Mandatory STD Tests

In Britain, HIV is now at the 0.5% level. If it reaches 100%, we all die by definition of current medical science. What percentage that you would accept before you would put up with screening?

a. 1%
b. 2%
c. 5%
d. 10%
....
f. 50%
etc.

The point of this question is, what level of HIV would you need for individual liberty to be offset by populational need?

reply to post by redled

---

anyone sexually active should be tested in my opinion, regardless if you are in a commited relationship

just because someone says they are faithful doesnt mean they are

i work in the medical and did work in HIV for 5 years and i got tested every 6 mo

i think alot of people are so scared to find out they have it so they dont get tested out of fear

i would rather know and then try to really enjoy my life while i could, granted being HIV - doesnt mean you wont die

mandatory testing? you cant force that but i think it should be routine when dr's order labs or on physical exams

MurderCityDevil has a good point there,alot of people don't go and get tested from fear. I think it's a good idea for everyone to get tested. Cos then if they've got something (anything) that they didn't know they had,they can at least get treatment for it.

So routine meaning that if you don't agree, you get the Doctor's disapproval? It is a strong psychological weapon I agree, but I worry about insurance companies breaking into the databases and no matter how illegally if they discover any diseases, they will use statistics to chart you up in price. This all boills down to the doctor's oath. I add that I would like to have a central body that will wipe out insurance companies if they break the law.

I'm not in Britain, but when this first started I went in for testing regularly until I remarried. I think rational people would do it on their own if a way were provided that was private and anonymous.

Yeah, that's one of the problems in Britain, if it's on your medical record, for economic reasons, insurance companies have a right to your medical record. I love the paradox of life vs the markets.

(edit) insurance companies can even see if you've been tested and take statistical note from that, it's really not in your finanicial interests to get tested.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by redled]

reply to post by redled

---

i mean routine as it being discussed wether you are active or not

like a talk about it not just saying, want this done, but the dr really talking about health and risks and checking

1 person HIV+ not ever tested can spread to alot more people who in turn affect others

in the end, its up to the patient

one thing we really lack here in the HIV sense is education and prevention

its now a thing of oh i can take meds for it

the HIV clinic i worked in, i had always heard of people not wearing protection, there was even a guy who refused to wear a condomn knowing his wife was +, he was still negative but to what extent their sex life was, i have no idea

I have a few gay friends who claim to know a way around someone +

that is like playing roulette

HIV should not be so shameful as it is portrayed, yes its debilitating but its not technically the end

many people are living longer now

reinfection and reinfection of infection is what makes those not able to with stand the meds and get well or better

Part of it's shame is the societal shame in even asking if you've got it over here, it's the fact (even if you just test) that you 'won't get insured, a mortgage' and so on. I agree with you that it should not be shameful, rather sad, but shame is institutionally imposed (over here in Great UK).

[edit on 24-7-2008 by redled]

A little later..... is Mandatory a way of disguising people who want to take tests.

Supposed you have to take tests, insurance companies could not hack into you and give each other the results.

Supposed you don't, will insurance companies fail to use illegal data to price you out of the market?

How do we filter out the interests of insurance?

Life is not more important than profit is the current situation.

how about anonymos (sp?) testing, eg one goes to a hiv screening place and is issued a number, they can then go back and give number to find out results.
m x

news.bbc.co.uk...

now thats a little worrying, does anyone remember the 'franki goes to hollywood' hiv awareness adverts on the telly (now im showing my age, ho hum) ? it seem to me that there is a lack of public awareness campains.


now thats just shows how ignorant folks are
m x

Anonymous is good, but that needs to go back to the GP, the first port of call. It should also be illegal for Insurance Companies to ask about tests taken or diseases gotten rid of, because if you lie and your medical gives it away somehow, your insurance is invalidated.

If I tested positive, we'd all be in trouble.

Several years ago my best friend died of lymphoma. He'd been HIV postive for a long time before it all 'blew up'. (His words).

(Edited the above paragraph to be more specific).

Watching what he went through was the most gut-wrenching and frightening thing I've ever witnessed.

Even after seeing how he suffered (I must say, very bravely) I don't agree with mandatory tests.

If someone was diagnosed positive, what then? You can't brand them.

And you can't stop people having sex, however irresponsibly they might behave. Not yet anyway.

I think education is the best way to persuade people to have the test. And let them see for themselves, if possible, the devastation Aids can wreak on the human body. Although I don't know how you could do that without 'exhibiting' sufferers.

When I visited my friend in the Aids ward it was full of men who, a short time earlier, might have been enjoying themselves together dancing in clubs. It was heart-breaking to see them all so ill, quiet and resigned.

I am a complete techno-phobe and had a man who was no longer able to speak showing me how to use the vending machine. So sweet and charming and as aware as everyone else that he didn't have much longer to live.

If anyone had been exposed to some of the things I witnessed I think they might be afraid NOT to have a test. Just for the relief of knowing 100% that they'd never have to go through anything of the sort themselves.

And if the test was positive at least they could get help early and have some time to look at all the treatments available.

I think it's possible to go to an STD clinic and give them a false name and an armful of blood to get a test.





[edit on 26-7-2008 by berenike]

wrt kissing: if it really was, would they tell? say the odds are astronomically low. a mucous membrane is a mucuous membrane. add paradontosis into the mix and you've got transfer of blood...

again, once you have it, you'll be branded. shacked around without protection, try explaining that to anyone, short of not having a c***, you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone -> won't make it into statistics -> will remain 'impossible' much like continental drift, heavier than air flight and AC machines.

until there are several air-tight cases, which will take approximately until a cure is found. to believe that stigma isn't all too important a part of the story around AIDS is imho unfounded.

dont mean any disrespect in regards to your friend as ive been in your situation but part of disinfo is that people die of AIDS

NOONE has ever died from AIDS or HIV

its always something else that complicates the matter

its a tricky devil

---some clinics have anonymous testing

i believe not testing out of fear is a crock of shiittt

not knowing is more dangerous than knowing, atleast you can spare others from not getting infected

reply to post by redled

---

You sound like a globalist, who thinks we are all too stupid to help ourselves and you look for every opportunity to prove that, so you can pass mandatory laws, not to protect us, but to steal our money in fines!

Kind of like them automatic ticket machines at certain intersections. We're told they are put there to cut down on accidents, but the truth is, it's a revenue enhancement tool that the whores of the world use to steal our money.

Sorry not to have been more specific - I was trying to keep my post short and found some of what I was writing difficult.

Among other things he had lymphoma. I'll see if I can edit my post to make it clearer.

People who spread HIV should be put in jail for MURDER.

I have no sympathy for sexually active people who refuse to get tested, that is how epidemics start, by people being lazy and careless. Unknowingly spreading the disease still ruins someones life, and probably will end up with them dying because of you - at the very least it should be involuntary manslaughter - either way carrying a criminal penalty.

Its very easy to not get HIV, so I don't see what the problem is. Most people who do get it, outside of the medical profession and blood transfusions, are people who practice unsafe sex with little to no regard for their health or their partners.

My only quarrel is that it doesn't kill people fast enough, instead it gives the infected a lifetime of potentially spreading such a dangerous virus.