Is it right that New York is making it mandotory for HIV testing?

Question

According to this article http://news.aol.com/health/story/ar/_a/nyc-urges-docs-to-do-routine-hiv-testing/n20080627091309990012

Health official in the Bronx wants adults to have mandotory testing for HIV.

For instance if they came in for any ailment, like a headache or migraine, they would have to get tested for HIV.

Is this right? And is HIV that serious?

America is a population of 300 million and only 500,000 is infected with the HIV virus.

That's only 2% of the population. HIV is very rare. Why do people make it seem like its so widespread?

Even in Africa where the population is 900 million only 24 million have the so called HIV virus.

That's only 6% of Africa's population with HIV. So is this really a pandemic or a scare tactic?

And should an adult have to get screen for a rare disease all because of a headache? Or any other ailment that they go to the doctor for.

What is our medical industry trying to do?

Answer 1

Here's the deal Sparky... PEOPLE LIE.



If every single person who ever has sex went, voluntarily, and had an HIV test, carried a card and SHOWED IT to the person they were about to hop in the sack with BEFORE they "did it", none of this would be an issue.



Women have a hellofa time getting some men to even use a condom to prevent pregnancy. There is not a chance that these same people would get tested and even think of protecting their partner from HIV or another sexually transmitted disease.



Casual Sex, today, is a sport or a game for bored, stupid children, dysfunctional adults and sex workers.



In Africa, we are dealing with mass ignorance, dangerous mythology and ridiculous religious practices and gigantic male ego. Men in some African countries are SURE that sex with a virgin will cure HIV. BABY GIRLS are being raped. BABIES. These men should have their nuts cut off IN PUBLIC by the oldest woman in the village and they should go to prison.



In America, many people have multiple sex partners and NEVER tell any of them the truth of their HIV status. The oinyl way to STOP and epidemic is to draw a hard line and make EVERYONE get a test so you have a true start point and a real number of infected people. THEN they can hand the responsibility of the illness directly into the hands of the infected person and if they do not tell future sex partners of their postive status and they pass it on, it is premeditated attempted murder by forcing a deadly illness onto another person.

Answer 2

I think mandatory testing is a good idea, and wish my state would require it.

HIV is VERY serious. It can lead to AIDS. HIV is a virus that damages the immune system to the point that a person is susceptible to other illnesses such as colds, flu, and pneumonia. In a person with a healthy immune system, these illnesses would not even occur, or would not be a big deal. But for someone with a damaged immune system, these other infections could be deadly.

There is NO CURE for HIV, but treatments can help people live longer, healthier, and increase the amount of time between diagnosis of HIV and diagnosis of AIDS. However, not everyone responds well to the meds, and people may react differently to the virus itself.



Information and testing are critical in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Many people still do not know how it is and is not transmitted, and because HIV has no early symptoms, people may pass the virus on to other people before they even know that they themselves are infected. Therefore, the number of infected people you mention could actually be much higher. People would not know they are infected unless they are tested.

Unfortunately, the person who indicated that in Africa, people think that having sex with a virgin is a cure for HIV is correct. This is one indication of the problems caused by lack of education about HIV.

Answer 3

HIV is very serious. I can turn to full blown AIDS and is almost like a death sentence. I feel that everyone should get HIV tested, it's sad to see innocent babies born with the virus and only live to be 12 years old. Not everyone has the money to keep the virus at a manageable manner and the way many teens are promiscuous, it can very easily spread to a higher percent. do you think that STDs were high in number 25 years ago? 1 in 4 people have an STD. We shouldn't just sit around and wait for the HIV rate to be higher if there is something we can do about it.

Answer 4

HIV is HIGHLY serious. I cannot express that enough how serious and how dangerous it is. Dangerous as in people not knowing their status, and infecting others and love ones with the disease.



I think it is a great way to test everyone and I wonder how it would turn out. HOWEVER, my main concern is those who are aware of their HIV status:



Are the ones who test positive are going to take matters into their hands to protect themselves as well as other others and try to get the help they need to stay healthy?



Are the ones who test negative will continue to practice safe sex?



What about the ones that test positive, I am sure the news is devastating, but would it change their behavior towards society? What can we do to comfort those who test HIV positive, without making them feel so bad for being HIV positive. The society fears that HIV+ people may be considered a threat to the community. Unfortunately, there is no way to considered of that being impossible, especially when we have reported cases of those who test HIV+ and infect others on purpose. How can we really prevent that?



BTW, There are over 1 million people living with HIV according to CDC. But there are those who have not been tested.



HIV is not "very" rare in the United States, as you are more likely to get Herpes/Genital Herpes virus than HIV, but the problem about HIV is people being aware of their health problems, but sometimes not knowing the cause. That is the scary part. People being carriers of the virus and constantly practicing unsafe sex. People who don't realize promiscious behaviors puts you at more of a HIGH RISK for HIV.



The only thing we can do is to promote HIV testings, I truly understand, but I don't think it will scare people. So, if it's not going to change people's behavior especially when they involve themselves in HIGH RISK behavior, why not make it mandatory? What is there to hide, really?



If you are so daredevil to sleep around or to practice unsafe sex without "fully commiting" in a monogamous relationship, then why not be daredevil to accept your status? That's how I feel.

Answer 5

I am so much for freedom I can't believe my answer but I think it is a good idea. HIV is caught from other people. I used to work in a hospital cleaning. In the psych dept their was a chart & it showed if a person had HIV believe me. I was not going to go into a room alone with that person & risk them attacking me. I was so cautious. I imagine this will help protect people in some way so if I have to be tested so that others will be held accountable if they infect someone then it is worth it.

Answer 6

Firstly, the health officials are pushing for "offering HIV testing routinely", not making it mandatory. The difference lies in the issue of consent.



In practice the officials are trying to shift the onus from the tester to establish informed consent to the client to refuse it. Given the complexities involved, I think this shortcut would be shortsighted. I suspect that as with most bureacratic initiatives it is about cost cutting, not improving the quality of service.



I definitely don't think MANDATORY testing is a good idea in the case of HIV. While testing is a good idea generally, forcing people who don't want to test is not. One problem is that people might avoid seeking health care for fear of being forced to take a test they don't want or are not ready to deal with. This is particularly a problem given that the people most at risk of HIV/AIDS also tend to be those with the most tenuous access to health care to start with.



You don't solve that issue through legislation: you solve it through education, support and the opportunity for each individual to talk through the pros and cons and arrive at his/her own informed decision.



I find it hard to imagine how testing could have a good outcome if it is coerced. The benefits of knowing your HIV status - accessing timely treatment and knowing not to pass it on - all depend on informed decison freely arrived at. Coercion corrupts that, and if it becomes a general rule is likely to lead to worse outcomes.



Second point: the figure is around 1.0 to 1.1 million infected with HIV in the US, which works out to about 1 in 300 or 0.3%, not 2%.



Thirdly, 24 million infected in Africa is not a trivial number of human lives. It's equivalent to the entire population of Australia and New Zealand combined. Or of all of Canada except for Quebec. Or of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland combined. Just to put it into context for English speaking readers on other continents.



Fourth, it's not the "medical industry" proposing this thing in New York, it's bureaucrats. The medicos are vocal in opposing it, mainly because it would water down the current admittedly cumbersome consent requirements - which are particualrly crucial for the very people this would affect most: those most at risk of HIV infection.

Answer 7

i think everywhere should have mandatory HIV testing.

this way, people who are embarassed to get tested wont be.

and it will prevent a lot of spread.



and it doesnt matter if its only 2% of america with HIV. the matter is that people have it and are dying. does it matter that not enough people have it to worry?



because people cant keep it in their pants and some dont care if they give it to someone.

Answer 8

They're ignorant. For one thing, cutting family-planning funds is fiscally irresponsible; they have a return on investment of $4 in Medicaid spending for every $1 in family-planning spending. Obviously it's cheaper to pay for a woman's birth-control pills for a few years than her unplanned pregnancy, and catching early signs of cervical cancer through PAP testing has been one the most important and money-saving medical breakthroughs in the past few decades. It's also caused the mortality rate from cervical cancer to drop dramatically. (Women's mortality rates, of course, or their suffering, doesn't really concern cons, however.) Second, there are not "all kinds of other places" for women to go to get reproductive-health services cheaply, especially if they live in rural areas, which many poor women do not. (I see in Conservative La-La Land they think everybody who's poor can just take a day off work to the drive to the city, no big deal. Not so.) I had a period during which I had no health insurance after I took a break from graduate school and was working a full-time temp job with no benefits. (The company I work with incidentally laid off scores of full-time employees and replaced them with insurance-less temps.) I would not have been able to afford my annual exam or birth-control pills if it hadn't been for an excellent family-planning program in my state that provides free birth control for young low-income women up to a certain age. My exam came back abnormal and required further testing and will possibly require treatment in the future, which I could have never afforded without Planned Parenthood. There are millions of working women like me who have relied on Planned Parenthood at one point or another. Cons also know that ruining Planned Parenthood would have the effect of forcing women to go to their conservative-ideology-pushing "crisis pregnancy centers," which they openly use to try to "change women's minds" about their reproductive decisions - that is, give women false information to scare them out of having abortions, or wax poetic about the "beauties of motherhood" and how women are naturally motherly and "normal" women want to have their babies. Most of these faux clinics don't even have trained medical personnel on staff. This is the crap for "health care" that cons think is fit for women. All I can say is, I hope they take the fall for this in 2012, but I fear they won't due to the stupidity of the American voter.

Answer 9

i think it is totally right and HIV is very serious. that only 500,000 can keep on spreading HIV untill its half the popultaion. i'm glad they are doing this because I know I don't want HIV

Answer 10

i think you are forgeting that the HIV virus has no cure and if left alone it can KILL you



and the numbers are increasing everyday...thats enough cause for concern for me



people need to know what STDs they have

Answer 11

Did you really ask if HIV's that serious? Holy Cow.

Answer 12

hiv in some parts of ny is statistically very high....it's a cluster that needs to be addressed...