Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!usenet
From: gb661@leah.albany.edu (BROADWELL GEORGE AARON)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: HIV Testing and Rape
Message-ID: <1991Jun10.124058.20516@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 7 Jun 91 15:26:16 GMT
References: <1991Jun6.203354.487@cs.ucla.edu>
Sender: news@csc.albany.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Lines: 23
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note: non-commercial reproduction.
Nntp-Posting-Host: squid.cs.ucla.edu
Archive-Number: 3231

In article <1991Jun6.203354.487@cs.ucla.edu> ST101921%BROWNVM.BITNET@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Jack Rozel) writes:
>
>In the meantime, I have an ethics question:  The Kennedy guy has been ordered
>to undergo an HIV test at the behest of the alleged rape victim.  I heard on
>the news that the Kennedy-guy's lawyers are asking for reciprocity (?) -- that
>is, that the victim undergo the same test to see if may have conracted HIV from
>his victim.  This reminds me of the recent debate about the "just desserts" of
>the man who contravted the virus while gay bashing.  I'm wondering what people'
>s sentiment on this is.  

Testing a rape suspect for HIV tells you absolutely nothing, and it
is just a way of harassing a person.

If the suspect tests negative for the antibody, that does not mean that
he does not have the virus.

If the suspect tests positive for the antibody, that does not mean that the
virus was transmitted.

In either case, the victim of a rape has no relevant information about
his/her own HIV status.

I am opposed to all mandatory testing for HIV.