2 ms·
I agree that it has to be clearly reported and explained. But, you know, there are in-home HIV tests that are FDA-approved. They tend to stress professional co
by unclebucknasty 13y ago
I agree that it has to be clearly reported and explained.
But, you know, there are in-home HIV tests that are FDA-approved. They tend to stress professional counseling and/or follow-up testing, etc. They also explain such somewhat-technical details as the window between infection and antibody formation, so it's an education process there as well. But, I think the availability of such a test is testament to the fact that easier access to important knowledge re: one's status may be worth the risks.
- mbreese 13y agoHIV tests are pretty simple, from a diagnostic test point of view. It's really a boolean - HIV present, or not present. The meaning of a particular genetic variant is much more ambiguous.
- unclebucknasty 13y agoIt's odd to me that you're saying HIV tests can give definitive devastating diagnoses to people alone in their homes, yet they are OK; but genetic testing provides a range of possibilities and recommends further investigation, but they are somehow so devastating that they would drive someone to despair or suicide.
- mbreese 13y agoI'm not trying to equate things to HIV tests, and it's probably a poor example. I'm not sure what the reporting process for an in-home HIV test would be. I recently had a doctor tell me that she's not allowed to actually give the results of an HIV test over the phone for fear of patient reactions. What I was trying to say was that that class of test should be easier to use and get a definitive yes/no answer with a smaller false positive rate.