Indiana quietly passed a law to make it legal to test for HIV w/o consent

[Guest EXPAT]

Indiana quietly passed a law making it legal for doctors to test people for HIV without consent under certain conditions. Evidently activists are torn, because knowing you're seroconverted can change behavior and save lives, but it's a huge privacy issue.

What do you think of this? I frankly believe it's a massive invasion of privacy especially since it can impact employment and insurance coverage which can have devastating impact on people professionally and financially. But on the other hand there is an element of personal and public health that's involved here.

What's your view?

[Guest hitoallusa]

Under what special circumstance do they need to test patients for HIV without consent???

[Guest hitoallusa]

Under what special circumstance do they need to test patients for HIV without consent??? I don't get this bill.

[KYTOP]

I do not live in Indiana but found out I had been given an HIV test a few years ago while in the hospital in my state and my consent for that "specific test" was not asked of me. It seems that when one signs into the hospital you give your doctor consent to run any test he or she may want to run, a blanket consent as such. I found out as I was being discharged and the Doctor just mentioned as a "oh by the way" as I was leaving my room. He knew I was in a health field that comes in contact with blood often and also gay so I guess he thought it was a good idea? If he hadn't mentioned it as I was leaving I would have never known he had run the test. He considered it a routine lab/blood test and it is possible I had/have been tested on other hospital visits without my knowledge.

[Guest FourAces]

I feel strongly that consent should be obtained unless as in KY's case where you're in a hospital and the doctor runs the test because he believes it might be important to your illness. Personally if I'm in the hospital ill I don't really want to know every type of blood test they are running. I just leave it to my doctors to determine what tests are best to run.

Besides lets say you are in the hospital and the doctor asks you if its ok to run a HIV test and it is a stretch but might be related to your illness are you gonna decline?

[BigK]

I feel strongly that consent should be obtained unless as in KY's case where you're in a hospital and the doctor runs the test because he believes it might be important to your illness. Personally if I'm in the hospital ill I don't really want to know every type of blood test they are running. I just leave it to my doctors to determine what tests are best to run.

Besides lets say you are in the hospital and the doctor asks you if its ok to run a HIV test and it is a stretch but might be related to your illness are you gonna decline?

No...I wouldn't decline. In fact, if you're already taking my blood may as well run the test. Just ask me first unless I'm non compus mentis.

[JKane]

I frankly believe it's a massive invasion of privacy especially since it can impact employment and insurance coverage which can have devastating impact on people professionally and financially. But on the other hand there is an element of personal and public health that's involved here.

Actually there are a LOT more laws concerning HIV in regards to privacy and insurance coverage than any other disease except probably breast cancer.

I've noticed them when applying for crappy individual healthcare--HIV is NOT something you can be denied for (in CA at least). Everything else, on the other hand... list every doctor you've seen in the last 5 years, every condition you've been seen for, whether it's resolved or not. You listed stuff? Declined!