[sadgpokx]

I can't comment on the article itself b/c the link requires that you login or pay to read the rest of the story. BUT I think it's a good idea for everyone to be tested, but I don't know about actually requiring it. I mean, I've given blood several times and you're automatically tested then...so I know I'm good. When I was in college they used to do blood drives and advertise them as "free HIV test." Hey, it worked...gets the blood donations in and tests for disease at the same time...kill 2 birds w/ one stone.

[TimEricsson]

The female probably has to get tested because shes the one thats going to give the infection to an offspring if she gets pregnant. Another reason could be sexism at its finest?

[Eugen80]

invasion of privacy. i would sue if they made me get tested. I'm negative, and i'm positive.

[Zwnkkvle]

Let's throw another wrench in...how about health care workers??? As an EMT I had to get tested for TB and vaccinated for Hep-B. Now, why Hep B and not HIV??? Because of the stigma of being HIV positive??? Me, personally, if you're gonna be working on me in the event of a trauma situation and there's a slight possibility that our blood might be mixing, I'd want to be confident that you're free from any communicable diseases.

[Mehntswx]

Let's throw another wrench in...how about health care workers??? As an EMT I had to get tested for TB and vaccinated for Hep-B. Now, why Hep B and not HIV??? Because of the stigma of being HIV positive??? Me, personally, if you're gonna be working on me in the event of a trauma situation and there's a slight possibility that our blood might be mixing, I'd want to be confident that you're free from any communicable diseases.

Very solid point there Tasha

[Ankeseiband]

Let's throw another wrench in...how about health care workers??? As an EMT I had to get tested for TB and vaccinated for Hep-B. Now, why Hep B and not HIV??? Because of the stigma of being HIV positive??? Me, personally, if you're gonna be working on me in the event of a trauma situation and there's a slight possibility that our blood might be mixing, I'd want to be confident that you're free from any communicable diseases.

my son is an emt. he hated it but keeps it current as he is hoping to latch on the job as a permanent fireman rather than just on the volunteer force.

I did not know he had to take a blood test but it makes sense. and your point is valid also. too bad their is not a quick and easy field test to check for hiv so you guys would not be at risk.

[luspikals]

my son is an emt. he hated it but keeps it current as he is hoping to latch on the job as a permanent fireman rather than just on the volunteer force.

I did not know he had to take a blood test but it makes sense. and your point is valid also. too bad their is not a quick and easy field test to check for hiv so you guys would not be at risk.

It could be different for where he's ceritified, I'm not sure...but I think it's pretty common. You can refuse the Hep-B vaccination, but you can't refuse to be tested for TB, if I remember correctly.

What's even worse is that it's not supposed to be put over the air that a patient has a communicable disease. IF the patient volunteers that information then we can be told to "use universal precautions" but that's it. The good thing, though, is that if someone is upfront enough to tell 911 "hey, I've got _________________" they're usually gonna be just as upfront w/ the medics and first responders.

[Equackasous]

The female probably has to get tested because shes the one thats going to give the infection to an offspring if she gets pregnant. Another reason could be sexism at its finest?

lol, yeah because even if the female does give the infection to offspring, shouldn't they still want to test the male who gave her (and who knows who else) the infection in the first place?

[duawLauff]

lol, yeah because even if the female does give the infection to offspring, shouldn't they still want to test the male who gave her (and who knows who else) the infection in the first place?

Good point!!! How about this...let's test the woman who's HIV negative but not the guy she's marrying. Now, let's say the guy turns out to be HIV positive and, for argumentative purposes, the relationship has not been consummated. Now, they get married and she's HIV negative (b/c hey, she got tested) and he infects her. Now she's pregnant and gives birth to an infected child...kinda defeats the purpose, huh???

[Falik]

^^^There you go!

[UFJon]

But what difference does it make to get tested at marriage? She could have been HIV negative at the wedding yet be positive when she gets pregnant. As part of the prenatal care, they test for any diseases that could harm the baby.

I would be against HIV testing for everyone unless the information could be kept confidential. Just imagine what the insurance companies could do with that info, or even potential employers. I think the information would do more harm than good.

[Gozmand]

But what difference does it make to get tested at marriage? She could have been HIV negative at the wedding yet be positive when she gets pregnant. As part of the prenatal care, they test for any diseases that could harm the baby.

I would be against HIV testing for everyone unless the information could be kept confidential. Just imagine what the insurance companies could do with that info, or even potential employers. I think the information would do more harm than good.

sounds exactly like a good reason for the govt to do it.

cradle to grave baby

[Metrujectiktus]

this is good in theory........but what about the invisible illegal immigrants?

I agree

[fujitsusi]

Women 'may face greater HIV risk'


Women having unsafe sex may be at more risk of HIV than thought after tests revealed the virus could breach even healthy vaginal tissue.
It had been believed that only damaged skin inside the vagina could provide a route to infection.
However, US-based researchers say HIV can get past this intact barrier within hours.
UK HIV charities said it reinforced the need for women to avoid unprotected sex unless their partner's health is known.
The lining of the vagina - the squamous epithelium - had been believed by many to be capable of keeping HIV at bay.
While transmission of the virus from men to women through unprotected sex is commonplace in many parts of the world, it was thought that HIV was most likely travelling through cuts or sores in the vaginal tract, or penetrating a much thinner layer of skin further up the reproductive tract.
The scientists from Northwestern University in Chicago found that, far from this being the truth, HIV could move quickly between the skin cells themselves.
This is an important and unexpected result - we have a new understanding of how HIV can invade the female vaginal tract


Professor Thomas Hope
Northwestern University

The weak point, they said, occurs when skin cells are about to be shed, as the cells are no longer as tightly bound together.
Using HIV "tagged" with a marker which gives off light, they observed that, within four hours, the virus had reached a fraction of a millimetre below the surface.
At this depth, according to the researchers, it could encounter the immune cells it needed to invade to establish itself in the body.
Professor Thomas Hope, leading the research, said: "This is an important and unexpected result - we have a new understanding of how HIV can invade the female vaginal tract."
"We urgently need new prevention strategies or therapeutics to block the entry of HIV through a woman's genital skin."
Condom call
He said that while condoms were highly effective in blocking the virus, people often rejected them for cultural and other reasons.
Lisa Power, from the Terrence Higgins Trust said: "This is sadly not surprising, though it is an important finding.
"We have long known that it is easier for a man to transmit HIV sexually to a woman than for a woman to transmit it to a man and this helps us understand why.
"This will help in developing better prevention mechanisms - but until then, it's more clear than ever that a condom is a vital part of safer sex."
The charity AVERT echoed this advice, adding: "While there is evidence given by scientists that unprotected heterosexual sex is not as risky as other routes of HIV transmission, AVERT would still advocate the need for the use of condoms in all sexual encounters unless the HIV status of those involved was known. "This study serves to strengthen that argument and will hopefully give weight to the need for safer heterosexual sex to be advocated further by governments and practitioners worldwide."

Source: BBC News