Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!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: <1991Jun10.234032.13610@cs.ucla.edu> Date: 10 Jun 91 21:03:36 GMT References: <1991Jun10.150619.25217@cs.ucla.edu> Sender: news@csc.albany.edu (News Administrator) Organization: State University of New York at Albany Lines: 59 Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu Note: non-commercial reproduction. Nntp-Posting-Host: squid.cs.ucla.edu Archive-Number: 3240 In article <1991Jun10.150619.25217@cs.ucla.edu> "Gerri Oppedisano" writes: #z>>> I am opposed to all mandatory testing for HIV. > >Aren't other venereal diseases tested for after a rape? Are >you opposed to mandatory HIV testing because of the fact that >the tests are not reliable enough or because you think it's >somehow discriminatory? > >Just how unreliable is HIV testing? My impression was that it wasn't so >totally unreliable as to not tell you anything.. particularly if the >test results are positive. How likely is it that a positive HIV test is >really false? > My objection isn't based on the unreliability of testing, but on the gap between exposure to HIV and the development of antibodies. Let me restate the argument a little more fully. It can take up to six months to develop antibodies after exposure. Our test detects antibodies, not the virus itself. Therefore, if the rapist tests negative, it does not mean that the victim has not been exposed to the virus. The rapist could have been recently exposed, and not yet showing antibodies. On the other hand, if the rapist tests positive, that doesn't mean that viral transmission has taken place. In either case, the victim must be tested, and retested in 6 months to know whether or not he/she has the virus. Thus the course of action for the victim is the same *whether or not* the rapist is HIV-positive. The real reason that prosecutors want to test suspects for HIV is so they can prosecute them for additional crimes, and I am also opposed to this. Laws of the sort that make it illegal to transmit HIV always (to the best of my knowledge) talk about 'knowingly transmitting' HIV. But to set up special penalties for people who know that they are HIV positive creates a disincentive for testing. Under such a legal system, if you suspect that you may be HIV positive, then you can have all the unprotected sex you want without legal penalties. But if you go in for a test, then you subject yourself to a range of possible penalties, including being jailed for attempted murder. Obviously, this is not the sort of thinking/behavior the legal system should encourage. But that is the effect of any laws against the 'knowing transmission of HIV.' Legal remedies are the worst way to prevent HIV infections. The best way is through widespread voluntary testing and education. Since mandatory testing of rape suspects a.) provides no useful information for victims and b.) is an adjunct to unwise laws about HIV transmission, I am opposed to mandatory testing for HIV. I hope this makes my reasoning clearer.