ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (02/20/91)
I read a piece in the local newspaper a while back which stimulated more questions than it answered. The story was about the increasing number of pediatric HIV/AIDS cases in NY state. In my county in 1988, anonymous blood samples were drawn from newborn infants to determine the number which tested positive for HIV antibodies. Apparently, the sampling procedure was only permitted if it were guaranteed to be anonymous; that is, the babies and their parents were not informed of the testing or its result. (Aside: the total number of HIV+ newborns in Schenectady county in 1988(?) was 4(?), as I recall...I didn't save the article). This brings up some interesting questions: 1 - As new therapies develop, are we really doing the infants or their (likely HIV+) parents a favor by protecting their privacy ? I mean, wouldn't it be better to get infected people into treatment ASAP ? I have seen several articles just in the last few weeks about promising new treatments for HIV+ children. 2 - Are any other HIV screens conducted anonymously ? I know, for example, that the Red Cross and other blood collection agencies are required to screen incoming blood for HIV. What do they do with the results ? Do they protect blood donor's "right" not to know, and hence increase the likelihood that infected donors will donate again ? What is the chance of "false positives" for HIV antibody screening ? How about "false negatives" ? Ed Stokes