Conference turris::womannotes-v1

Last fall, my hair was falling out (I got a severe dose of alopecia
-- medical Latin for "your hair fell out") and, in the midst of other
tests, I asked my doctor about an Aids test.

He asked me if I was in a high-risk group.  I said I wasn't.
He said, don't bother.

If I felt I was at risk (or if I were starting a committed relationship
and we felt this was appropriate), I'd go to one of the anonymous
testing services, possibly out-of-state.

Martin.

    I'm curious about this.  Just having read the article in 334 (I
    think), the date 1977 comes in here several times (i.e. gay men
    remaining celebate since 1977...)
    
    Is that when AIDS was first discovered?  I wasn't sexually active
    BEFORE 1977 but I became sexually active in 1979 and like many others,
    I've had several partners.  My SO was sexually active, too, and
    right now, we are in the "low risk" group for AIDS.
    
    But, it still makes me wonder: could we both be carrying this inside
    us for 10 or so years?  Don't Americans (or anyone for that matter)
    have a right to know about what's happening to their bodies?  I'm
    not saying that the test should be free.  I'm saying that it shouldn't
    be for "people at high risk" ONLY.
    
    I'm sort of feeling bad right now because or my so-called "freedoms
    of expression" during my college years.  Yes, I've found a wonderful,
    healthy man who has never used drugs and isn't homosexual and has
    never had a blood transfusion but this doesn't say squat!  I do
    not use drugs (intravenous), am not homosexual and have never had
    a blood transfusion either.  But, I cannot honestly say that my
    sex partners of years gone by were totally healthy.  I can't really
    know, can I?
                

    The problem is that you could face serious problems FINANCIALLY
    which are entirely unrelated to whether or not you have the disease.
    For ex: say I am one of the 20% who get a positive on the first
    test.  Even though I get a negative on the second round, I could
    be uninsurable: no health, no life.  So what happens when I get
    appendicitis next month????
    
    Zappo.  All for the "peace of mind" of thinking I had it, and then
    thinking I didn't, and getting scrod because someone leaked the
    results to the wrong people.
    
    I won't get tested until I fall into a high-risk category, or the
    test can be done BY ME in MY HOME.
    
    Lee

    If you donate blood they automatically test all blood now.  I donate
    blood at Childrens Hospital and questioned them about testing. 
    They said unless you're in the high-risk group they don't suggest
    it.  I was concerned because I've had 2 previous blood transfusions.
    As long as I keep donating blood, my blood will be tested for AIDS
    every 8 weeks.  So...if what you want is a free test, donate a pint.
    BUT...as stated in previous notes, some have tested a false positive.
    

    .5 has a good point, and I'm delighted myself with all the nifty
    testing that gets done to my donated blood; but, I suspect there
    is no confidentiality that way.
    
    Of course, if you seriously think you're at risk of AIDS exposure,
    donating blood is absolutely NOT the way to get tested - the tests
    are subject to false negative results, too.

    Chuck

    
    
    I too, have donated blood for the free testing that is done and
    will do so as often as I can in the future.  The way the system
    is designed, from the material I received, if there is anything
    wrong with your blood your name gets put on the list that gets
    checked when they process blood for future donations to be checked
    again BUT they do not give the reason for the name being on the
    list.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	

    From what I have heard they do test your blood when you give a 
    donation, if you test positive they get rid of your blood, but
    they don't tell you that you tested positive.  So you may donate
    all the time and they would just be throwing out your blood and
    you would never know.   Please correct me if I'm wrong.  This
    seems like a waste of time for both you and the Red Cross, I 
    don't understand why they wouldn't notify you???
    
    Debbi

    Re: .8
    
    The Red Cross claims, in the brochure they insist you read before
    donating, that they WILL notify you privately if they detect anything
    wrong with the blood, including a positive test for HIV (AIDS)
    antibodies.
    				Steve

    
    Coupla things--
    
    Currently the test centers are overloaded with samples, which may
    be why MDs are recommending that people not at risk not be tested.
    
    A positive test does not indicate that you have AIDS, just the anti-
    bodies to AIDS. Estimates of the chances of getting AIDS if you
    have the antibodies run between 30 and 100%.
    
    The chances of showing a false positive are about 20%, so the test
    is repeated 3 times on the same sample. If it's consistantly positive,
    a second type of test is done on the same sample. According to the
    Mass. Comunicatable Disease people (or whatever agency it is), the
    percent of false positives can be expected to rise as more people
    get tested, because more testing will have to be done by outside
    labs, which sometimes tend to get sloppy about sample handling.
    
    Good (hot) Weekend, y'all!
    
    E.

    re: 396.7
    
    I'm not sure what the Red Cross does but at Childrens they test
    the blood and if they find a problem, they notify you right away.
    Whether it be AIDS or anything else.
    

    I'm concerned about the confidentiality of AIDS tests. A friend
    who's been writing applications for an insurance company says
    that the insurance industry shares a database detailing claims made
    by each person (similar to a credit bureau). If I got an AIDS test,
    I would not have it done in my doctor's office (it would end up
    in my insurance file). Rather, I'd go to an anonymous testing place
    and pay in cash.
    
    Liz
    

    In Colorado, there apparently IS no anonymous testing place at the
    moment.  I would have it done out of state.
    
              Carol

    RE .13:
    
    What you can always do is to go to a clinic or health department
    and give a false name and address and pay cash.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Good practical suggestion, Elizabeth; it goes to show the harm that
    will come from a lack of truly confidential testing: people at risk
    for AIDS will be driven 'underground', and the epidemiological (right
    word?) data base gets corrupted.
    
    Chuck

    RE .15  Don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of a
    database.  High risk or not, a lot of people are worried that
    "just possibly maybe" they've been exposed, but value their
    privacy more than certainty. As Lee said in .4 a home test
    would be the only way to be SURE of confidentiality. How diff-
    icult would it be ?

According to the 5 hour Aids show last Friday (generally boring -- I
have a tape if anyone's interested), mail-in kits are on their way.
(You buy the kit for $14.95, get blood into the sample tubes, and
mail it off to the lab.  A week later, you call and give the code number.

Better tests (that check for presence of the virus) will probably
be on the market by the end of the year.  These will be completely
do-it-yourself.

Martin.

    I see a lot of disadvantages to being tested for AIDS,... can anyone
    think of any advantages?   I can't.

     re .18:
     
     Yup, I can think of one: knowing whether or not you risk transmitting
     the virus to someone else (in particular, someone whom you care for
     enough to have sex with).  
     
     Don't you care about that?
     
     --Mr Topaz 

re: positive reasons for AIDS testing

    A positive AIDS-test result isn't proof that "you risk transmitting the
    virus" (396.19), it's proof that you've been exposed to the virus. You
    may or may not have it.

    As discussed previously, there's a lot of negative stigma and negative
    feelings (from oneself and from others) from a positive result, so even
    this reason isn't a clear benefit.

    					-- hs

If you always engage in safer sex, you will probably not transmit the virus and 
you will probably not become infected.  You shouldn't need a test to 
decide to do this.  If you only think you have to "be safe" if you are
antibody-positive, you are making a big mistake.  AIDS is too important
to fall into the trap of making it someone else's responsibility. 

    Re: .19
    
    As Hal has pointed out, testing positive is not proof you have AIDS,
    it's not really even proof you've been exposed as there are significant
    numbers of false positives. Furthermore, testing negative is not
    proof you have not been exposed or are not carrying. Besides the
    false negatives, AIDS has a long incubation time. You may be carrying
    the virus, but not have developed antibodies to it yet.
    
    I can think of a "reason to be tested", if you donate blood, your
    blood is tested for HIV as well as a whole slew of other things,
    and if you test positive they will tell you. I plan on continuing
    to donate blood, so everytime I do so, I'm being tested for AIDS.
    The claim is that results are confidential, but given the hysteria
    surrounding AIDS, even if that is true now it may not be so forever.
    Note that this isn't a "reason to be tested" per se, but if you
    donate blood you *are* being tested, so...
    
    	-- Charles

>>  I suggest that if
    you have had a contact that you have the least doubt about, you
    *owe* it to those you come into intimate contact with to be tested.

I suggest that you *owe* it to those you come into intimate contact with 
to alway practice safer sex.  This, not the test, will protect your 
loved ones and society.

>>  there are moments in each life when the interests of self must be
>>  subordinated to our duties to society. Perhaps this idea is no longer
>>  fashionable. It has not, in my opinion, ceased to be morally correct.

In that case, I trust you are one of those heterosexuals you consider it 
a moral duty to society to always practice safer sex and to educate 
others to do the same at all times.  So many folks have a hard time 
giving up the personal pleasures they are used to, and want to make 
*someone else* do it.  They use the idea of The Test as a false litmus 
to decide who has to be socially responsible and who does not...

    I recently asked the same question in the Human relations file.
    If this note interests you, you might want to look into what those
    noters had to say.
    
    A friend of mine went to a place called the Feminist Health Ctr
    in Portsmouth NH for testing.  They do AIDS and all other STD's
    confidentially by issuing a number to you.  I *think* he said you
    never even give your name.  That might be a good place for people
    concerned with confidentiality.
    
    I would most definitely want to know, despite the trauma it would
    wreak on your life.  If I were married or had children, I'd want
    to know so I could be more careful not to infect them (if they already
    weren't.) There is a case for "always being careful" but if you
    knew you had been exposed, I think you might just go that extra
    mile to "make sure."
    
    Stacie

    Yesterday I called the El Paso County health service to make
    arrangements for a free aids test. After getting to the right person I
    was told it would take 3 months or so to get around to the test. Then
    the person asked me why I wanted to be tested. I told him that I had a
    sexual relationship with a women who I suspected had previous sexual
    relationships with soldiers from Fort Carson. I was told that as long
    as I didn't share needles (Yech!) with the woman or engage in
    unprotected anal sex with her I was at no risk. Neither of which I did. 
    
    Now my question is "Do I get tested anyway?"  How far should this
    paranoia go? 
    
    Incidently, on NPR yesterday was a segment on AIDS in Brazil.
    Apparently over 1,000,000 people have aids there through hetrosexual
    activities. This is thought to arise because of the rampant use of
    unprotected anal intercourse (which preserves the womans virginity). 
    
    I guess the answer is to ALWAYS use safe sex. But that's a drag when I
    know the woman can't get pregnet and that I am/was in no risk. 

    I heard a report on my TV-cable news that recently, 35 people in the
    San Francisco area who tested positive for the AIDS virus were tracked.
    7 committed suicide - and as it turned out during and postmortem, one
    of them didn't even have the virus:  the test had been incorrectly
    performed.
    
    and now they want to sell a test kit through the mail?  For something
    with the potential impact of knowing YOU CARRY THE VIRUS?  Yow!
    
     
    

re: .-2

    >I was told that as long
    >as I didn't share needles (Yech!) with the woman or engage in
    >unprotected anal sex with her I was at no risk. Neither of which I did. 
    
	This is completely bogus information. *Any* sexual practice with
the potential for direct contact between the blood/semen/vaginal secretions
of one partner and the bloodstream of another is an opportunity for the
virus to be transmitted to that bloodstream. Given the potential for
chafing, etc. this includes ALL forms of intercourse. Given the frequent
presence of small (often unnoticed) cuts/scrapes within the mouth, this
extends to oral sex as well-either variety, the risk being mostly to the
'giver'.

	I'm amazed you received such misinformation from public health
staffers.

    
    RE: .-1
    
    	I just watched a show on one of the PBS stations on aids and
    	the current thought among the researchers is that AIDS is not
    	transmitted by oral sex. On the other hand, do they really know
    	yet?

There have been some studies done lately which seem to indicate 
that oral sex is a pretty low-risk vector.  I do not think anyone can 
make a categorical statement that the virus is definitely not 
transmitted this way, only that it seems to be low risk.  It should be 
pointed out that at the time two articles were written "proving" minimal 
risk, another was published coming to the opposite conclusion.  There
are lots of ways to read data, as I'm sure we all know.  

Incidentally, these studies primarily reply to oral sex involving men, 
not women.