Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Dear All, Concerns have been raised in different fora (read forums if you like) about over- enthusiastic promotion of HIV testing in resource limited settings with low prevalence of HIV. Efforts like PITC (Provider Initiated Testing and Counselling) which mention TESTING before an apologetic COUNSELLING following it (perhaps just to make it politically correct), have been perceived that way. Some recent recommendations include testing for HIV infection in the United States with expanded screening in all health-care settings for all persons in the age group of 13 to 64. They appear to be in the form of expanded HIV screening for patients regardless of risk and with decreased emphasis on prevention counselling. In other set ups post test counselling issues have been facilitated in health care settings only missing out the potential role of possible reaching out and follow up services as integral part of post-test counselling facilities. Different messages are passed when the funding organizations and other authorities put questions about the number of NGO functionaries and personnel working in organizations /HIV implementers which have got themselves tested for HIV suggesting an implicit promotion of HIV testing of all with or without any risk perception (real or perceived). Prevention of HIV infection is based on primordial prevention unlike most of the diseases which rely on secondary prevention necessitating early diagnosis and prompt treatment form public health point of view besides treating/curing the individual cases. Interventions for promotion of an discriminatory HIV testing in resource poor countries with low prevalence of HIV may not be cost-effective. There is a likelihood of increased stigma and discrimination as the people tested to be positive may not get any benefit immediately and may be denied the services which they want to avail at that point of time. There was a medical practitioner in a city in India who perceived the PITC as a license for mandatory HIV testing now that the " voluntary " component has been dropped(sic) from the Counselling and Testing Centres(misinterpretation of changed nomenclature from VCTC to ICTC) through which the " DOCTORS CAN PROTECT THEMSELVES EFFECTIVELY NOW " . Efforts must be made in a directed manner that any such measures are not misinterpreted and do not add to stigma and discrimination and denial of services to the PLHIV .They must be in accordance with the rights perspective in an unequivocal ethical manner. Increasing demands for organization of camps for HIV testing at different quarters must be seen in this light of perceiving HIV infection vis a vis diseases needing secondary prevention View and suggestions are invited from the members on these personal concerns. Rajesh Gopal. e-mail: <dr_rajeshg@...> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.