CDC to call for routine AIDS testing for people aged 13-64
BMJ 2006; 332 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7551.1169-a (Published 18 May 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;332:1169All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Good morning,
I was very opposed to this decision when I heard it this morning on
the local news. Isn't being tested for any medical condition each
individuals choice? If it is being mandated or pushed on the public is
that not an invasion of our personal rights?
I also don't understand how the (Center for Disease Control)CDC feels
this will help. I feel this will give false hope. People will go get
tested, get a negative result and think "Thank god. I am fine" and
continue to live their choice of lifestyle (potentially un-protected sex).
When in reality there are many cases that are missed because it is too
soon to read correctly (newly infected), they are ill will some other
virus (some viruses do through HIV readings off), etc.
Hypothetically, these people could be lead to believe that they are
healthy enough to engage in unprotected sexual activities. THIS IS A
SCARY THOUGHT!!!
I myself have experienced a couple false negative results...so I know
for a fact that this can happen.
I think the CDC will get better results on getting a grip on this
epademic by promoting safe sex and protection, in ways that people will
actually pay attention and want to use it.
If someone is infected with the HIV virus and has been having
unprotected sex, knowing that this virus is a threat; then doesnt that
blame lye on that individual for their own reckless behavior?
The same way the medical world is told to use all HIV prevention
methods on every single patient for proper prevention methods; is the same
way everyone who is sexually active should and need to approach sex.
If they have been irresponsibly having unprotected sex then they only
have themselves to blame for taking those risks.
People are going to do what they choose to do regardless of tests or
mandates.
I would really like to see the CDC reconsider this effort, and spend
their funding promoting protection and safer sexual methods. I think
these options have a better chance of lowering the rate that HIV is
spreading.
Thank you for letting me voice my opinion and experience with this
issue.
-A concerned citizen
Competing interests:
False Hope that these measures will actually help
Competing interests: No competing interests
The latest recommendations by CDC to have routine HIV testing are a
welcome advancement. Improved detection thereof will be beneficial in
those at high risk and particularly for vulnerable groups such as the
infants of undiagnosed HIV positive mothers. This may improve the uptake
of this test among other groups and remove the barriers among the
healthcare professionals who traditionally are conservative in offering
this service. More importantly this step may eventually lead to conceptual
and behavioural change in society’s thinking towards HIV infection in
general.
However, we do believe that there should be a cautionary statement
with this and we shouldn’t go overboard in blindly following the
recommendation. The concerns by patient groups regarding ethics, consent
and insurance issues are valid and need to be considered. There is also
the important question of individual’s right to privacy. There is still a
stigma attached to this disease in wider society particularly among
certain cultural groups.
Perhaps, the most important reason for the caution is lack of any
evidence demonstrating the success of this approach in comparable
societies. One might argue that similar approach has been successful in
countries in Africa however we should not forget that benefits of any
population screening are dependent on prevalence of the disease in the
community. Surely, the prevalence in high risk population in countries in
Africa are different than that in UK. I suggest a thorough debate before
following the US example.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Most UK doctors who were around in 1980-90 will, like myself, welcome this report from New York. (1)
It now seems likely that the United States, which twenty years ago first invented the folly of "HIV exceptionalism", and then successfully exported its madness to the rest of the world, will also be the first country to regain sanity by returning to follow the basic scientific and time-tested principles of effective communicable disease control, from which HIV management was excepted in the 1980s.
It is a great tragedy that it has taken so long for logical thinking to prevail. Discontent, disillusionment and resentment among all grades of doctors has been world-wide and all-pervading. To document, or even simply reference, twenty years of world-wide protest against HIV exceptionalism would fill a book. The fact is that heavyweight medical opinion expressed by prominent clinicians, specialist colleges, and ordinary doctors has for too long been ignored by the profession's leaders.
The US Centers (sic) for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is to congratulated on its recommendations.
Hopefully the UK government, the General Medical Council, and the British Medical Association's Council will be taking note!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Routine AIDS testing - A personal choice or responsibility or liability
I read with interest and hope that routine HIV testing is going to
bring about major changes in the health practices especially where HIV
testing is made a taboo and needs special counselling, etc. I often ask
the question when we as doctors and other health professionals have to go
through thorough health check ups before we are even let anywhere near
patients for obvious reasons why does it become a taboo to test patients
on routine admissions for any surgical procedures thereby protecting all
those who are invoolved in his care.Ofcourse there is still a chance of
False negatives here and a sense of false security but we are still aimimg
to get a fair number of those percent of the population unaware of the
existence of the disease for their own benefit and that of the people
involved in their care.So is it right to say it is their own choice and
responsibility for diagnosis and treatment like how we do for most other
treatments or is there an urgent sense of duty to protect the innocent and
unaware when there is still any chance left as this is not mere
hypertension( high blood pressure) or diabetes which is not contagious but
we are talking of potentially life threatening or debilitating diseases !
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests