Arguments Against Mandatory Testing

Introduction HIV is one the most prevalent and deadly diseases in the world today, not to mention it’s incredibly transmissible and flexible. HIV is a virus that is spread through body fluids and directly affects the immune system and cells called T cells to essentially shut down the immune system and leave a path for other diseases and the development of AIDS. Given the fact that HIV is highly transmissible through pregnancy, there has been a great debate on whether or not to make testing of pregnant women for the presence of HIV a mandatory practice. Considering HIV is prevalent across the globe, and efforts to diminish the spread of the harmful disease have increased, the thought of changing a voluntary test to a mandatory one has offered

The most important, and often more argued point, is with mandatory testing we can deliver thorough and time sensitive treatment to pregnant women, thus reducing HIV transmission from mother to child (Redden, 2008). Many researchers and bio officials believe that the child’s right to life and health trumps the mother’s right to privacy, an argument featured on the side against mandatory testing. The simple outcome, in theory, to mandatory testing is having more mothers be tested for HIV, therefore more mothers will be treated, which means less transmission of the disease to children and the general population worldwide. People on this side of the argument have taken into account the possibility of voluntary testing and counseling, but these factors are rendered useless if the mother doesn’t opt for treatment. Pro testers are concerned that privacy and secrecy have become more important than treatment and prevention, a huge conundrum (Chattu, 2014). Although the light may seem bright for mandatory testing, there are serious drawbacks to be considered when forcing people to be tested for

One of the bigger arguments fueling the side for no mandatory testing concerns the fact that if the government can force people to be tested for HIV, can it even force them to receive treatment for it? When are we crossing moral boundaries and taking away basic human rights? Would the government be willing to take the decision of treating a child away from that child’s mother? If the government is unwilling to do all three of these things, then mandatory testing would make no difference whatsoever (Nicholson, 2003). On a different note, mandatory testing takes away the privacy of the individual and increases the stigma towards getting tested in the first place, which may cause people to go out of their way to duck testing anyway. Following increased stigma, forcing testing on pregnant mothers will change the entire relationship between provider and patient by transitioning the provider into an enforcing role, rather than a facilitating role (Nicholson, 2003). Although mandatory testing may be effective in one direction, the far reaching ethical issues far outweigh any progress that may come from it. Rigorous retrofitting is required for mutual decisions to be made on this