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.