peterson@vaxwrk.DEC (John Smallberries) (03/14/86)
I am interested in asking a related question to whether or not to be tested. Should someone who tests positive tell a potential sex partner? Or are safe sex guidelines sufficient that such disclosure isn't necessary? People who argue that testing is superfluous would, I think, also believe disclosure to a potential/current sex partner is unnecessary. I don't know what my answer is to any of the questions so far. I do know that I was very upset to hear retroactively a repeated partner had Hepatitus-B, and we hadn't heard much of safe-sex at the time. This question is important to me since I have the oppotunity to participate in some AIDS data gathering experiments at an area clinic. They are very confidential. It is also important since a friend recently told me he tests positive and is choosing to err on the side of candor with partners. \bob /\
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu.UUCP (03/18/86)
I think a person has the obligation to tell somebody else if he has AIDS if he is planning to be sexual with him. I am in a monogomous relationship, so neither of us has been tested since it wouldn't change things one way or the other (except to add anxiety into our lives should one or both of us test positive). But if I were single, or (God forbid) to break up with my s'other, I would get tested before I carried on sexual relations with another person. It's a painful thing, but I believe it's a responsibility. It is also our responsibility, by the way, for those of us who have not been struck by AIDS to stand by those who have, and to urge funding for AIDS research rather than aiding the contra terrorists in Nicaragua, for instance. -- Chris.
rob@ptsfb.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (03/19/86)
In article <237@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu.UUCP writes: >I think a person has the obligation to tell somebody else if he has AIDS >if he is planning to be sexual with him. I am in a monogomous relationship, The originally posted question was whether you have ought to tell a sexual partner if you had a positive HTLV-III test. A positive antibody test does *not* mean you have AIDS. >of us test positive). But if I were single, or (God forbid) to break up >with my s'other, I would get tested before I carried on sexual relations >with another person. It's a painful thing, but I believe it's a responsibility. To whom? What would be the benefit? If you tested negative, you *still* should practice safe sex, for your partner's sake (since some people who shed the virus test negative on the antibody test) and for your own (since your partner may infect you). If you tested negative and you had other-that-safe-sex, the test results would no longer be valid. As far as our current knowledge of the significance of the test, I can see only one reason for being tested, that being reassurance that one has not been exposed to AIDS. Rob Bernardo, San Ramon, CA (415) 823-2417 {ihnp4|dual|qantel}!ptsfa!rob
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (03/19/86)
Unless one is rich, or very ill with AIDS or ARC-like symptoms, I don't think anyone should get the HTLV-III bloodtest (& certainly not the more accurate battery of tests!): the federal gov't is already urging the test's wide use, despite all the previous debate, and calls for quarantine still regularly occur. It's obvious the potential for abuse remains great. Even people (straight as well as gay?) in "monogamous relationships" should be following "safe sex guidelines." There is no way of guaranteeing one's s'other is faithful: death is too high a price to pay for blind trust. Sorry for being blunt. Regards, Ron Rizzo
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) (03/21/86)
>Even people (straight as well as gay?) in "monogamous relationships" should >be following "safe sex guidelines." There is no way of guaranteeing one's >s'other is faithful: death is too high a price to pay for blind trust. >Sorry for being blunt. > > Regards, > Ron Rizzo This may be true to some, but it does not bother me. I do not enter into relationships blindly. If I have any doubt about the trustworthyness of somebody, I will not (I guess I should say would not, since I'm taken) even date them. I do not make friends with those I cannot trust. Trust is an essential part of friendship, and an even greater part of an "intimate relationship". We generally don't tend towards "unsafe sex" anyway, but that is not the point. The point is that I can trust my s'other with my life. If I couldn't, he would not be my s'other. If one could guarantee one's s'other is faithful, he (s'other) would not be, in a sense, faithful. Faithfulness comes through volition. A technique which would guarantee the he would not go out on me would make him do so with or without his volition. I do not look forward to death, but I have come to terms with it. It will happen to everybody at some time or another. It's part of life. The important thing I think is that we repect other people's lives. That is why, in my opinion, people should practise "safe sex" if they are to have encounters outside of a monogomous relationship. It is not really for my safety that I would worry about transmitting AIDS, but because I wouldn't want to give it to any other person. For that reason, I would submit to the test. By the way, I'm not trying to seem like a saint; I probably could not handle the guilt of making somebody so ill, essentially killing them. Also, I would not relish the of dying from AIDS (I would prefer old age, and in my sleep), but that is not the point. I would rather not know if I was going to die; that would tend to ruin my day. But I do have an obligation to find this out if there is a chance I will infect another person. My s'other and I have been together long enough that if one of us has it, then probably we both do. But since we will not be affecting anybody else, I do not see it necessary to be tested. Thus, my opinion.
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) (03/21/86)
>In article <237@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu.UUCP writes: >>I think a person has the obligation to tell somebody else if he has AIDS >>if he is planning to be sexual with him. I am in a monogomous relationship, > >The originally posted question was whether you have ought to tell a sexual >partner if you had a positive HTLV-III test. A positive antibody test does >*not* mean you have AIDS. The intention had to do with whether or not one should be tested to determine whether one could transmit the virus which causes AIDS. If it was not believed that HTLV-III causes AIDS (or someother such problem), then the question would undoubtedly not been ask. Therefore, though I will admit I was verbatim, I caught the underlying meaning of the question and therefore I think this point is irrelevant. >>of us test positive). But if I were single, or (God forbid) to break up >>with my s'other, I would get tested before I carried on sexual relations >>with another person. It's a painful thing, but I believe it's a responsibility. >To whom? What would be the benefit? If you tested negative, you *still* should >practice safe sex, for your partner's sake (since some people who shed the >virus test negative on the antibody test) and for your own (since >your partner may infect you). If you tested negative and you had >other-that-safe-sex, the test results would no longer be valid. Obligation to others. If I was infected, I would not practise sex. Period. Others might choose safe sex, though. I think there is no guarantee of anything being safe. Positive results definitely suggest the capability to infect others, negative result are more questionable, especially several tests over a period of time with all neg. results. I covered the rest of the points in another post. >As far as our current knowledge of the significance of the test, I can >see only one reason for being tested, that being reassurance that one >has not been exposed to AIDS. This seems to be to contradict sentence 3, the section in the first set of parentheses. I may not understand, though. Please clarify. It seems to me that if a neg. result says the subject has not been exposed to AIDS (I assume the virus here since AIDS is a syndrome, not something a person can be exposed to (I think)), then s/he could not have had the virus to shed in the first place. And what do you mean "shed". As I understood it, there is no way currently to get rid of the damn thing.