Accrington Web - View Single Post

lettie · 08-03-2004, 16:12

Sorry Roy, not getting at you!! I too have travelled to the far east, and one of the reasons for dodgy blood products is a lack of funds to make them safe. I do concede that the majority of HIV being brought into the country is by immigrants, but a small number of brits have definately caught the infection abroad. Although the numbers may not be significant in a statistical sense, when you look at the long term implications ie, spread to others, long term medical costs etc then I think it is very significant.

Jo, in December 2000 the UK launched ante natal screening for HIV for all pregnant women. This is an opt out test, so if the woman does not wish to be tested she has to say so. Counselling is given by the Midwife prior to testing and we are aiming for an 80% uptake of the test, which I think we have roughly achieved in our area. Worryingly we have had positive results in young women through heterosexual sex. Women are tested only once during each pregnancy. This is usually done at about 14-16 weeks. I personally think that there should be at least 2 HIV tests in pregnancy, bearing in mind that even in long established relationships, both parties are not always faithful and it takes about 12 weeks from HIV contact for the blood to seroconvert.

I did ask at Uni about the screening of immigrants, and the tutor ( a GUM clinic health advisor) mentioned that it was once an idea that was bandied around Parliament, but was chucked out on ethical grounds. I have not seen anything in writing which backs this up, but am still looking for material. I have until May to get my work in, and when you search the net for info regarding STI's there's millions of pages containing info (not to mention the odd porn site that comes up when you search for anything in this topic area) I also have stacks of papers on hard copy from various journals, so this project is turning into a mammoth task.

The only way the government have been able to roughly establish the numbers, has been by unlinked anonymous testing. This has been happening since the 80's and what basically happens is - when you go for a blood test, after the local lab has checked your blood for whatever they need to. All the labelling is taken off the blood tube, and the blood sent to a central lab and tested for HIV. There is absolutely no identification on the blood bottle, not even the health authority in which the test originated apparently. So if the lab get a positive result, it is just a number, there is no way to contact the person and let them know that they're positive. I know that they have done this on routine antenatal blood in the past and on baby heel prick scriver test spots. This kind of testing enables the DoH to write lots of bumf about how the NHS can cope with the numbers in the future. The figure for UK is 45.000 affected people so far and they reckon a third of those are unaware due to the unlinked screening.

08-03-2004, 16:12	#9
lettie Filthy / Gorgeous Bejeweled Blitz Champion! Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Xanadu Posts: 4,005 Blog Entries: 337 Liked: 67 times Rep Power: 88670	Re: Alarming health stats.. Sorry Roy, not getting at you!! I too have travelled to the far east, and one of the reasons for dodgy blood products is a lack of funds to make them safe. I do concede that the majority of HIV being brought into the country is by immigrants, but a small number of brits have definately caught the infection abroad. Although the numbers may not be significant in a statistical sense, when you look at the long term implications ie, spread to others, long term medical costs etc then I think it is very significant. Jo, in December 2000 the UK launched ante natal screening for HIV for all pregnant women. This is an opt out test, so if the woman does not wish to be tested she has to say so. Counselling is given by the Midwife prior to testing and we are aiming for an 80% uptake of the test, which I think we have roughly achieved in our area. Worryingly we have had positive results in young women through heterosexual sex. Women are tested only once during each pregnancy. This is usually done at about 14-16 weeks. I personally think that there should be at least 2 HIV tests in pregnancy, bearing in mind that even in long established relationships, both parties are not always faithful and it takes about 12 weeks from HIV contact for the blood to seroconvert. I did ask at Uni about the screening of immigrants, and the tutor ( a GUM clinic health advisor) mentioned that it was once an idea that was bandied around Parliament, but was chucked out on ethical grounds. I have not seen anything in writing which backs this up, but am still looking for material. I have until May to get my work in, and when you search the net for info regarding STI's there's millions of pages containing info (not to mention the odd porn site that comes up when you search for anything in this topic area) I also have stacks of papers on hard copy from various journals, so this project is turning into a mammoth task. The only way the government have been able to roughly establish the numbers, has been by unlinked anonymous testing. This has been happening since the 80's and what basically happens is - when you go for a blood test, after the local lab has checked your blood for whatever they need to. All the labelling is taken off the blood tube, and the blood sent to a central lab and tested for HIV. There is absolutely no identification on the blood bottle, not even the health authority in which the test originated apparently. So if the lab get a positive result, it is just a number, there is no way to contact the person and let them know that they're positive. I know that they have done this on routine antenatal blood in the past and on baby heel prick scriver test spots. This kind of testing enables the DoH to write lots of bumf about how the NHS can cope with the numbers in the future. The figure for UK is 45.000 affected people so far and they reckon a third of those are unaware due to the unlinked screening.