HIV testing law not worth consequences
(Last updated: 10/27/09 7:26pm)What if your doctor ordered medical testing without your consent? Imagine a person going to a doctor after injuring a knee. After sitting through all the testing and X-rays, they find that their doctor also snuck in a test for HIV without their knowledge or consent.
Suddenly, their insurance company is dropping them because of the condition.
That’s probably an extreme example, but you get the point. A person losing his or her insurance coverage because of a doctor’s action over which they had no say — it’s kind of a big deal.
Currently, Michigan law requires doctors to get written consent from a patient in order to perform HIV antibody testing. However, a bill proposed by Roy Schmidt, D-Grand Rapids, for Spectrum Health System, to the state Senate panel would nullify this requirement, allowing doctors to order the test without any consent or consultation.
Passing this bill also would negate an individual’s control over the results — meaning the fact you even had the test could be sent to your health care coverage provider.
Although it wouldn’t affect people with HIV negative test results, the adverse ramifications for those who test positive could be massive. Insurance companies could deny coverage to people who are infected and were tested without their knowledge because those personal, private medical records would be available for review by the company in question.
These companies have pushed for this bill to pass in order to drop coverage. Why is that OK?
There is no reason to run these tests without a patient’s consent. Although it’s understandable HIV awareness should be a concern for everyone — not just those who think they could be infected — there are better ways to approach the situation. Testing should be a mutual decision reached by both physician and patient together.
If a doctor feels strongly about testing, he or she is free to spend as much time as is needed to explain why it’s crucial. The doctor should not, however, omit the fact that the tests are being run.
Some people argue that the need for consent adds unneeded hassle, and might allow people who are HIV positive to slip through the cracks. They argue the need for permission creates a barrier not penetrable by physicians. Doctors claim they are using this option because it’s more convenient.
This concept of convenience only applies to doctors, not patients. If anything, this could be more destructive to an individual’s financial stability.
Worst case scenario, the fear of consequences could lead to people avoiding doctors all together, which could be detrimental not only for healthy people who need annual checkups, but also for those who remain untested and no longer trust a medical source.
Maybe that’s the bigger issue — physicians are supposed to be trusted. We put our lives in their hands to keep us healthy and to look out for our best interests. Doctors shouldn’t be able to run tests without an individual’s consent. It is our belief a patient should always have the option to decline.
It’s your body, your business. It’s not the business interest of health care providers pushing for this new amendment.
Originally Published: 10/27/09 7:26pm
Dan J.
10/27/09 9:44pmIt doesn’t stop there, if you’re even suspected of having an infectious disease (i.e. H1N1) a Probate Court judge in concert with a County Health Dept. official can quarantine, detain, test, and treat you without your permission for up to 72 hours a go.
It’s all right here
Also Look Here for More Forms
Dan J.
10/27/09 10:01pmFor any legal scholars interested, the specific Michigan Law that makes this possible is,
Public Act 490 of 1988 as amended in PA 57 of 1997 (MCL 333.5207 of the Public Health Code)
If you don’t like the idea of a judge and county health official forcibly transporting and detaining you based only on suspicion of infectious disease, I suggest you pick up that telephone and ring the phone off the hook for your state senator and state representative for immediate repeal of what I just told you.
Jakeway is an idiot
10/28/09 3:40amConsidering that such action is one of the only ways to stop an epidemic, that sounds like a great law. You’re an idiot.
Jake
10/28/09 8:51amAgreed with the above post. Quarrantine to prevent an epidemic is smart public health policy.
As for the original editorial, it conveniently omits the fact that there are already provisions for HIV testing without patient consent if a health professional is stuck by a needle.
Also, the claim that people would be dropped from insurance for testing positive is groundless and inflammatory. HIV-positive patients are covered under numerous plans today. The Snews either needs to show some kind of proof that patients would be dropped or retract its baseless fear-mongering.
Dan Jakeway
10/28/09 10:44amThe issue is public trust. Anybody can be quarantined willingly, and a person who trusts his government would do so without any gripes. The only issue is if a person refuses for religious or human rights reasons, and a judge and official force these people VIOLENTLY.
I oppose all government coercion, it’s clear the previous two posters love government coercion.
Dan Jakeway
10/28/09 11:01amLet’s state it another way, to explore another idea. If I have an infectious disease and I want to prevent a pandemic, do I have the right to instruct the authorities to shoot me in the back of the head and burn my body? That would be rather noble of me wouldn’t it? If I came down with anthrax, I would be a hero to have myself killed and burn my infectious body.
The sensible human being finds that repulsive.
...View full comment »
Zeke
10/28/09 11:24am“I oppose all government coercion, itâs clear the previous two posters love government coercion.”
It’s clear your inability to grasp logic and compassion have clouded your sanity.
It’s not “government” putting sick people in quarrantine – it’s the rest of the populace, who do not want your viruses and bacteria in the general public.
...View full comment »
Bobby
10/28/09 12:28pmI think your all idiots!!! If their were more guns on campus people wouldnt get beat up all the time, because you could pull out your gat and pop someone! i get picked on alot and it bothers me. guns lower violence, it never increases violence, every study out there proves it. it doesnt even make sense, how could guns increase violence, people are scared of guns. thats why you people should go to a real school like u of m! they are smart and allow many guns, unlike your state jr high school college, LOSERS!!! someone just try and debate me, you dont have the smarts!!!!
Dan Jakeway
10/28/09 3:17pmZeke, I welcome your attacks on me personally with a smile, because it always indicates the insecurity of your coming weak counter-argument. You know, the Nazis once thought the same way of certain races and religions as you do those with infectious disease.
beau
10/29/09 8:19amNo arguing with your superior intellect Bobby. We bow down to your brain power. All hail Bobby and his brain. Hey Bobby, if I see you on the playground at lunch I’ll trade you my cup-o-soup for your apple. Deal or no?
spartan
10/29/09 8:35amDan, the government has the authority to protect its citizens in times of emergency. This sometimes means the curbing of civil liberties, particularly when it comes to public welfare. This is why, when the public is threatened, the government can mandate vaccines or force you and I to join the military should the need arise for conscripted soldiers. Civil rights have constantly been balanced against the public welfare from the nation’s inception and can hardly be compared to national socialism.
Zeke
10/29/09 2:19pm“Zeke, I welcome your attacks on me personally with a smile, because it always indicates the insecurity of your coming weak counter-argument. You know, the Nazis once thought the same way of certain races and religions as you do those with infectious disease.”
Shrugging off of non-existant “attack” as no big deal? Check. Complete avoidance of the actual topic?
...View full comment »
Dan J.
10/29/09 4:15pmOk, Zeke, apparently people are too stupid to do something without government decree (not go into public places when hacking up a lung), so why not go a step further, I say they’re too stupid to vote for representatives in our state and federal republics. Your response?
Zeke
10/30/09 11:08am“I say theyâre too stupid to vote for representatives in our state and federal republics. Your response?”
My response is that your opinion does not carry the weight of approved public policy, nor does it represent the majority of American opinion.
Decades of public health research has determined that infection vectors are everywhere in public settings, and quarrantine is an effective tool to reduce spread of contagious diseases.
...View full comment »