HIV Test Before Marriage? (Arguments For & Against)

[Guest guest]

HIV test before marriage?

Dr KK Aggarwal. New Delhi, July 26, 2005

The National AIDS Prevention & Control Policy of the Indian

government clearly mandates voluntary testing as the appropriate

public health strategy in dealing with HIV/AIDS.

On the other hand there have been opposing views expressed at the

governmental level in other parts of the country particularly

favouring mandatory pre-marital testing for HIV. These have been

voiced recently in the Goa legislature and by the Andhra Pradesh

legislature. We hereby enlist the PRONS and CRONS against this

argument.

FOR

HIV spreads by the mixing of the internal secretions with the HIV

positive internal secretions of the other person. Internal

secretions are blood and its products, sexual secretions, internal

body secretions like pleural, brain, peritoneal or placental fluids.

When blood testing is mandatory before it is given from one person

to the other then why internal secretions are not tested when they

ate allowed to be given from one person to another. The risk in

blood transfusion is only once but in the case of internal

secretions (sexual route) it will be again and again.

In a move bound to elicit unprecedented protests, the Pentecostal

Assemblies of Zimbabwe, a grouping of 150 Pentecostal and

evangelical churches, has already embarked on a historic fight

against HIV/AIDS by introducing mandatory testing for all its

pastors, marriage officers and would-be couples.

On January 13, 2004, India's Roman Catholic bishops asked the

government to make HIV and AIDS tests compulsory before granting

marriage licenses to help prevent the spread of the deadly disease.

Because of the increasing cases of AIDS cases in India, the church

feels that priests should be convinced of the health status of

couples before solemnizing their marriage.

A policy to mandatory test couples before marriage could protect the

prospective spouses of persons living with HIV from acquiring the

disease.

In general population 0.2 to 0.75% people are HIV positive. This is

a significant number. (TB 1%, asthma 1%, and cancer 1%).

Public wants it. In one of the NDTV poll survey the results were 73%

in favour of the testing.

In general population 0.2 to 0.7% people are positive for HIV, 1-2%

are positive for hepatitis B surface antigen, 4-11% are positive for

Hepatitis B Core antibodies and 5% for hepatitis c antibodies. The

question therefore should not be HIV testing or not. It should be

how safe the partner is and should involucel a series of tests which

can be transmitted via sexual route.

In South Africa, the country with the largest number of persons

infected with HIV, statistics suggest that 50% of youth under the

age of 15 are expected to die of Aids before they are 40, that 14

000 contract the virus each day and that five to 9 million people

have HIV/AIDS. Also 95% of people worldwide who are infected with

the virus are not aware of it.

In France, people are required to test for syphilis, toxoplasma and

blood type before marriage.

If not than why all over the world people are required by law to be

vaccinated. Why before getting job institutions ask for chest X-rays

to exclude TB. Why testing for becoming a commercial driver pr a

pilot? Why testing before joining military job? Why HIV test for

immigration to many countries?

AGAINST

The most common way of testing for HIV is through an antibody test.

However, the peculiarity of an HIV antibody test is the " window

period " . The " window period " is one in which even though a person is

infected with HIV, s/he would be tested negative as her/his

antibodies are not developed. Therefore, even though a person is

infected with HIV, s/he will test HIV negative. Therefore, a single

antibody test for HIV does not serve the purpose of preventing the

prospective spouse from getting infected. Therefore, mandatory

testing would not result in achieving the objective sought to be

achieved.

It may also be noted that there is also a high rate of false

positive results in the country and persons may not actually be

infected. Thus, in view of the stigma surrounding HIV, a person who

is actually not HIV positive could be marred for life on account of

a false positive result and may not be able to marry at all. This

would have a traumatic effect on her/ his life and on her/his family.

Mandatory testing for HIV prior to marriage would only give the

state a false sense of security.

A pre-marital HIV mandatory test does not prevent persons from

getting infected after marriage, and thereby putting the spouse at

the risk of getting infected.

Mandatory testing would only drive the disease underground.

This may initiate people going outside the State to marry, where

such tests are not required.

Mandatory testing often ignores issues of consent and

confidentiality of a person's HIV status.

Mandatory testing could also open a racket of issuance of false

certificates prior to marriage. It would also add cost.

In Hindu marriage can be solemnized only by performing ceremonies.

No registration is required. Therefore, a policy for mandatory

testing would be impossible to implement.

The American Civil Liberties Union Report of March 1998 reported

that mandatory pre-marital HIV testing was a record of failure. It

stated that more than 30 states in the USA considered pre-marital

HIV testing. However, all the states except for Illinois and

Louisiana rejected the idea (source lawyers collective).

(The writer is a senior Physician, Head Department of Cardiology and

Deputy Dean Board of Medical Education-Moolchand Hospital, President-

Heart Care Foundation of India, President Delhi Medical Association

and Member-Delhi Medical Council.)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5983_1442272,004300140009.htm