January #131 : Isn't That Special? - by Bob Ickes

POZ - Health, Life and HIV
Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:

Back to home » Archives » POZ Magazine issues




Table of Contents
 

Labors of Love

The Kids Aren't Alright

With Honors




A Little Something on the Side

Even Combos Get the Blues

The Load Not Taken

HIV Bytes

Don't Get Fresh With Me

Discounted Labels

Thai-ing the Knot

Don't Leave Work Without It

Teen Angel

While You Weren't Sleeping

High Definition




Isn't That Special?

Prison Break

Anywhere but Here

Death and the Maidens

Diplomatic Immunity

Very Adult Education

On the Download

Face for the Cure

Tales From the Crib

Big Med on Campus




Editor's Letter-January 2007

Mailbox-January 2007

Catch of the Month-January 2007



 
Most Popular Lessons

The HIV Life Cycle

Shingles

Herpes Simplex Virus

Syphilis & Neurosyphilis

Treatments for Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

What is AIDS & HIV?

Hepatitis & HIV



email print

January 2007


Isn't That Special?

by Bob Ickes

The CDC boldly aims to destigmatize HIV—by making screening “normal”

Last September, in a move that has polarized activists and people living with HIV, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued sweeping new recommendations to “normalize” HIV testing. The guidelines drop pretest counseling and written consent requirements—and urge that positive people’s names be reported to sexual partners and state health departments, just like the names of those diagnosed with syphilis or TB. The initiative, which many care providers say they will adopt in the coming year, explodes the idea of “AIDS exceptionalism.” The idea holds, basically, that of all the diseases blighting the earth, AIDS is by far the most stigmatizing. To protect those being tested for and diagnosed with AIDS against discrimination, the theory goes, special privacy protections are essential—even if these protections reinforce the very notion they combat. Namely, that people living with AIDS suffer in a world unto themselves, incomparable to those suffering from, say, cancer or leukemia.

Back when AIDS was almost exclusively associated with such “problem populations” as gay men and drug users—and when those infected with the disease invariably died, with very visible, telltale symptoms—the protections seemed warranted. But now that treatment breakthroughs have supposedly made living with AIDS “manageable” for many, does AIDS exceptionalism have any merit? If living a long life with AIDS is now possible, why overdramatize testing with needless obstacles—especially when an estimated 250,000 positive Americans don’t know their status? By making testing as routine as a blood pressure screening, the CDC argues, these people can quickly get on with their manageable lives.

The debate is hardly new, but 2007 will be a landmark year in its resolution. Those who consider pretest AIDS counseling needless will point out that women who get breast cancer screenings, which routinely deliver grave diagnoses, usually receive no counseling first. Those who oppose names-based reporting to health officials, meanwhile, will note that every American state has some form of a criminal statute to prosecute HIV positive people who engage in some form of sex—even, in some cases, when the sex is consensual and the positive person discloses. Could such reporting accelerate these prosecutions? Why isn’t transmitting hepatitis or HPV also criminalized?

When asked to elaborate on the guidelines, CDC spokesman Timothy Mastro, MD, simply told POZ, “By normalizing testing, we will be destigmatizing HIV testing.” Is that where the destigmatizing ends—abruptly, after the testing? Indeed, we wonder whether the relentless disease comparison that the new recommendations have spurred doesn’t hide a less ambiguous issue.

Assuming that all the cases the widespread testing identifies will be guaranteed care—a big assumption— might it also be fair to ask whether we have any guidelines for post-test stigma? Could one agree that normalized testing is a public-health imperative while still wondering about the social welcome the newly diagnosed will receive? Who decided, for instance, that the many current fear-based AIDS prevention campaigns don’t make people living with HIV feel abnormal? What about the statistically bogus myth of the “down low”? Or the everyday fear that calling in sick from med side effects will put you on the fast track for demotion?

Noted New York City HIV doctor Lloyd Bailey says, “By making HIV an exception, we are saying that it is worse than other diseases.” But is that truly the contest we need to be winning?


[Go to top]

Facebook Twitter Google+ MySpace YouTube Tumblr Flickr Instagram
Quick Links
Current Issue

HIV Testing
Safer Sex
Find a Date
Newly Diagnosed
HIV 101
Disclosing Your Status
Starting Treatment
Help Paying for Meds
Search for the Cure
POZ Stories
POZ Opinion
POZ Exclusives
Read the Blogs
Visit the Forums
Job Listings
Events Calendar


    dlw8585
    Fort Lauderdale
    Florida


    juliar33
    brooklyn
    New York


    sefarady
    New York
    California


    donnyp
    liberty
    Kentucky
Click here to join POZ Personals!
Ask POZ Pharmacist

Talk to Us
Poll
Are you a regular coffee drinker?
Yes
No

Survey
Pop Watch

more surveys
Contact Us
We welcome your comments!
[ about Smart + Strong | about POZ | POZ advisory board | partner links | advertising policy | advertise/contact us | site map]
© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.