rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (09/09/85)
AIDS Politics
=============
[ from 9/8/85 Boston Globe, p 22, "Congress moving on AIDS issue" by Steven
Waldman, States News Service. Quoted without permission. ]
The avalanche of media coverage of AIDS precipitated by Rock Hudson's
case has apparently stirred Washington to action, but different branches
of gov't are reacting quite differently.
Congress is being constructive: the House Appropriations human services
subcommittee "voted to double to $140 million" funding for research at
NIH "and provide an additional $27 million for public education on AIDS
in 1986." Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the House Energy & Commerce
health & environment subcommittee, "will introduce legislation that would
prevent anyone from obtaining the records of those" whose blood tests for
HTLV-III are positive. But Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY), chair of the subcommittee
that oversees the Dept. of Health & Human Services, says concern about the
budget deficit will prevent "any large federal commitment to treatment."
And the executive branch & a local judiciary contemplate repression:
Health & Human Services "will...recommend that labs inform blood donors
who show possible signs of AIDS that their names may be released to
outsiders." The Florida Supreme Court is "considering a suit that could
open up the [blood donor] records to public inspection."
This represents a drastic broadening & worsening of the situation. Only
weeks ago the American Red Cross retreated from its historic commitment
to donor confidentiality by allowing its local chapters to decide whether
they'd conform to a military demand to hand over HTLV-III bloodtest results
for all military personnel.
Finally, "the American Council of Life Insurers Board of Directors,
meeting this week in California, is likely to recommend that firms use
the HTLV test to assess the risk of an applicant..."
It now looks like AIDS policy will be determined by politics, not medical
or legal guidelines. It's time to write & lobby our representatives and
maybe contribute to political action, to prevent gross public & private
violations of rudimentary civil rights & liberties and professional ethics.
FOSTER CARE
===========
For New Englanders, yesterday's Boston Globe Magazine contained a long
article by free-lancer Anita Diamant, "In the best interest of the child-
ren." It was a detailed account of the Babets-Jean case (the gay foster
parents in question) which included interviews.
The Massachusetts ACLU and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders are "pre-
paring a legal challenge" that "will focus on two issues: equal protection
for homosexuals...and the state's interpretation of the `best interest of
the child.'"
Meanwhile the New Hampshire legislature continues to prepare a law that
would explicitly ban "known homosexuals" from foster care, guardianship,
or adoption. The Massachusetts policy/proposed bill only gives priority
to "traditional families."
The Boston gay newspaper Bay Windows published an odd letter from Gov.
Michael Dukakis a while ago: the Duke was very solicitous, pledging
support for the state gay rights bill (a first for him), regretting
the treatment of Babets & Jean and opposing homophobia. He ended by
reiterating his support of the foster care policy change (which puts
gays at the bottom of the foster parent preference list)! An amazing
performance. My guess is his stonewall (a la Nixon, not the riot)
attitude toward gay outrage ("How many gay voters are there, anyway?"
he'd been reported as saying) has crumbled somewhat, not least due to
the zaps staged every time he appears in public (they continue, but
I have no news; does anyone else?).
Regards,
Ron Rizzorcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (09/10/85)
In article <1551@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >AIDS Politics >============= >And the executive branch & a local judiciary contemplate repression: >Health & Human Services "will...recommend that labs inform blood donors >who show possible signs of AIDS that their names may be released to >outsiders." The Florida Supreme Court is "considering a suit that could >open up the [blood donor] records to public inspection." > It seems to me that the methods of AIDS transmission, while not 100% certain, are quite well enough known that this should be unnecessary. Hopefully more info to People_What_Be_In_Charge will help this situation. > >This represents a drastic broadening & worsening of the situation. Only >weeks ago the American Red Cross retreated from its historic commitment >to donor confidentiality by allowing its local chapters to decide whether >they'd conform to a military demand to hand over HTLV-III bloodtest results >for all military personnel. > Ridiculous! If the military wants to test all their people; that's fine. If the military wants to give all HTLV-III positives an honorary medical discharge (I'm talking major paranoia here), then that is fine, too; but they should NOT be able to \demand/ anything from Red Cross. >Finally, "the American Council of Life Insurers Board of Directors, >meeting this week in California, is likely to recommend that firms use >the HTLV test to assess the risk of an applicant..." > This one I totally agree with -- what's the difference between this and people with high bloodpressure, diabetes tendencies, etc.? It is the insurance companies' right to assign risk based on present and/or highly-possible disease. >It now looks like AIDS policy will be determined by politics, not medical >or legal guidelines. It's time to write & lobby our representatives and >maybe contribute to political action, to prevent gross public & private >violations of rudimentary civil rights & liberties and professional ethics. > AIDS policy will be determined by accurate and widespread info from believable sources (i.e., by quelling paranoia with facts from people that are respected; major newscasters, for example). Until we get that info and get it widely disseminated, AIDS policy will be determined by paranoia and misinformation. I cringed when I saw the very informative article in TIME magazine, information content looked quite good, but there on the first page was a BIG picture of the guy whose wife and child had caught AIDS from him. I know TIME, Inc. is on the net -- if anyone sees the author(s) of that article please tell them I think they should be shot for such yellow journalism. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (09/12/85)
<followup to Curtis Johnson> What's wrong with insurance companies using HTLV-III bloodtests to assess applicant risk for life insurance? The danger is that test results will be used to deny coverage, & not just raise premiums: Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY), chair of the subcommittee that oversees Health & Human Services, expressed this fear, but my posting did not mention it. If results were used to deny coverage or put an astronomical price on premiums, most gay men in many urban areas would be effectively denied life insurance. Rates of positive test results among gay men have been as high as 70-80% according to surveys in a number of large US cities. There have already been recorded instances of people denied medical insurance coverage (& life insurance, too, I think) merely because it became known they tested positive. Even the military case isn't uncontroversial: despite catch-22, the military can't simply do anything it wants, at least not without serious challenge. If the military has a justification for HTLV-III testing, it would be specific, such as avoiding contact with blood & blood contacts plentifully available in combat or even in some forms of training. But it wouldn't extend to noncombat personnel or civilian employees. Regards, Ron Rizzo
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (09/12/85)
In article <1554@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: ><followup to Curtis Johnson> [<<<<<<<======THAT'S JACKSON!!] > >What's wrong with insurance companies using HTLV-III bloodtests >to assess applicant risk for life insurance? The danger is that >test results will be used to deny coverage, & not just raise >premiums: Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY), chair of the subcommittee that >oversees Health & Human Services, expressed this fear, but my >posting did not mention it. > >If results were used to deny coverage or put an astronomical price >on premiums, most gay men in many urban areas would be effectively >denied life insurance. Rates of positive test results among gay men >have been as high as 70-80% according to surveys in a number of large >US cities. > I still don't see any problem as long as the rate increases are well- correlated with the chances of contracting AIDS if one tests positive and with the chances of death resulting from contracting AIDS. >Even the military case isn't uncontroversial: despite catch-22, the >military can't simply do anything it wants, at least not without >serious challenge. If the military has a justification for HTLV-III >testing, it would be specific, such as avoiding contact with blood >& blood contacts plentifully available in combat or even in some >forms of training. But it wouldn't extend to noncombat personnel >or civilian employees. > Or that they admittedly don't know enough about AIDS transmission yet to risk the human and legal dangers of forcing non-HTLV-III-positive persons to share barracks and combat training and common wash areas and etc. etc. with persons who have tested positive. I know this is REALLY stretching things to make an analogy, but imagine you are told that you must continue to stay in a barracks where there is a very mild flea problem but you know that some of the fleas have been shown to carry bubonic plague... My original point stands -- smokers pay more insurance than non-smokers, people in certain [often NECESSARY] high-risk jobs pay much more insurance. If I was an insurance company (I HATE insurance companies, BTW; just trying to be unbiased here), I would view a male positive-HTLV-III homosexual with just as jaundiced (from an insurability standpoint) an eye as I would a professional highwire performer. The highwire performer will probably not use a net and the gay guy will probably not refrain from anal sex. All it means to me is that I'm going to pay through the nose when they croak. I think that the real horror of AIDS is that even when a cure/serum is developed it will take 2 or 3 years to hit the market due to the FDA red tape -- I think it is highly criminal that a patient, particularly a terminal patient, often cannot get a doctor to use them as a guinea pig for a new drug or technique. I for one would be VERY upset if I knew that I had a chance to raise my probability of living from 0 to .3 but couldn't get anyone to help me do so due to legal restraints. BTW, I suppose I should have said 'admitted homosexual' above; have you noticed how even the 'responsible' press ALWAYS uses that adjective 'admitted'? No wonder it took so long to get funding for AIDS... -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (09/12/85)
>It now looks like AIDS policy will be determined by politics, not medical >or legal guidelines. I think that such policy is inherently political. My neighbor has been running a research program related to AIDS for a couple years and has been constantly having to fight political problems. Research funding in all areas cannot be separated from politics can it?
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (09/13/85)
In article <865@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: >In article <1554@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >><followup to Curtis Johnson> [<<<<<<<======THAT'S JACKSON!!] >> >>What's wrong with insurance companies using HTLV-III bloodtests >>to assess applicant risk for life insurance? The danger is that >>test results will be used to deny coverage, & not just raise >>premiums: Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY), chair of the subcommittee that >>oversees Health & Human Services, expressed this fear, but my >>posting did not mention it. >> >>If results were used to deny coverage or put an astronomical price >>on premiums, most gay men in many urban areas would be effectively >>denied life insurance. Rates of positive test results among gay men >>have been as high as 70-80% according to surveys in a number of large >>US cities. >> >I still don't see any problem as long as the rate increases are well- >correlated with the chances of contracting AIDS if one tests positive >and with the chances of death resulting from contracting AIDS. > NY Native, 9 Sept. 85 - Nationwide Insurance seeks to deny policies to gays "Columbus, Ohio - The Trenton times reported Aug 16 that the Columbus based Nationwide Insurance Company has begun screening male applicants in states with high incidence of ADIS to determine if they are gay. Lou Fabro, director of public relations for the $3.5 billion company, told the Times, 'If an applicant is a potential homosexual, the underwriters have ways of finding out. We can deny coverage. We wouldn't tell them why, we would just say they didn't qualify.' "Fabro later retracted the statement, telling the Associated Press it was 'taken out of context.' He added, 'Nationwide does not deny coverage to homosexuals. We couldn't do that. But if we are suspicious that a person is promiscuous ,since only promiscuous people get AIDS. The Times reported that Nationwide checks for evidence of homosexuality by interviewing neighbors, checking for male roommates, checking for male beneficiaries on other policies, and by running credit checks." -- Rob Bernardo, San Ramon, CA (415) 823-2417 {ihnp4|dual|qantel}!ptsfa!rob