A public health dilemma: A testing question

Abstract

The current moves to provide access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) to all in need has led to a push to HIV test. In particular, there have been policy moves endorsed by the World Heath Organization and UNAIDS to introduce routine ‘opt out’ HIV testing in countries with high prevalence. A number of claims have been made with regard to the benefits of increasing the numbers of people on antiretroviral therapy. Two of these claims are disputed here. Treatment roll-out and the associated push for routine testing raise questions of concern to public health and human rights. While it is claimed that treatment roll-out will reduce stigma and discrimination, there is little evidence to support the claim. It is also claimed that treatment uptake will reduce the likelihood of HIV transmission and that thus treatments themselves have a preventive effect. This direct effect of treatment uptake on prevention is augmented, it is claimed, if use is made of the voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) encounter and people counselled to act safely. Again there is little evidence to support the claims made. In addressing the evidence for these two claims, the paper cautions against the large scale adoption of routine ‘opt out’ or, as it is sometimes called, ‘provider-initiated’ testing.