The government have unveiled new plans to introduce compulsory HIV testing into GPs surgeries over the next few years.
Currently over a quarter of the population may be carrying the HIV virus without realising. Interesting statistic - there is no reference as to where they got the data though. Saying that, I did a quick PubMed search and found this abstract that looks as though it may be the source - it seems as though there is a big push to 'normalise' HIV testing.
Of course there is a moral imperative to provide early diagnosis and treatment of HIV infection, this isn't in dispute. I know first hand what it is like to see a family member die from AIDS and it's pretty horrific. For the record, this instance involved an NHS blunder where a relative was given a blood transfusion after he was hit by a teenage joy rider. The blood was infected with HIV. So I understand the need for treatment, I really do.
But to be forced into having an HIV test has serious implications in terms of insurance and I feel it could encourage discrimination. Possibly.
Currently, if someone chooses to have an HIV test, insurance companies can argue that your lifestyle is dangerous - even if the test is negative - and they can invalidate your insurance. This approach is currently being looked at on account of it being a bit on the draconian side.
But what if everyone was forced to have regular HIV tests? What would happen to those who opted out or refused? Will that effect their insurance adversely?
Secondly, this pilot scheme will initially target at-risk populations - people who are black, people who are gay, etc - but will this lead to discrimination?
I'm unsure what I think about this - I know there's a desperate need for early diagnosis, but it's the 'compulsory' bit that jars I guess...
Introducing Moira
-
When we run broadcast newsdays at work, we want the process to be as close
to industry as we can. A lot of that is about working practice. But it's
the n...
1 month ago












