2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

HIV testing should be thought of as no different than cholesterol testing. Abnormal results for either have life threatening implications, both require lifestyle changes and may require the use of medications. Neither has a "cure" but both are now manageable. HIV however is connected to SEX. The taboos, rules and fascination of Americans with issues involving sex are legion, even presidents and governors are not immune. If we can get past the "sex" stuff, HIV diagnosis and management can be handled in the medical context successfully. I am a physician who has had very little experience with clinical HIV though I have ordered many tests for it. The informed consent requirement is a barrier to testing. All tests should be discussed, few doctors have time to discuss the implications of most tests, let alone one as emotionally charged as HIV.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context