COMMENTS:
it is a good start. but, given that there have been so many breakdowns in patient privacy lately, one wonders how secure the information would be. eckard drugs is in big trouble because they inadvertently released several hundred thousand confidential subscriber files.
you have to keep in mind that the feds have also changed the rules and hiv testing can no longer be anonymous -- currently, it is all coded and no specific names are associated with the tests, ever. but, the bush administration has now informed all states that in order to continue to receive certain funding, they must now always use a patient's full name when testing. they leave that out of the story you reference above, don't they?
so now, if they test someone and that person has hiv, their name will be permanently attached to it -- imagine if some lab, hospital or insurance carrier mistakenly let that information out?
i agree with making the test part of the routine check-up, but not the name component too.
the good thing is that for now, even with the new proposal, it is sitll optional.
There are so many people that have HIV that are passing it around and not even knowing it. Make it mandatory to have this test done (I believe high risk caterogories like intervenous drug users or ppl that have numerous sex partners will be the only ones to get tested yearly).
There are people out there that have HIV and spread it on purpose... there are people who are in monogomous (so they think) relationships that are contracting it from their cheating spouse... Why not make it a routine medical practice?
^ right. and god forbid someone got it and somehow that information gets out, since your name is attached to it now, see if that person can get a job, as an example.
the only contention i have is moving away from the coded system.
^ True, there are many that would let an employee go if it imposed a health risk (medical, food workers, ect). It would be in the best interest of the individual to respect privacy and keep the coded system.
As for privacy issues, my stand is that if you ahve nothing to hide...
As for medical costs, you're talking about an industry that will charge you eight bucks for a couple of Tylenol...
^ nothing to hide? thats not the issue here. medical information should be private. this is not at all about nothing to hide -- kind of shocked you would have that attitude? you must know that a company, if in possession of such information, could in fact not hire someone and use another excuse as to why. it could also prevent someone from getting medical coverage in some case. if it were you, would you want people to know your private medical issues? no, i doubt you would.
This idea seems to be good when you first think about it but it seems like it lets the government start invading our lives and our bodys. What we really need I think is a home kit for testing ourselves and others in a very short period of time like 5 minutes. This would work better than having a government doctor make you take a test.
allow me to present it in more detail truthseeker. here's the scenario --
you're a 25 year old male, recently married. you are looking to buy a house with your new bride. you have to have surgery. during the surgery, they need to give you a blood transfusion. you get hiv. your doctor says he needs to test you for hiv. he does. now, the way it works, the test goes to the lab and the only person who knows the code is your dr.
the way the bush administration is making it (forcing it) is now you go for that test and the doctor sends the test to a lab in your local area and attached to that test is your full name. now imagine at that lab, in your local area, someone sees your name and either knows you, or knows someone who knows you. he tells someone "hey, bill jones is hiv+" word spreads and lots of people now know. guess what -- they are all whispering that you are either an iv drug user, or you're gay. think of your poor wife 
so now people know and no matter how many times you tell people it was from a blood transfusion, secretly, people believe that you got what you deserved because you had sex with men. they're wrong of course, but too bad for you, because that is what they will believe.
then, you go to get a mortgage. now who will give you a mortgage if you have a long-term, pretty much fatal and transmittable disease? your job finds out and your boss is a homophobe and he, no matter what you tell him, believes you must be gay. you start having a hard time at work. people avoid you. now imagine that the records the lab keeps are put on the net by a disgruntled employee at the lab. the way the bush administration wants it, if you are diagnosed with it, your name goes right into a database (where as now, its a code, so only your dr. and you have to know that the code is really you). once in that database, what could happen? try to imagine the worst, because the way things are going, thats what will happen.
you have to keep in mind with hiv, there are people in this country and all over the world that truly think it is a gay disease.
they forget that straight men and women can get it too. there are some that say its a punishment from god against gays. really? so why do heterosexuals get it? why can an unborn fetus get it? some gay punishment.
the point is, data, in the wrong hands, intentionally or unintentionally can be a very dangerous thing.
I think privacy is a reasonable concern, but I don't think it should put an end to the whole project.
If you're worried about the info getting out demand strict regulations and punishments, perhaps some new way of giving out the diagnosis that makes it harder for accidental leaks. But if we were to put privacy over public health then wouldn't we ban screening for all diseases/conditions? You don't want your insurance companies to know you ahve cancer, you don't want your friends to possibly find out your cholesterol, you don't want you girlfriend to find out you have herpes, etc etc etc. We could concievably wipe out all medical tests on the grounds of privacy.
^ no, thats not the issue here. this is totally different. the stigma attached to it ruins people lives faster than the disease.
i support the testing. i just think the coding system needs to stay in place and i see no benefit at all of reporting the names to the feds. none.
Ok, like I said, I have no problem with working on the privacy issue. I just think a lot of lives could be saved by simply knowing.
|
