ARTICLES & FICTION
14 "HIGH RISK"
By Gregg Logan
18 "JIM BAILEY"
By Robert Julian
34 "RUSSIAN RIVER"
By Charles Linebarger
50 "HAND TO MOUTH"
By George Hillarde
54 "Pierce Daniels"
By Robert W. Richards
66 "COWBOYS & INDIANS"
By Dave Price VISUALS
21 "TRIGGER HAPPY"
By Dave
29 "THAT TURNER BOY"
From Falcon Studios
39 "DIFFERENT"
By Chris Morris
61 "BOXCAR BLOND"
By Graven Image
77 "BIG GUNS"
From Catalina Video MONTHLY FEATURES
5 QUICKIES
10 ROUNDUP (Film, Books, Theatre, Music)
26 SMOKE FROM JEAnnie'S LAMP
46 VIDEO VIEWS
70 CONTACTS EDITORIAL
To test or not to test? As the debate over mandatory vs. routine testing for
AIDS becomes politicized as a conservative vs. liberal issue, I am once again
forced to weigh the health concerns of society against the civil rights concerns
of the individual. After arming myself with as many facts as possible, I still
resist pressure to take the test, and my reasons for refusing are these: (1)
I do not wish to take any test as long as my privacy is not protected; (2) I
do not wish to take any test that is not accurate; (3) I do not wish to take
any test that will give a diagnosis but no hope for treatment.
With regard to (1): In spite of the fact that more and more heterosexuals are
being tested, the stigma of even thinking that one might have a reason to do
so still exists. And if one does test positive, how, can one be certain that
such information will not be indiscriminately revealed? Or that one will not
be forced to inform on sexual partners whose lives could be destroyed? No matter
what codes are devised or what oaths doctors swear that confidentiality will
be assured, neither system seems foolproof — already a confidential log
of 500 individuals whose positive tests were made at a Washington, D.C. clinic
has vanished from its premises. Disclosing the contents of that book is at present
a federal offense, but if future laws should require disclosure, what code cannot
be broken, what doctor cannot be intimidated?
With regard to (2): The two so-called "standard AIDS tests" in use
today are The Western Blot (which indicates the presence of antibodies to the
virus, suggesting only that an individual has been exposed, not necessarily
that the virus is still in his system) and the ELISA (which currently has about
a 20% inaccuracy factor). But suppose a person has indeed truly tested positive.
According to the Federal Centers for Disease Control, between 70-80% of the
true positives will not develop the disease, as five-year testing now shows.
With regard to (3): 1 have seen marriages (both gay and straight) collapse,
I have seen jobs and homes lost, and most frightening of all, I have seen individuals
disintegrate emotionally while waiting for a positive diagnosis to escalate
into ARC or full-fledged AIDS. What good does knowing do — if one is already
practicing safe sex — since nothing can prevent that escalation. Believing
I had tested positive would not tell me if I were a walking time bomb or not;
believing I had tested negative might lull me into a false sense of security.
Either diagnosis constitutes a great amount of emotional baggage to lug around
in a time when most gay men are already carrying as much as they can handle.
In the meantime, I cannot trust an administration that has not proven itself
trustworthy, and I will not roll up my sleeve, no matter how "routine"
such testing becomes.
Jerry Douglas
Editor
