Instant at-home HIV tests

[Lawguy]

While using a condom is certainly the way to go in the lifestyle. I also think that a LOT of peace of mind could be bought by testing all of your partners for HIV, just minutes prior to the act. (Yes, I understand that it may take weeks or months for an infected person to show up positive on a test, but that is certainly better than taking a partner that's had 100 previous partners over ten years and NOT testing him or her.)

Having said this, it is difficult to obtain without a prescription, those FDA-approved oraquick and orasure tests which give results in as little as 10 minutes. I have asked physicans (at least where I live) about getting the tests, and they say "sure but you have to take it here in my office."

Boy would it be nice for a physician on this board to allow members to get these quick tests for use at home, or at a club. Just a wish.

Lawguy

[rpu3]

Originally Posted by Lawguy

Having said this, it is difficult to obtain without a prescription, those FDA-approved oraquick and orasure tests which give results in as little as 10 minutes. I have asked physicans (at least where I live) about getting the tests, and they say "sure but you have to take it here in my office."

Boy would it be nice for a physician on this board to allow members to get these quick tests for use at home, or at a club. Just a wish.

Lawguy

I'm guessing, as a paralegal gal, not a lawguy, that this idea ain't going to happen for a while due to the mandatory state reporting requirements if such tests come up positive? I'd be curious if such tests are subject to some sort of record keeping at the time of purchase, much like controlled substances?

R.
Obviously not working in any form of health law...

[Lawguy]

Originally Posted by rpu3

I'm guessing, as a paralegal gal, not a lawguy, that this idea ain't going to happen for a while due to the mandatory state reporting requirements if such tests come up positive? I'd be curious if such tests are subject to some sort of record keeping at the time of purchase, much like controlled substances?

R.
Obviously not working in any form of health law...

Yeah, here's a possible hope for the future: http://kaisernetwork.org/daily_repor...fm?DR_ID=44078

lawguy

Oh, I know that there are no mandatory reporting requirements for the FDA-approved mail-in home tests. They are anonymous.

[VegasLee]

I understand you want the most protection you can receive in life but I don't think this will fly to far at most Swing clubs.

You want to play with someone, you hand them a test and ask them to take it and wait twenty minutes for the results.

Chances are you don't need to buy the tests, just try it a couple times asking someone at a club to take that test and I bet you won't have to worry much about playing with them.

Even if these are approved to be sold over the counter I am betting they are going to be at a cost that you are not going to be willing to buy a bunch of them and pass them out at a party.

There is risks in life. You have to decide what risks you are willing to take both in life and in this Lifestyle.

[Lawguy]

I understand Vegaslee. But if I have a potential play partner who flat out walks away when I suggest a simple 20 minute test, then THAT is exactly the type of partner I don't want. Who or who would not want to take a simple test that would help prove that you are not carrying an incurable, deadly viral infection? If "no" is the answer, then I'll find another hobby, lol.

Lawguy

[sereneiders]

I believe there are other concerns regarding to people's basics rights. Should you be able to buy the test kit to do it at home, how to prevent an employer to do the same to force their employees to take the test to fire those who are infected?

If the test is being done by a physician, at a horpital, or any medical officer requiring a licence to provide such a service, who risks to loose the licence and to be held responsible for the consecuences of undisclosing private patient information to third parties, you have a high degree of control about the purpose people have to take the test.

Giving this concern, plus the chances that by means of your lack of ability you could be producing false results that could negativelly afect others (what if you mistakenly claim someone to be positive when he/she isn't, what about the stress you'd put this people into), and the fact that swinger's safety isn't such an important concern, I believe the current approach is a reasonable one.

[good times]

Originally Posted by Lawguy

I understand Vegaslee. But if I have a potential play partner who flat out walks away when I suggest a simple 20 minute test, then THAT is exactly the type of partner I don't want. Who or who would not want to take a simple test that would help prove that you are not carrying an incurable, deadly viral infection? If "no" is the answer, then I'll find another hobby, lol.

Lawguy

I might do a test in the privacy of my own home, but if a potential play partner came up to me at a club and handed me a test and said, "take this, if you pass we can play" I would refuse before he even got the sentence out.

There are any number of reasons for this. Not the least of which is, what if the test returned a false positive? If I took the test in front of everybody there and that happened, I would be branded for life even if further testing proved I was clean.

No, I would be willing to bet a good chunk of change that not just very few people, but no one but the very desperate would take a test handed to him or suggested by a potential play partner. My guess is that if you did go to a club and walk around asking people to take a test, you wouldn't have to worry about refusing to play with anyone because they would be avoiding you like the plague.

[Chicup]

Shame that aids wasn't handled as a proper epidemic.

Quarantining the positives early on (and any new ones) would have prevented 1000's of deaths in the US.

As it is, its the only infectious disease with its own laws.

[Lawguy]

Originally Posted by good times

I might do a test in the privacy of my own home, but if a potential play partner came up to me at a club and handed me a test and said, "take this, if you pass we can play" I would refuse before he even got the sentence out.

There are any number of reasons for this. Not the least of which is, what if the test returned a false positive? If I took the test in front of everybody there and that happened, I would be branded for life even if further testing proved I was clean.

No, I would be willing to bet a good chunk of change that not just very few people, but no one but the very desperate would take a test handed to him or suggested by a potential play partner. My guess is that if you did go to a club and walk around asking people to take a test, you wouldn't have to worry about refusing to play with anyone because they would be avoiding you like the plague.

Wow, this is totally an unexpected reaction. False positive? If that's a reason not to have instant home tests, then why test at all? I mean, these current tests are 99.9% accurate at the doctor's office, I assume that they are close to that if used at home. So that argument doesn't fly with me.

As for several comments that "I'd never get the words out" if I asked for a test, or that few people would be willing to indulge me in seeking one--there is simply no logic to make that reaction acceptable. You are talking sex; I'm talking death. As for privacy: Umm, I guess so, but isn't that the argument Iran is using to manufacturer nuclear weapons? Privacy ends with my genitals begin. :rollseyes To put it another way, if an airline hired me as a pilot, I'd hope that they'd be safety-conscious enough to check my background a bit--despite the pilot's desire for privacy. Perhaps that's a poor analogy, but why should risking AIDs be different?

I guess you folks who feel that way and myself will never have the opportunity to meet, because we have, by definition, written each other out of our respective black books (and I certaintly don't feel poorer for it--not an insult, just a safety conscious conclusion). And I don't take offense either that you'd never consider myself as a partner. I'm not trying to flame, believe me, but I'm not ashamed to admit that the logic wholly escapes me.

Lawguy

[nice_cpl_n_bama]

Originally Posted by Chicup

Shame that aids wasn't handled as a proper epidemic.

Quarantining the positives early on (and any new ones) would have prevented 1000's of deaths in the US.

As it is, its the only infectious disease with its own laws.

But you see, to do that would make us all bigoted homophobes. :rollseyes
It doesn't matter how much sense that would have made. Powerful political forces were at work on that one. Good sense doesn't stack up against someones political sacred cow

[VegasLee]

I think this would be an interesting topic for Julie to set a poll up on.

"If someone in a club asked you to take this test before playing would you take it?"

If people are honest I am betting your black book is going to get very large.

After thirty years in this Lifestyle I have a pretty good idea what people are going to think of this.

[Tybee Swing]

Originally Posted by Lawguy

I guess you folks who feel that way and myself will never have the opportunity to meet, because we have, by definition, written each other out of our respective black books (and I certaintly don't feel poorer for it--not an insult, just a safety conscious conclusion). And I don't take offense either that you'd never consider myself as a partner. I'm not trying to flame, believe me, but I'm not ashamed to admit that the logic wholly escapes me.

Lawguy

Hi Lawguy,

I think that your surprise to the responses is due to your degree of caution. It sounds like you take a lot of care in selecting your playmates and that you always use condoms. It sounds like you already do everything you can to prevent disease transmission, and wouldn't mind having one more tool at your disposal to prevent it. I think you're assuming that most all other swingers do the same.

You started your original post with:

Originally Posted by Lawguy

While using a condom is certainly the way to go in the lifestyle.

I used to think that virtually everybody doing this must be using condoms, too. But, I've come to learn that a lot of them don't. Many swingers will use them if asked by someone that they really want to play with, but otherwise would leave them off. So, if they don't care to use a condom, they're not likely to care to be asked to take this test, especially publicly at a club.

There have been a lot of threads on this board about the condom debate. You might want to read those to get more insight as to why so many choose to leave them off. It's an eye-opener.

[Lawguy]

Well, the more recent responses have redeemed my faith a bit. I guess I agree that I might be more cautious than average. I was the kid who was always afraid to climb the tree while growing up, etc.

I would like to respond a bit to goodtimes' comment, however. In my view, I think that it's unfair to say that we would be walking through a club waiving an HIV test kit in the air. As you know, when couples meet they often will spend a few minutes or hours determining initial compatibility. If things go well, then one side or the other will make the suggestion to take it further. It is then, that I would likely say "my wife and I are game, but we do insist on a 10-20 minute HIV test prior to playing; if that's not okay with you, we understand completely and hope to see you again sometime." This not attempting to publicly embarass the other couple and it's certainly not making unreasonable demands upon them. It's simply saying, safety first. No one else at the club need even know about it. Heck, you can go into the bathroom and take the test and no one will know it.

By the way, if you are playing with a good looking couple (and believe me, I am gorgeous!) wouldn't you love to know that they always insisted on an HIV test for their prior encounters?

Again, no flame, just a thought.

Lawguy

[curiousagain]

The percentage of false positives is greater than 0.1% and a public place much less a swing club is not the place to have that happen. Factor in untrained, probably inebriated testers and subjects and the percentage would be much higher.

There is a reason that percentages for procedures and tests are tracked and published. NOTHING IS 100% either way and the results of these tests are monitored, evaluated, and acted on, repeated, or rejected by people with YEARS of education and training.

With an at home pregnancy test, the results of a false positive are quickly proven false and the psychological, political, sociological, societal, and physical damage is not near what it would be with a false positive HIV test especially in a public place.

A positive HIV result at your Doctor's office would be handled in the appropriate manner including the possibility that it was a false positive. I dare say that would not be the case in a swing club or house party. Not to mention all of the ramifications of a true positive and the ability of your Physician and their staff to connect you with all of the support organizations and resources you will most assuredly need.

I have myself tested once or twice a year at my DOCTOR's office. If you asked me to take one at a bar I would be one of those that told you "thanks but no thanks" Might that give people the impression that I was positive? Maybe. Do I care? Nope.

[rpu3]

Originally Posted by Lawguy

By the way, if you are playing with a good looking couple (and believe me, I am gorgeous!) wouldn't you love to know that they always insisted on an HIV test for their prior encounters?

Again, no flame, just a thought.

Lawguy

I'm not sure where looks comes into it. If you are trying to play it safe, wouldn't you love to know any potential play partner always insisted on an HIV test for their prior encounters? Not just the good looking people?

I'm not on the 'testing at the club as a condition of play' bandwagon because of the fact that typical HIV tests specifically test for antibodies. Antibodies may not show as a positive test result for a period of time (anywhere from 2 weeks and up to 6 months), so that potential play partner might be at risk for infecting others, but you'd never know. Further, at this time (IIRC), the only FDA approved "at-home" kit only tests for HIV-1 antibodies, and not HIV-2. YMMV, of course.

So until an instant test is developed that actually tested for the presence of either virus, and not the antibodies, I personally am not going to be interested in asking people to test; instead I am more interested in minimizing the risk in a less invasive and potentially insulting manner.