Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site spdcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!spdcc!dyer
From: dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: HTLV-III antibody test
Message-ID: <33@spdcc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Mar-86 15:59:53 EST
Article-I.D.: spdcc.33
Posted: Sun Mar  9 15:59:53 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Mar-86 01:45:44 EST
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Lines: 31
Summary: to be tested, or not?

Anonymous "George" brings up an interested question that hasn't been
discussed here in any length, namely, whether or not to be tested
for exposure to HTLV-III.

I had dinner recently with a couple, one of whom is a psychiatrist, the other
a psychiatric social worker, who both work for Boston's Gay and Lesbian
Counseling Service.  Aside from the obvious issues of stigmatization and
confidentiality, they ask men who are concerned about HTLV-III exposure
and are considering being tested:

	"What would you do differently, if you knew?"

They argued pretty persuasively against being tested, for the following
reasons:

1.) a negative test is no license for increased sexual activity
    (to be meaningful, you'd have to be tested weeks to months after
    each new sexual partner, when in the meantime, you could be spreading
    the virus.)  In essence, every gay man should be behaving as if he were
    exposed, regardless of the test results.

2.) Denial (as in not knowing one's HTLV-III exposure) can be thought of as
    having some positive effects.  Too often, they have seen people who went
    to be tested out of curiosity, who, after hearing that they test positive,
    end up with severe emotional stress, certainly reducing their quality of
    life.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
{bbncca,bbnccv,harvard}!spdcc!dyer