Comments on: A man, a magistrate and 220 intimates: A reflection of the HIV response in Sri Lanka

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:31:27 +0000

Technique! Great article, Hans.

By: Groundviews

Groundviews — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:05:06 +0000

FYI – “No HIV affected persons in Prisons – Minister” (Daily Mirror), http://www.dailymirror.lk/news/19480-no-hiv-affected-persons-in-prisons-minister.html, June 17, 2012.

By: PitastharaPuthraya

PitastharaPuthraya — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:03:37 +0000

Even if the magistrate orders the rest of the inmates to undergo HIV testing unless they cooperate no body can take blood from them. No doctor or nurse would take blood forcefully from a prisoner who is restrained by prison guards.

However, what the magistrate order would do is that the doctors/nurses would be able to pursuade the prisoner by informing him that an magesterial order has already been issued. By doint so they would be able to obtain blood, though without fully informed consent but with the cooperation of the prisoner. That would be fully consistent with the current practice of medical ethics.

The best way to proceed in such cases is to pursuade the prisoners to undergo voluntar testing.

However, it is not clear, as the author says, why the magistrate thought that at least some or all 220 fellow inmates might have got infected by him.

By: David Blacker

David Blacker — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:27:15 +0000

Shouldn’t the headline read “inmates” and not “intimates”? 🙂