News-Record.com

There's a good discussion of this at my blog. Personally, I don't know what kind of marriage one would have if he said to his wife, "Sure, I trust you, honey, but I think we should get tested."

Allen, it's not clear-are you advocating universal HIV testing or just for people applying for a marriage licence?

I'm not advocating universal testing necessarily, but expanded testing. For instance, I can see not testing in areas with extremely low incidences of AIDS, as I think the proposal suggests.

What the thrust of the expanded testing movement seems to be is to find the hidden carriers of the disease. Most of the people who have engaged in or are continuing to engage in high risk behaviors that have any self reguard or awareness at all have most likely been tested. Most people who have had blood transfusion- derived HIV have become mainifest by now, since HIV blood screening began back in the mid-eighties. This leaves mainly apathetic, high risk people as probably the main pool of disease carriers. Unless you send police to round up these people, how are you going to get them tested?

The question remains then, should we do widespread HIV testing to find those probably rare people who are not in, or had sex, with members of a high risk group (I.V. drug users, homosexuals, users of blood products, prostitutes or their customers, or immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa). It's hard to imagine that doing widespread testing to find these people would be cost effective. And again, most of them would, if they considered themselves even remotely at risk, probably have enough awareness to get tested themselves. The question is then, should we do widespread testing to find that rare person whose sposue decided to pull a Lou Reed and "take a walk on the wild side" without telling them? Hard to imagine this being anywhere near cost effective.

HIV testing for people applying for a marriage licence may be reasonable and may already be in place in some places.

Savage:
As I recall, about 250,000 don't know they're infected. That seems to justify more testing.

Doug:
I see your point. That's why I likened it to a pre-nup ("I love you and trust you, honey, but would you please sign the dotted line?" Yet there's also an argument (not very romantic, I'll grant) of thinking with your head and not your heart.

I'm just thinking of marriage as more than a business relationship.

I'm also not talking about just entering into a marriage but about the level of total trust that develops over many years of marriage. If that trust doesn't exist, what's the point of the marriage? Telling your longtime spouse you don't really trust him or her could prove to be a fatal stab to the heart.

I don't disagree, Doug. But about once every month I sure wish I'd done a pre-nup.

Allen, take heart, there may be treatment for this seemingly male (?pre)menstrual phenomonon you are experiencing. Though I suspect, as with all diseases, an ounce of prevention probably would have been worth a ton of cure, prevention may not have been possible since by the time you realize you are at risk, it's too late.