« Set the Bar Lower | Main | DC IDU HIV »
May 25, 2007
Innocent Until Tested?
The New York Times explains a fight over a state bill to require anyone indicted for rape to undergo an HIV test. The rationale behind the bill: If someone who is raped is at risk for exposure, he or she should know. If exposed, the victim could take a prophylactic course of ARVs, a treatment that often keeps the virus from taking hold. The current law requiring a test only on conviction of rape does not allow the victim to start the drugs fast enough. There are a couple of sides to this one:
Why not give ARVs to any rape victim, just to be safe? That would alleviate the concerns of those who point out that tests can sometimes show up falsely negative if the rapist had only recently been infected. Well, the bill's backers say, ARV treatment is quite toxic and not without side effects. Best not to put people through that unless it's necessary.
The civil-liberties types say that it sets a disturbing precedent to test someone who is merely accused of a crime, particularly if the results become public. But given the huge number of infected people who don't know their status, any excuse to test seems like a good one, especially set against the many other indignities the accused suffer regardless of whether they are ultimately convicted.
The bill touches on a broader debate about testing: Because of the stigma that remains around AIDS, even some patient advocates argue for limits on testing. And most say that testing must be accompanied by proper counseling, education and referrals. Still, no one argues against more people getting tested and knowing their HIV status.
Posted by Adam Graham-Silverman at May 25, 2007 11:25 PM