested - a big decision for a kid that age.  At 16, I finally got the courage to get tested. I wish this bill had been enacted before I was born. I ask any of you who oppose it to consider the pain I went through.  Please.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 15:35:48 PM CDT

Once again, we don't want to mandate all good ideas ... (0.00 / 0)

How about the following:

1.  Mandatory seat belt laws
2.  Mandatory speed limits of 30 mph (slower speeds save lives)
3.  Mandatory drug testing (drugs cause lots of problems).
4.  Mandatory ban on smoking (it causes cancer!)
5.  Mandatory vegan diets (no animal should be killed!)
etc ...

The point is just because many of us think it's a good idea doesn't mean that government should mandate it.  Otherwise, we quickly find that government runs our lives.  Of course, the "cost" of this liberty is that some people will suffer because they (or others) didn't make the choices we would think are best.  But that's what liberty and personal responsibility is all about.

best,
pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 18:04:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Govt isn't running our lives (0.00 / 0)

There is a BIG different between a public health issue or a "government run amok" fear.  As stated above, the HIPPA laws protect the woman.  And she can choose not to be tested.  It's about the baby.  This isn't a "jack-booted thug" taking away your freedom to do stupid things to yourself.  Go ahead--throw caution to the wind and take drugs.  Don't take care of yourself.  Whatever.  This bill doesn't limit your freedom.  It saves the lives of children.

---

by: the pollster @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 20:43:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]