ST101921%BROWNVM.BITNET@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Jack Rozel) (06/07/91)
We seem to be wandering around a little randomly and plotlessly (kinda like a Madonna movie) with this Nitrous Oxide thing. I've gotten some E-Mail on it which I'll respond to as soon as I can do some fact-checking. In the meantime, I have an ethics question: The Kennedy guy has been ordered to undergo an HIV test at the behest of the alleged rape victim. I heard on the news that the Kennedy-guy's lawyers are asking for reciprocity (?) -- that is, that the victim undergo the same test to see if may have conracted HIV from his victim. This reminds me of the recent debate about the "just desserts" of the man who contravted the virus while gay bashing. I'm wondering what people' s sentiment on this is. By the way, I apologize for my tping. The Brown U. 2400 baud lines are down and the 1200 lines are too slow for my typing, it woru ld seem. Sincerely, Jack Rozel <st101921@BrownVM.BITNET> Students for AIDS awareness at Brown
gb661@leah.albany.edu (BROADWELL GEORGE AARON) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun6.203354.487@cs.ucla.edu> ST101921%BROWNVM.BITNET@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Jack Rozel) writes: > >In the meantime, I have an ethics question: The Kennedy guy has been ordered >to undergo an HIV test at the behest of the alleged rape victim. I heard on >the news that the Kennedy-guy's lawyers are asking for reciprocity (?) -- that >is, that the victim undergo the same test to see if may have conracted HIV from >his victim. This reminds me of the recent debate about the "just desserts" of >the man who contravted the virus while gay bashing. I'm wondering what people' >s sentiment on this is. Testing a rape suspect for HIV tells you absolutely nothing, and it is just a way of harassing a person. If the suspect tests negative for the antibody, that does not mean that he does not have the virus. If the suspect tests positive for the antibody, that does not mean that the virus was transmitted. In either case, the victim of a rape has no relevant information about his/her own HIV status. I am opposed to all mandatory testing for HIV.
gerri@watson.ibm.com (Gerri Oppedisano) (06/10/91)
>> I am opposed to all mandatory testing for HIV. Aren't other venereal diseases tested for after a rape? Are you opposed to mandatory HIV testing because of the fact that the tests are not reliable enough or because you think it's somehow discriminatory? I would think it makes sense to test for diseases after a rape. Even if the HIV wasn't contracted from the raper, wouldn't it be beneficial for the victim of the rape to know they're testing positive for HIV? >> Testing a rape suspect for HIV tells you absolutely nothing, and it >> is just a way of harassing a person. Just how unreliable is HIV testing? My impression was that it wasn't so totally unreliable as to not tell you anything.. particularly if the test results are positive. How likely is it that a positive HIV test is really false? gerri@watson.ibm.com
rpetsche@mrg.PHYS.CWRU.Edu (rolfe g petschek) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun10.150619.25217@cs.ucla.edu> gerri@watson.ibm.com (Gerri Oppedisano) writes: >>> I am opposed to all mandatory testing for HIV. > >Aren't other venereal diseases tested for after a rape? Test for veneral diseases [which definition I would expect includes HIV] is madated after rape by the laws of the state of Ohio vis: 2907.27 Examination and treatment for venereal disease (A) When a person is charged with a violation of section [essentially the rape code] of the Revised Code, the arresting authorities or a court shall cause the accused to be examined by a physician to determine if the accused is suffering from a venereal disease. (B) If the accused is found to be suffering from a venereal disease in an infectious stage, he or she shall be required to submit to medical treatment therefor. If the accused is found guilty of the offense with which he or she is charged and is placed on probation, a condition of probation shall be that the offender submit to and faithfully follow a course of treatment for such venereal disease. (C) The fact that the accused was given a medical examination for venereal disease or the results of such examination shall not be admitted in evidence over the objection of the accused, in a prosecution for any offense listed in division (A) of this section. Suggested changes to this law are welcome. >Just how unreliable is HIV testing? My impression was that it wasn't so >totally unreliable as to not tell you anything.. particularly if the >test results are positive. How likely is it that a positive HIV test is >really false? False positives, after checking, are, I believe, very uncommon in HIV. False negatives [prior to seroconversion] are known to happen. The fraction of the time a person is infectious but not seropositive is, I think, ill known. Routine testing of victims for sexually transmitted diseases is probably a good idea in any case. I am by no means an expert. -- Rolfe G. Petschek Petschek@cwru.bitnet Associate Professor of Physics rgp@po.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University (216)368-4035 Cleveland Oh 44106-7970
gb661@leah.albany.edu (BROADWELL GEORGE AARON) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun10.150619.25217@cs.ucla.edu> "Gerri Oppedisano" <gerri@watson.ibm.com> writes: #z>>> I am opposed to all mandatory testing for HIV. > >Aren't other venereal diseases tested for after a rape? Are >you opposed to mandatory HIV testing because of the fact that >the tests are not reliable enough or because you think it's >somehow discriminatory? > >Just how unreliable is HIV testing? My impression was that it wasn't so >totally unreliable as to not tell you anything.. particularly if the >test results are positive. How likely is it that a positive HIV test is >really false? > My objection isn't based on the unreliability of testing, but on the gap between exposure to HIV and the development of antibodies. Let me restate the argument a little more fully. It can take up to six months to develop antibodies after exposure. Our test detects antibodies, not the virus itself. Therefore, if the rapist tests negative, it does not mean that the victim has not been exposed to the virus. The rapist could have been recently exposed, and not yet showing antibodies. On the other hand, if the rapist tests positive, that doesn't mean that viral transmission has taken place. In either case, the victim must be tested, and retested in 6 months to know whether or not he/she has the virus. Thus the course of action for the victim is the same *whether or not* the rapist is HIV-positive. The real reason that prosecutors want to test suspects for HIV is so they can prosecute them for additional crimes, and I am also opposed to this. Laws of the sort that make it illegal to transmit HIV always (to the best of my knowledge) talk about 'knowingly transmitting' HIV. But to set up special penalties for people who know that they are HIV positive creates a disincentive for testing. Under such a legal system, if you suspect that you may be HIV positive, then you can have all the unprotected sex you want without legal penalties. But if you go in for a test, then you subject yourself to a range of possible penalties, including being jailed for attempted murder. Obviously, this is not the sort of thinking/behavior the legal system should encourage. But that is the effect of any laws against the 'knowing transmission of HIV.' Legal remedies are the worst way to prevent HIV infections. The best way is through widespread voluntary testing and education. Since mandatory testing of rape suspects a.) provides no useful information for victims and b.) is an adjunct to unwise laws about HIV transmission, I am opposed to mandatory testing for HIV. I hope this makes my reasoning clearer.
scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun10.234032.13610@cs.ucla.edu> gb661@leah.albany.edu (BROADWELL GEORGE AARON) writes: >[why he objects to HIV testing of accused rapists...] >It can take up to six months to develop antibodies after exposure. Our test >detects antibodies, not the virus itself. > >Therefore, if the rapist tests negative, it does not mean that the victim >has not been exposed to the virus. The rapist could have been recently >exposed, and not yet showing antibodies. > >On the other hand, if the rapist tests positive, that doesn't mean that >viral transmission has taken place. > >In either case, the victim must be tested, and retested in 6 months to >know whether or not he/she has the virus. Thus the course of action for >the victim is the same *whether or not* the rapist is HIV-positive. Another problem is the implication that, if the victim tests positive, then the infection came from the rapist. In fact, if both test positive, it's entirely possible the rapist got it from the victim. >Laws of the sort that make it illegal to transmit HIV always (to the >best of my knowledge) talk about 'knowingly transmitting' HIV. But >to set up special penalties for people who know that they are HIV >positive creates a disincentive for testing. I agree. People who *emphasize* the responsibility of HIV carriers to abstain from sex are really saying, "We should get all HIV carriers out of circulation so the rest of us can continue to screw around without worrying". Such people are in an incredible state of denial. I find such denial every bit as disturbing as those who are HIV positive without informing their partners. Special laws only reinforce that denial. -- Scott Amspoker | Touch the peripheral convex of every Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | kind, then various kinds of blaming (505) 345-5232 | sound can be sent forth. unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott | - Instructions for a little box that | blurts out obscenities.
rqdms@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Dennis Stockert) (06/12/91)
George Broadwell reasons: >Therefore, if the rapist tests negative, it does not mean that the victim >has not been exposed to the virus. The rapist could have been recently >exposed, and not yet showing antibodies. > >On the other hand, if the rapist tests positive, that doesn't mean that >viral transmission has taken place. > >In either case, the victim must be tested, and retested in 6 months to >know whether or not he/she has the virus. Thus the course of action for >the victim is the same *whether or not* the rapist is HIV-positive. > Point very well taken .... but I'd still want to know if I were the victim. The rapist's HIV status might make a difference in my interpretation of my own test results and in my long-term reaction. If the rapist tests negative, and I test negative in six months, I might be inclined to consider it a closed issue. If the rapist is positive, and I test negative, I might be less sure of the results and have myself retested every six months or so to be on the safe side (a process admittedly influenced by my own behavior in the intervening period). Thanks for the clarification. *********************************************************************** * Dennis Stockert * Life is what happens to you while * * rqdms@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov * you're planning other things - Mom * *********************************************************************** * No one that knows me would mistake my opinions for those of * * any respectable organization * ***********************************************************************
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun11.194701.18033@cs.ucla.edu> scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) writes: >Another problem is the implication that, if the victim tests positive, >then the infection came from the rapist. In fact, if both test >positive, it's entirely possible the rapist got it from the victim. This is so unlikely that no one knows of a single case of its happening. Female-to-male transmission is already relatively uncommon. Such transmission from a single encounter is even rarer. I generally reserve the use of phrases like "entirely possible" for circumstances that are reasonably likely to occur. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, | To see a world in a grain of sand mnemonic@eff.org | And heaven in a wild flower (617) 864-1550 | Hold infinity in the palm of your hand EFF, Cambridge, MA | And eternity in an hour
michaelm@ESD.3Com.COM (Michael McNeil) (06/20/91)
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: >In article <1991Jun11.194701.18033@cs.ucla.edu> scott@bbxsda.UUCP >(Scott Amspoker) writes: >>Another problem is the implication that, if the victim tests positive, >>then the infection came from the rapist. In fact, if both test >>positive, it's entirely possible the rapist got it from the victim. >This is so unlikely that no one knows of a single case of its >happening. Female-to-male transmission is already relatively uncommon. >Such transmission from a single encounter is even rarer. > >I generally reserve the use of phrases like "entirely possible" >for circumstances that are reasonably likely to occur. Since male-to-female transfer and infection by HIV from a single act of heterosexual intercourse has been found in studies to have a rate of about one in five hundred, I'd hardly call that very likely either. >Mike Godwin >mnemonic@eff.org -- Michael McNeil Mail: Michael_McNeil@3Mail.3Com.COM 3Com Corporation News: michaelm@molehill.ESD.3Com.COM Santa Clara, California Work telephone: (408) 492-1790 x 5-208 And there's a dreadful law here -- it was made by mistake, but there it is -- that if any one asks for machinery they have to have it and keep on using it. Edith Nesbit, *The Magic City*, 1910