
With about 33.2 million people worldwide suffering from HIV/AIDS, mandatory per-marital HIV testing remains a crucial component of AIDS prevention strategies.
Yes:
# In low awareness societies HIV pre-marital testing could help containing the disease.
# Increasing number of persons deliberately hiding their HIV status are putting their spouses and children at grave risk and have to face the brunt of society for no fault of theirs.
No:
# Making HIV pre-marital testing mandatory would not be socially acceptable and may defeat the very purpose for which such a law gets enacted.
# Mandatory per-marital HIV testing is an intrusion into the privacy of an individual that can be circumvented through fake certification to bypass such a law, if enacted.
Can some body tell me here that what it will do after all??? In India where more than half of the population is illiterate and where there are lack of health facility, how long will it take, I wonder, for Govt. to provide these facilities at every nook and corner of the nation. Secondly, for AIDS there is only one potential weapon and that is awareness, until and unless people will not know what AIDS is and what are its results, it’s a futile exercise to do anything or that genre.
What about people who engage in promiscuous sexual exercise out of marriage? Many are still engaging in it for fun or simply as practice relationship. What can we do about them?
Strengthening education campaign against HIV is better rather than screening those who has it. It is halfway to the solution but its effectiveness has yet to be tested.
The commonly used test for detecting the virus is ELISA and it only detects antibodies. Here what I mean is up to three months after infection the test is not able to pick up antibodies. And the implication this would be – a person who is HIV positive will show a negative result despite being positive. Now you can imagine the scenario. And after the nod form doctors the couple gets married, and the results are catastrophic. The woman gets pregnant and a test is conducted… She tests positive, if done in time, child can be protected, otherwise you know the result. Therefore, who is to blame for spreading the infection? All that the pre-marital test will do is give a false sense of security to both the state and the couple.
The situation would be more favorable if these are either legally enforced - for both the sexes that is. Or if two parties go in voluntarily without any compulsion on either side.Otherwise I’m afraid this would just become yet another reason for rejecting a bride.
The costs involved in intervention may be significantly more but the social stigma that’ll result from failure is a point worth giving careful consideration to.
Local Opinions (30)
Can some body tell me here that what it will do after all??? In India where more than half of the population is illiterate and where there are lack of health facility, how long will it take, I wonder, for Govt. to provide these facilities at every nook and corner of the nation. Secondly, for AIDS there is only one potential weapon and that is awareness, until and unless people will not know what AIDS is and what are its results, it’s a futile exercise to do anything or that genre.
What about people who engage in promiscuous sexual exercise out of marriage? Many are still engaging in it for fun or simply as practice relationship. What can we do about them?
Strengthening education campaign against HIV is better rather than screening those who has it. It is halfway to the solution but its effectiveness has yet to be tested.
The commonly used test for detecting the virus is ELISA and it only detects antibodies. Here what I mean is up to three months after infection the test is not able to pick up antibodies. And the implication this would be – a person who is HIV positive will show a negative result despite being positive. Now you can imagine the scenario. And after the nod form doctors the couple gets married, and the results are catastrophic. The woman gets pregnant and a test is conducted… She tests positive, if done in time, child can be protected, otherwise you know the result. Therefore, who is to blame for spreading the infection? All that the pre-marital test will do is give a false sense of security to both the state and the couple.
The situation would be more favorable if these are either legally enforced - for both the sexes that is. Or if two parties go in voluntarily without any compulsion on either side.Otherwise I’m afraid this would just become yet another reason for rejecting a bride.
The costs involved in intervention may be significantly more but the social stigma that’ll result from failure is a point worth giving careful consideration to.
Global Opinions (30)
Can some body tell me here that what it will do after all??? In India where more than half of the population is illiterate and where there are lack of health facility, how long will it take, I wonder, for Govt. to provide these facilities at every nook and corner of the nation. Secondly, for AIDS there is only one potential weapon and that is awareness, until and unless people will not know what AIDS is and what are its results, it’s a futile exercise to do anything or that genre.
What about people who engage in promiscuous sexual exercise out of marriage? Many are still engaging in it for fun or simply as practice relationship. What can we do about them?
Strengthening education campaign against HIV is better rather than screening those who has it. It is halfway to the solution but its effectiveness has yet to be tested.
The commonly used test for detecting the virus is ELISA and it only detects antibodies. Here what I mean is up to three months after infection the test is not able to pick up antibodies. And the implication this would be – a person who is HIV positive will show a negative result despite being positive. Now you can imagine the scenario. And after the nod form doctors the couple gets married, and the results are catastrophic. The woman gets pregnant and a test is conducted… She tests positive, if done in time, child can be protected, otherwise you know the result. Therefore, who is to blame for spreading the infection? All that the pre-marital test will do is give a false sense of security to both the state and the couple.
The situation would be more favorable if these are either legally enforced - for both the sexes that is. Or if two parties go in voluntarily without any compulsion on either side.Otherwise I’m afraid this would just become yet another reason for rejecting a bride.
The costs involved in intervention may be significantly more but the social stigma that’ll result from failure is a point worth giving careful consideration to.
Can some body tell me here that what it will do after all??? In India where more than half of the population is illiterate and where there are lack of health facility, how long will it take, I wonder, for Govt. to provide these facilities at every nook and corner of the nation. Secondly, for AIDS there is only one potential weapon and that is awareness, until and unless people will not know what AIDS is and what are its results, it’s a futile exercise to do anything or that genre.
What about people who engage in promiscuous sexual exercise out of marriage? Many are still engaging in it for fun or simply as practice relationship. What can we do about them?
Strengthening education campaign against HIV is better rather than screening those who has it. It is halfway to the solution but its effectiveness has yet to be tested.
The commonly used test for detecting the virus is ELISA and it only detects antibodies. Here what I mean is up to three months after infection the test is not able to pick up antibodies. And the implication this would be – a person who is HIV positive will show a negative result despite being positive. Now you can imagine the scenario. And after the nod form doctors the couple gets married, and the results are catastrophic. The woman gets pregnant and a test is conducted… She tests positive, if done in time, child can be protected, otherwise you know the result. Therefore, who is to blame for spreading the infection? All that the pre-marital test will do is give a false sense of security to both the state and the couple.
The situation would be more favorable if these are either legally enforced - for both the sexes that is. Or if two parties go in voluntarily without any compulsion on either side.Otherwise I’m afraid this would just become yet another reason for rejecting a bride.
The costs involved in intervention may be significantly more but the social stigma that’ll result from failure is a point worth giving careful consideration to.
Home

Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
RSS 





























