HIV test: written consent

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

HIV Positive - 03 May 2007 13:48 GMT

This is quite interesting <http://www.news-medical.net/?id=24624>:

"The Illinois House is considering a bill (HB 980) that would remove a
state requirement that people receiving HIV tests provide written
consent prior to undergoing the test, the Chicago Tribune reports."

Here in the UK there is no requirement for a patient to give written
consent before an 'HIV test' is performed.

I am aware of having had seven 'HIV tests.' Three of them I orally
requested, but the others were done without my knowledge. It's likely
I've had 'HIV tests' I don't even know about.

Some doctors are quite bad at keeping patients informed about what
they're doing. It's only later I found out "...we'll just do some
blood test" means "...we'll do another 'HIV test."

An example of how secretive doctors can be is what happened to me at
my clinic a few weeks ago. One doctor pointed at something in my
notes and asked another if he should do another "conformation test"
for "that." Later I discovered it was another 'HIV test.'

One problem the doctors have with me is that I don't present any of
the normal and expected HIV symptoms, other than passing the antibody
test and having a lower than normal CD4 count.

Signature

Should I begin ART?
Vote: <http://hiv-positive.freehostia.com/vote/>

Reply to this Message

nappy-headed ho - 03 May 2007 15:40 GMT

HIV Positive wrote...

> This is quite interesting <http://www.news-medical.net/?id=24624>:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Here in the UK there is no requirement for a patient to give written
> consent before an 'HIV test' is performed...

Here in the USA the results of HIV tests are reportable to state and
federal health agencies, but there is no requirement for mandatory
HIV tests except in certain criminal cases (e.g. mandatory testing of
a rape suspect or testing of prisoners).

I wouldn't be against mandatory testing of the entire population, but
only if it came with an assurance that those testing positive be
removed from the general population by force. But the UK government
isn't testing everyone for HIV, because HIV tests cost money, and the
NHS is strapped for cash lately since it began its new policy of
locking up fat people in mental hospitals. But for some reason they
tested you repeatedly, so perhaps there is something about your
mannerisms that would lead your doctor to suspect that you might be
at a higher risk for HIV than his other patients.

I guess it sucks when a people allow themselves to be disarmed and then
submit like so many sheep to involuntary biological testing. I'm just
surprised the doctor didn't give you an anal probe, complete with a live
video stream of your colon uploaded to to MI5 for terrorist profiling.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no truth. You just pick the lie you like best. As long as
you know everything's a lie, you can't hurt yourself."
-- Marilyn Manson
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this Message

HIV Positive - 03 May 2007 16:06 GMT

>HIV Positive wrote...
>> This is quite interesting <http://www.news-medical.net/?id=24624>:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> Here in the UK there is no requirement for a patient to give written
>> consent before an 'HIV test' is performed...

>Here in the USA the results of HIV tests are reportable to state and
>federal health agencies, but there is no requirement for mandatory
>HIV tests except in certain criminal cases (e.g. mandatory testing of
>a rape suspect or testing of prisoners).

I suppose you'd like a government funded 800 number you could call to
find out the 'HIV status' of whoever you're planning to f.ck that
night. Perhaps it could be an automated service: you tap in their
social security number and a robotic voice tells you if they're
infected.' :)

I wonder what happens when someone who is diagnosed HIV+ is accused of
rape, but the victim has an HIV- result? Presumably that could be
used as a defence.

>I wouldn't be against mandatory testing of the entire population, but
>only if it came with an assurance that those testing positive be
>removed from the general population by force. But the UK government
>isn't testing everyone for HIV, because HIV tests cost money, and the
>NHS is strapped for cash lately since it began its new policy of
>locking up fat people in mental hospitals.

Locking up fat people in mental hospitals? That's a new one on me.
Where did you get that from? I can assure you there are PLENTY of fat
people walking the streets here. And there are lots of nasty fatty
kids too.

You've already told us you believe most gay men have HIV. So,
wouldn't removing diagnosed HIV+ people from the general population
mean effectively removing gay people from the general population?

>But for some reason they tested you repeatedly, so perhaps there is
>something about your mannerisms that would lead your doctor to
>suspect that you might be at a higher risk for HIV than his other
>patients.

Ah, sorry for not making myself clear. The majority of the test I've
had have been done AFTER my initial diagnosis. It's almost as if they
can't believe the result is correct. Surely not, though: an HIV test
giving an inaccurate result. Nah, that would never happen. :)

>I guess it sucks when a people allow themselves to be disarmed and then
>submit like so many sheep to involuntary biological testing. I'm just
>surprised the doctor didn't give you an anal probe, complete with a live
>video stream of your colon uploaded to to MI5 for terrorist profiling.

You're getting a bit paranoid now. :)

Signature

Should I begin ART?
Vote: <http://hiv-positive.freehostia.com/vote/>

Reply to this Message