No more HIV testing

[Dakine 26]

http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/...anel-civil.html

QUOTE

On November 2, 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services published a final rule regarding HIV infection. In this final rule, HIV infection was removed from the list of inadmissible conditions for immigration purposes and from the scope of the immigrant medical examination. The rule is effective on January 4, 2010. Thus, beginning January 4, 2010, HIV testing will no longer be required as part of the U.S. immigration medical screening process and persons with HIV infection will no longer require waiver processing by the Department of Homeland Security to be admitted into the United States. These changes for HIV do not affect technical instructions for other inadmissible conditions, such as tuberculosis.

Pursuant to this final rule, beginning January 4, 2010, panel physicians and civil surgeons should

•No longer test for HIV infection.

•Put a line through the spaces for HIV test results on the DS 2053/2054 and I-693 forms, respectively, until those forms are amended.

•Record HIV infection disclosed by an applicant as a Class B Other condition on the DS 2053/2054 and I-693, respectively.

As with all other medical conditions, panel physicians and civil surgeons may advise applicants about HIV testing for whom testing is clinically indicated. Such applicants may include those with signs and symptoms suggestive of HIV infection or those with tuberculosis disease. For such applicants, the consent for HIV testing should include the following:

•Applicants understand they do not have to be tested for HIV.

•Applicants understand that if they would like to be tested for HIV, they do not have to be tested for HIV by a panel physician or civil surgeon.

•Applicants understand that panel physicians and civil surgeons must include the test results on the paperwork they complete.

If applicants who would benefit from HIV testing provide consent, panel physicians or civil surgeons should perform HIV testing consistent with the standards of testing in their countries.

[Fandango 1,439]

I don't agree with this decision at all.

[HappyDancer 7]

This scares me...

[Zero Sum 305]

I think it should be up to non-infected US petitioners to decide if they want to make sure they're not bringing over an infected mate. From the public health perspective it might be better to require testing, but a positive test need not be reason to exclude a beneficiary.

[Savanphil 3]

I think they should still require the test but make it so seropositive HIV status does not exclude beneficiary. The final decision should ultimately be the petitioner's.

[yulisa 9]

Oh god.this going to bring more infected people into the usa.i wonder who brought dis stupid idea.

[Zero Sum 305]

Oh god.this going to bring more infected people into the usa.i wonder who brought dis stupid idea.

Someone with more public health knowledge than you unfortunately.

[Eric-Pris 1,607]

In my opinion, testing should be mandatory, so that the petiotioner is aware of the results (in case they didn't bother to have their fiancee test themselves, for whatever reason). I still think that a positive test should result in some kind of a waiver. It seems as HIV is becoming more "accepted" now, almost like it's no big deal. It's a little bit scary.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Eric-Pris

[Matt_Stevens 5]

It's PC madness.

[Zero Sum 305]

In my opinion, testing should be mandatory, so that the petiotioner is aware of the results (in case they didn't bother to have their fiancee test themselves, for whatever reason). I still think that a positive test should result in some kind of a waiver. It seems as HIV is becoming more "accepted" now, almost like it's no big deal. It's a little bit scary.

Prevention almost guarantees no infection, I don't know what's so scary about this mostly sexually transmitted disease. I wouldn't go as far as say 'accepted' or 'tolerated'... there is still fervent research being carried out to find a cure.

[yulisa 9]

I HOPE WHO EVER CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA WILL TAKE IT BACK.THE USA IS NOT WILLING TO USE THE CURE FOR HIV SO WHY DO THEY WANT TO TAKE RISKY CHANCES,THERE ARE MORE YOUNG AND OLD PEOPLE IN THE USA WHO ARE ALREADY INFECTED WITH THIS VIRUS,SO WHY WONT THEY FIND WAYS TO CURE THEM AND THEY WANT TO BRING IN MORE INFECTED PEOPLE,THIS DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.

[Zero Sum 305]

I HOPE WHO EVER CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA WILL TAKE IT BACK.THE USA IS NOT WILLING TO USE THE CURE FOR HIV SO WHY DO THEY WANT TO TAKE RISKY CHANCES,THERE ARE MORE YOUNG AND OLD PEOPLE IN THE USA WHO ARE ALREADY INFECTED WITH THIS VIRUS,SO WHY WONT THEY FIND WAYS TO CURE THEM AND THEY WANT TO BRING IN MORE INFECTED PEOPLE,THIS DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.

I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A CURE FOR HIV INFECTION, CARE TO SHARE THAT WITH THE REST OF US?

[Niels Bohr 72]

HIV is not a scare disease anymore. It's at the point where it remains in the body, but, will not turn to AIDS.

Biotechnology had made it so people who are infected with HIV can live as long as a HIV-free person is capable. But, this is not to say go out and have unprotected sex. Once you get it, there's no turning back. An addition to being the HIV recipient, you must also take medication for the rest of your life.

There's also sociological impact as well. People who get scared of you, talk about you behind your back alot. You become alone.

Be smart about it.

[Zero Sum 305]

HIV is not a scare disease anymore. It's at the point where it remains in the body, but, will not turn to AIDS.

Biotechnology had made it so people who are infected with HIV can live as long as a HIV-free person is capable. But, this is not to say go out and have unprotected sex. Once you get it, there's no turning back. An addition to being the HIV recipient, you must also take medication for the rest of your life.

There's also sociological impact as well. People who get scared of you, talk about you behind your back alot. You become alone.

Be smart about it.

That's the point. Incoming beneficiaries shouldn't be going around having sex out of marriage anyway... and if they test positive for HIV, and conduct that kind of behavior, they should at least use protection.

[Princessblack 21]

Oh boy.....