AIDS Education ('91)

This letter of mine was published in the LATimes magazine June 1991:

[Lorraine] Day says, "Ethically, a doctor should have the right to test any patient for anything."

I strongly disagree, especially in the case of AIDS, for two reasons.

First, although testing can reveal that patients are HIV-positive, there is no way it can tell you they are HIV-negative. That being the case, what difference could the HIV-positive information make? Any difference in a doctor's risk analysis (and subsequent care) between the two is completely unfounded. Instead, the only prudent course is for the care-giver to take appropriate precautions with all patients.

Second, if I were an HIV-positive patient and if my medical facility treated all patients with the dignity, care and respect for personal privacy they deserved, I would have no hesitation revealing my HIV-positive status to them. Unfortunately, as has been shown in many individual cases and in a number of larger studies, most medical facilities refuse to treat HIV-positive patients with dignity and respect (or, in some cases, at all).

That being the case, I will continue to lobby for denying care-givers the blanket right to know patients' HIV status. I am sincerely sorry that this is necessary.

AIDS Education ('88)

This letter of mine was published in the LATimes Oct. 1988:

[My best letter (so far) on AIDS]

Thank you for your editorial "AIDS: No on 96." I wholeheartedly agree.

You are, however, much too kind to Sheriff Sherman Block, the prime sponsor of Proposition 96, and to state Sens. Gary Hart and Robert Presley, who sponsored similar bills -- SB 2643 and SB 1913. All three measures represent a hysterical response to AIDS almost as bad as Proposition 102.

Unless police, emergency, and prison staff routinely share intravenous needles or have unprotected sex with prisoners and arrestees, they have little rational reason to fear HIV infection in the line of duty. Saliva, tears, sweat, and even blood on unbroken skin do not spread AIDS. Besides, as your editorial pointed out, a negative HIV-antibody test cannot be very reassuring unless a repeat test months later is still negative.

The officers in the field can be forgiven for their ignorance, since their superiors and many of our politicians are clearly ignorant themselves. Sadly, our county, state, and federal adminstrations have done little to help. Their fear-mongering is as vicious an opportunistic disease an any brought on by AIDS.

Instead of all these testing measures, we urgently need AIDS education measures.