Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I guess I'm, generally, in favor of *voluntary* HIV testing.
    I say HIV and not AIDS, because their *is* a difference between
    exposure to the virus (having antibodies) and having the disease.
    I think social responsibility is important. Closing your eyes to
    shut out demons, won't make them go away. The biggest problem with
    the testing, is that it only covers previous history. Until a
    vaccine is developed, the only way that you can ensure that you
    haven't been exposed is to be careful of your contacts with other
    people. I've had my first test through the Army Reserve. I say first
    test, because they will continue testing. Once doesn't do it.
    
    Bob Mc

    I think AIDS testing makes less sense than testing for any other
    communicable diseases, on anything other than a medical basis.
    
    We don't go around checking people for Syphylis and Gonorhea; yet
    the likely hood of contracting one of those is much greater than
    contracting AIDS.
    
    I think it ought to be done, same as for any other Communicable
    disease, when it seems warranted; for the same reasons: To give
    a doctor information about a patients health.
    
    Most plans for testing that have been profferred, are generally
    aimed at providing Government Agencies information about a persons
    personal sex life, to be shared through a common data bank, with
    any other Government Data Resource, in the same manner in which
    Criminal Activities are monitored.
    
    If you recall, many American Citizens were "spied" upon; illegally
    by Federal and State agencies; who also tried to discredit these
    people becuase *some* government agency resented these people for
    using their *Bill of Rights*.
    
    As stated ion .1, HIV is not the same as AIDS, and if you've ever
    been involved wiht a family whose children got labelled as
    "Hypeeractive", you'd be aware of the pain and unnecessary aggravation
    a city agency can inflict without even trying; when you compound
    the 'magnitude' of Federal Agencies, whose officers have a "Ollie
    North" complex, you begin to realize the magnitude of how much
    powere these "tyrants" have in the name of "Public Protecction"
    and "Public Health".
    
    IF we had public officials who were 'incorruptible", it might be
    ok IF we gave them individual permission - but check the latest
    scandals at the 'Federal Level"; scandals in "Churches" with
    "incorructible ministers" ... No, that power is one of our
    personal freedoms.
    
    Wel, to get back. Testing, as has been pointed out, is only useful
    AT THE TIME THE TEST WAS TAKEN (capitialized for effect). 
    
    One test scheme was to have people carry "ID cards" with the test
    results. Well, if the date was more than 5 minutes past; it no longer
    trustworthy as being "absolutely correct".
    
    Some poeple think "Well, how do I know my lover is telling the truth?".
    If you have any doubts about the credibility of someone,should you
    want to be sleeping with them ?
    
    Recently a Gay male, desperate for money, sold his blood to a private
    "Blood Bank". The courts  wanted to prosecute him; but the
    article never asked "Why didn't the Blood Bank test it before reselling
    it to the hospital ?".
    
    Fortuantely, Jonas Salk has put his energies into the problem. Perhaps
    as more and more researchers put their talents together, a solution
    may be found. Until then, when in doubt, do without !
    
    .bob.

    
    Re: .0
    
    Your feelings that, should the test turn out to be positive, the
    resultant knowledge would adversely affect the quality of the remainder of
    your life (even if you never actually develop AIDS itself) rings
    a familiar bell in my mind: I, Alan, would like to know the future
    (not necessarily about AIDS) - BUT ONLY if the news is going to be good.
                                   
    To put this in a wider perspective, if someone has a "terminal"
    illness or otherwise suspects that they have only a certain
    amount of time to live, they can, indeed, let this knowledge affect 
    them negatively. 
    
    Yet, in the opposite way (and I'm not saying I'd like to be in this 
    position), this knowledge can also free them: free them to live for
    today and fulfill all the fantasies they've been putting off -
    or totally avoiding - because they had to plan for retirement or
    some other, decades-later events or timeframes. 
    
    They can take the trip they always wanted, no matter how much 
    it costs; they can buy the Saab they always dreamed of driving; 
    they can tell all the people they haven't liked to __CK OFF.... 
    well, you get the idea.
      
    Shrinking this train of thought to a very short period of time,
    I've often wondered: If I *knew* I had only one day left to live,
    and free access to do *WHATEVER I WANTED * (not limited to one
    thing), what I would do no matter how illegal, immoral (or fattening),
    having absolutely *NO* regard to the consequences?
    
        Alan
                                         

    
    	re .2
    
    	AIDS is more of a concern than other sexually transmitted
    	diseases because it is the most deadly of these diseases.
    	If you come down with full-blown AIDS, you die.
    
	*****
    
       	Does the Red Cross test all it's donated blood for AIDS?
    	I think they do, so regular donations provide you with regular
    	screening.  If your donated blood is found to have AIDS expo-
    	sure, they will sure as hell notify you to tell you not to
    	donate again.
    
    	I wouldn't mind being tested.  I have never been tested except
    	through the Red Cross if they do it.  I would want to know if
    	I had been exposed to AIDS.  My understanding is that not all
    	people exposed (to the point that they test positive) will come
    	down with AIDS.  Research is so inconclusive today, so they
    	can't tell us why.  But some hypotheses state that personal
    	health can be a factor in keeping it from taking over one's
    	body.  If it was determined that I was exposed to it somehow
    	I would initially be pissed.  My lifestyle is such that I should
    	never be exposed top it (as defined by the AMA, for what that
    	is worth).  After getting over my anger, I would concentrate
    	on keeping myself it top physical condition through nutrition,
    	exercise, nutrition, plenty of sleep, reduced stress, nutrition,
    	and a positive mental attitude.  I would pile up as much insurance
    	(that wouldn't need a physical) as my finances could afford to 
    	provide for my family if this grim reaper gets me.

    	I persoanally see a resistance to testing as a paranoia and
    	a knee-jerk reaction.  I think it is a matter of principle for
    	the resister without consideration for personal safety, public
    	safety, or the effect to loved ones.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

  re .2
    About your comment regarding the gay male who sold his blood.
    The point was'nt why the blood was'nt tested (I believe it, 
    as well as ALL blood is tested), the point is that what he did
    was criminal. He deliberatly gave blood with the knowledge that
    if someone received it, they would get aids. That's attempted
    murder in my book, as well as the LA D.A.
    John    

    The Red Cross screens all donated blood for HIV antibodies.  One
    cannot guarantee that private blood banks (such as the one used
    by the man mentioned in .2 and .5) do so also.
    
    					Steve

    I can't see ANY situation where blood WOULD'NT be screened before
    it reaches the patient. If blood banks don't screen, I'm sure they
    have an agreement with whomever receives that blood that is must
    be screened before it is used.
    It is insane to think that there are large quantities of blood being
    used in hospitals that have not been screened for aids or hiv or
    whatever. News like that would be headline material everywhere.
    5 years ago, maybe not, but there days...
    But to stick to the topic the author brought up.
    I'm for voluntary testing. I think the time will come when anyone
    who has a TV or can read will realize that you don't have sex with
    someone who has'nt been tested - and you can trust, of course. If
    I was single, I'd get tested.
    John maybe_the_Union_Leader's_right Fox
    

    re: .8
    
    > high risk areas
    > such as S/F and NY where 99% of the AIDS cases are.
    
        Bob, I don't disagree with your note, I just want to clear up
    this statistic.  According to the Aids Information note 334.1 in
    WOMANNOTES there have been cases reported in all 50 states.  However
    3/4 of all cases have occured in four states, California, Florida,
    New Jersey, and New York.

    ASP

    I see no advantage to getting an AIDS test and I can see a lot of
    disadvantages and potential disadvantages.  I don't think I would 
    recommend that anyone close to me be tested either.  

    re.10
    
    It's me, Stacie, the writer of this note...
    
    Nothing like sticking your head in the sand!  Sorry about that,
    I guess (like I said) it is a very personal decision.
    
    I told my SO- If you go out and catch us AIDS, you won't have to
    worry about the disease, I'll get you first!
    
    We both enjoy the monogamy of our relationship-I think (as terrible
    as it sounds) that the threat of AIDS gives us that extra push towards
    keeping it that way.  I think anyone who isn't giving monogamy a
    try (or at least being extra-scrupulous as to whom they sleep with)
    is asking for trouble.  
    
    It's just not safe!!!          Stacie

    I am confused as to why AIDS is any different than VD.  Other than
    the disease being a little quicker in bringing on death, both kill.
     Why don't we require that people be tested for Gonnorhea(sp?),
    also?  This is because people are becoming paranoid about AIDS and
    beginning to overreact.  We should step back and reassess the situation
    before we go off the deep end.
    

    re: .12
    
        AIDS is different from most types of VD because there is no
    cure for it.  I know of no venereal diseases which have no known
    cures which result in death.  Herpes has no known cure, but it is
    not usually a fatal disease.

I thought we DO require VD testing.  When we get marriage blood test, isn't
it for some kind of VD testing ?  Syphilis maybe ?

/Eric

    Some states require blood tests for VD for a marriage license, some
    don't.
    			Steve

    
    I heard on the news the other day that in Denver there is a new
    strain of gonnorea.  One that penicillin does nothing for.  What
    scares me about all this Aids stuff is that it is a virus.  But
    then again so is the flu and they are always coming up with a new
    strain of the flu.  They say that Aids is not spread through casual
    contact, maybe the flu was not at one time either.
    
    Kimberly
    

	I recently heard on the news that they might have come up with an
AIDS vaccine.  They're going to be doing tests this fall on 100 non-infected
people to look for side effects.  This is quite a turn-around from what I
heard only a month ago, when I heard one doctor say he thought that there
never _could_ be a vaccine due to the screwy nature of the virus.


	Granted, it's all hearsay right now but at least it's POSITIVE!


Brian