Public Health Vs. Privacy Rights: Case Study

3. In what form or forms does the conflict between outcomes and actions present itself in this scenario?

On one hand, testing as many people as possible for AIDS, and specifically focusing testing programs upon high-risk groups seems like a good idea, given that it should result in the positive outcome of reducing the amount of unaware people engaged in high-risk sexual behavior who could infect other individuals. However, there is the issue of engaging in unfair, discriminatory testing practices and encouraging societal prejudice against a particular group that has a disproportionate number of individuals infected with AIDS.

4. Does mandatory named neonate testing sound, at first hearing, like a good idea? What about the proposal of some AIDS scholars for a testing program aimed at particular subpopulations based on statistical estimates of underlying infection rates or risky behavior patterns? At first look, does the Nahmias-Feinstein proposal for screening strategies seem like a good idea?

While on the surface neonatal and population-specific testing may sound like a good idea, this could result in individuals being labeled for life, either from an early age, or as potential carriers because of a test subject's membership in a particularly stigmatized population. Focusing on a particular population, then criminalizing those who test positive and engage in unsafe sexual practices is also counter-productive to encouraging test participation. A population-specific program in a legal and social world hostile to HIV-positive people, AIDS patients, and gay men in general would ultimately seem ineffective, if those who tested positive felt condemned to physical and social 'deaths.' It could also discourage mothers from having their children