Disregard for HIV

Kenneth Miller
11/23/08
9:30PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/20/AR2008112003458.html?hpid=sec-health

Advice being given to patients in regards to HIV testing is being ignored and many said patients return to the doctors with the very symptoms they meant to avoid, as shown in new studies presented in an Arlington health conference. Only 5% of patients with serious illness evidence are being tested for the aids inducing HIV virus. in 06 Disease Control recommended routine tests, with opt out choices, yet it seems the neglect of recommendations are routed to the belief that clinics take to long and the reluctance of insurance as the cost come to about 120$. In crowded emergency rooms rates of infection run from .5 to 1. When saliva test rather than blood were presented, infection rate jumped to .8. Half the district participants from wealthy districts opt out of testing, while a third of the less wealthy districts opted out. When speeding up the testing process in emergency rooms, 83% percent agreed to accept he test. It is also suggested that early testing could discover the virus at an earlier stage and thus make treatment more effective.

This article doesn't come as exactly a surprise to me. I mean, testing for HIV isn't exactly high on the priority list of the average citizen with an average sex life. I think some of their deduction were correct as far as time and cost are concerned, however I feel they neglected to recognize the more human aspect of HIV testing that people simply don't want to know if they have a life threatening disease. This in my opinion could be a cultural issue more than a medical one. Regardless of the semi-selfish aspect, it is an understandable reason. Personally I think it should be a health care standard to provide government funded HIV tests every 2 years, thus eliminating the issue of ignorance, and further more protecting unknowing individuals who may become victims.