|
CDC wants HIV testing for everyone
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | CDC wants HIV tests for everyone
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Testing for the AIDS virus could become part of routine physical exams for adults and teens if doctors follow new U.S. guidelines expected to be issued by this summer.
Federal health officials say they would like HIV testing to be as common as a cholesterol check.
The guidelines for routine testing would apply to every American ages 13 to 64, according to the proposed plan by the U.S. Centers for Disease control and Prevention.
One-quarter of the 1 million Americans with the AIDS virus don't know they are infected, and that group is most responsible for HIV's spread, CDC officials said.
"We need to expand access to HIV testing dramatically by making it a routine part of medical care," said the agency's Dr. Kevin Fenton.
CDC officials presented the plans at a scientific conference in February. Last week, they said the guidelines should be released in June or July.
The recommendations are not legally binding, but they influence what doctors do and what health insurance programs cover.
Currently, the CDC recommends routine testing for those at high-risk for catching the virus, such as IV drug users and gay men, and for hospitals and certain other institutions serving areas where HIV is common. It also recommends testing for all pregnant women.
Under the new guidelines, patients would be tested for HIV as part of a standard battery of tests they receive when they go for urgent or emergency care, or even during a routine physical.
Patients would not get tested every year: Repeated, annual testing would only be recommended for those at high-risk.
There would be no consent form specifically for the HIV test; it would be covered in a clinic or hospital's standard care consent form. Patients would be allowed to decline the testing.
Standardizing HIV testing should reduce the stigma as well as transmission, CDC officials said. Nearly half of new HIV infections are discovered when doctors are trying to diagnose an illness in a patient who has come for care, they noted.
The American Medical Association supports the proposed recommendations, said Dr. Nancy Nielsen, a Buffalo, New York-based physician who is speaker of the AMA's House of Delegates.
Some doctor's offices will face challenges implementing the recommendations, she added. For example, they should not give a positive HIV test result over the phone and would have to provide or arrange for counseling.
But the benefits of reducing the spread of HIV far outweigh the logistical challenges, said Nielsen, an infectious disease specialist.
"I'm so happy the CDC is recommending this," she said. "HIV is an infectious disease and it should be treated like any other infectious disease. The fact that it has been treated so differently, I think, in some ways has contributed to the stigma."
Some patients' advocates have voiced concern that the recommendations do not include pre-test counseling and sufficient informed consent.
At many HIV testing sites, patients sit through a counseling session to explain the procedure before any blood is drawn. Many centers also require a patient to give "informed consent," indicating they understand the risks and benefits of the test.
The proposed recommendations do not require pre-test counseling in medical settings. They call for post-test counseling to be offered only to patients who test positive.
Pre-test counseling and informed consent ensure that patients are warned of possible mistakes in test results, said Catherine Christeller, executive director of the Chicago Women's AIDS Project.
They also can explain the implications of HIV testing, she added. For example, undocumented workers who test positive for the AIDS virus may be deported and need to understand that, Christeller said.
CDC officials say they understand advocates' concerns and are optimistic physicians will follow the recommendations carefully.
"Doctors should be explicit that 'You're going to be tested,"' said Dr. Tim Mastro, acting director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention.
|
Source
So what do you guys think? I can easily see the need for it, but I think that the issues addressed near the bottom regarding pre-test counseling, etc. are pretty well-founded. To learn that you have HIV is probably one of the worst things that I can imagine hearing from a doctor. I'd rather hear I have most types of cancer over hearing I have HIV, because at least there's many types that can be controlled/removed. I remember the first time that I went to be tested, I was pretty concerned/nervous, even though I'd been practicing safe sex and didn't have a huge number of partners. Maybe it becoming more routine may alleviate that concern, though, because usually, it's the sole reason for the visit now. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| I think it's a good idea. Everyone who has AIDs finds out eventually anyway, and I'm sure that most everyone would like to know they have it before they spread it to their lovers |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
AIDS is actually extremely hard to contract in the first place. Nobody really talks about this, because there's a mass hysteria in our culture, but even if you have unprotected sex with an infected person, your chances of getting it are still like 1 in a million.
This has been documented by many researchers and doctors - I'll try to post a table when I find it.
Note that AIDS is even more difficult to contract from a female. It is transmitted from males, either to a female or another male. The chances of a male getting AIDS from a female are actually like 1 in a trillion or something.
In general, you'd have to bleed pretty hard AND have lots of bodily fluids like semen AND be pretty unlucky, to contract AIDS. But most people prefer to spread panic... |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
AIDS is actually extremely hard to contract in the first place. Nobody really talks about this, because there's a mass hysteria in our culture, but even if you have unprotected sex with an infected person, your chances of getting it are still like 1 in a million. |
That's a fair bit of an exaggeration, but it is definitely true that HIV transmission is far from a sure bet - it's more like a one in one thousand chance, although various factors can increase the probability of transmission significantly.
Now, as far as this testing goes... I'm not a fan of the shotgun approach. It reeks of the sort of pathetic desperation that has begun to characterize modern medicine where "guess and check" seems to be the most prevalent modus operandi. |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| I have no problem with this. I don't know why they haven't thought of this sooner, like in the 80's. But if it was in the 80's they would have only tested homosexuals. :o |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
I see this as an excellent idea because it will cut down tremendously on the amount of people infected with HIV to a point where it will be rare for a person to have that virus like they did with polio, rubella, and other illnesses.
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
...Note that AIDS is even more difficult to contract from a female. It is transmitted from males, either to a female or another male. The chances of a male getting AIDS from a female are actually like 1 in a trillion or something... |
This description reminds me of President Bush's explanation of the bird flu virus: "It goes from bird to bird, bird to person, person to person, is when the virus actually becomes a threat" |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
AIDS is actually extremely hard to contract in the first place. Nobody really talks about this, because there's a mass hysteria in our culture, but even if you have unprotected sex with an infected person, your chances of getting it are still like 1 in a million.
This has been documented by many researchers and doctors - I'll try to post a table when I find it.
Note that AIDS is even more difficult to contract from a female. It is transmitted from males, either to a female or another male. The chances of a male getting AIDS from a female are actually like 1 in a trillion or something.
In general, you'd have to bleed pretty hard AND have lots of bodily fluids like semen AND be pretty unlucky, to contract AIDS. But most people prefer to spread panic... |
Good post
Agreed,,,,i have read SOOOOO many times. But it is not widely known because, i assume, people think it would cause people to have sex like rabbits. But you are right...it takes repeated exposure to the virus to contract, though there is still a chance to contract it at first exposure...but not as high as claimed. Just like the flu...just cause u kiss someone with the flu doesnt mean u will get it but if u keep kissing them ur chances are greater. |
|
|
| josh4 |
I like the idea of testing, I don't see why not.
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
AIDS is actually extremely hard to contract in the first place. Nobody really talks about this, because there's a mass hysteria in our culture, but even if you have unprotected sex with an infected person, your chances of getting it are still like 1 in a million.
|
Please don't make such claims in PDD without having sources FIRST. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
I like the idea of testing, I don't see why not.
Please don't make such claims in PDD without having sources FIRST. |
any google search will provide the proof. |
|
|
| WM2 |
That proof says that those that have sex with a partner that has HIV/AIDS is putting themselves at risk of contracting it themself. It is true that it's not entirely as simple as get your willy wet and you're dead, but saying it's very unlikely is also false. Trasmission from a female to a male is more difficult, but still not impossible. I've read it has to do with the skin of the penis not being thin enough to allow the transmition of the virus on contact(I can't find the article, but I'll post it when I find it), but like Arbiter said there are certain circumstances that would increase your chances such as performing vaginal intercourse with little lubricant with a female that is infected. The friction sans lubricant can actually create small tears on the vaginal walls and penis that can allow for the transmission with much greater ease.
This is one of the reasons why homosexual males are at much higher risk of transmitting or receiving the virus. The anus is not able to stand up to the kind of friction involved during intercourse even with lubricant. Thus tearing is much more common making the chances of contraction higher. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
any google search will provide the proof. |
We're not doing your research for you or taking your word for it. Don't make controversial claims and say 'its true, look it up.' This isn't the Bush administration its PDD. You google your own "facts" and give us the results, or they will not be considered facts.
As it stands, I call BS on the presented odds of contracting HIV through sex with an infected person. I have a hard time believing it is that difficult to catch it through unprotected sex. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
We're not doing your research for you or taking your word for it.
Don't make controversial claims and say 'its true, look it up.' This isn't the Bush administration its PDD. You google your own "facts" and give us the results, or they will not be considered facts.
As it stands, I call BS on the presented odds of contracting HIV through sex with an infected person. I have a hard time believing it is that difficult to catch it through unprotected sex. |
here...sift through anyone of these questions posted on the largest and most credible HIV and AIDS resource page on the internet and you will see the truth.
http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/...xual/index.html
here is an answer to one persons question regarding why she didnt get infected by her HIV positive partner.
"the answer is that HIV is not all that easy to acquire (thankfully!). The vast majority of exposures do not lead to viral transmission. The estimated per-act risk for acquiring HIV from unprotected receptive penile-vaginal intercourse with a partner confirmed to be HIV positive is 10 per 10,000 exposures. Given those statistics, you can probably see that with some degree of luck you could very well have been exposed multiple times during the four years of "hot and heavy" and not contracted the virus. The take-home message is that stories like yours are not at all uncommon. Does this mean you can have unprotected sex and not worry about becoming HIV infected? No, it certainly does not. Each and every time you had/have unprotected sex with your HIV+ husband, the risk remained/remains the same. Some folks are as unlucky to get HIV with only a single exposure; others, like you, have had multiple exposures, but luckily managed to stay HIV negative so far." |
|
|
|
|
