STD Testing - Who is at Fault?
I wonder how many times I've heard someone say to me as I'm diagnosing them with an STD, "But I asked my partner before we had sex and they said they were clean!"
On one hand, its good that the topic of sexual health came up at all. But on the other, how do people really know if they are "clean" anyway? And do you think that we could use some other term for not being infected with an STD? Because the opposite of "clean" is "dirty" and I would really love to see THAT concept go away somewhere and never return. Is it any wonder STDs are stigmatized in our society when that's how we define someone who is infected?
STDs spread largely because people don't know they have them. If someone knew, for example, that they had chlamydia, a bacterial STD, they would get it treated and it would not be spread to anyone else. But about 2/3 of women who have chlamydia don't know they have it, and perhaps a third of men, so it just keeps moving from person to person, not because anyone is "dirty" but because the bacteria stays inside people, unrecognized, even for years, until someone diagnoses it and treats it.
The same is true with genital herpes. Ninety percent of those infected with herpes have no clue. They infect someone else who notices, and then all hell breaks loose - who gave what to whom and how dare you! But its nowhere near that malicious.
Perhaps the irresponsible part relates more to not getting tested before having sex with a new partner. If people did get tested for STDs more often, there would likely be less of them. So whose fault is that? I think the blame falls on both clinicians and sexually active people. Spur of the moment sex with a new partner is hot and interesting and fun, but it really doesn't allow for the time it takes to sort out STDs, does it? Is there a middle ground somewhere in there?
And clinicians - how receptive are they to patients requesting full STD screening? And how good are they at including all the possible STDs that someone might reasonably have? They are notoriously not great about including herpes testing in an STD screen, and that's the most prevalent STD in the US!
I think the burden must fall on the sexually active person who holds off on penetrative sex until testing has been done or least uses condoms for everything until testing can be done.
Or maybe its me. Maybe if I could figure out how to make testing hot and interesting and fun, people would do it more! But that's a whole different blog.
~Terri
Related Topics: Technorati Tags: STD, testing, herpes, chlamydia, sexual health
On one hand, its good that the topic of sexual health came up at all. But on the other, how do people really know if they are "clean" anyway? And do you think that we could use some other term for not being infected with an STD? Because the opposite of "clean" is "dirty" and I would really love to see THAT concept go away somewhere and never return. Is it any wonder STDs are stigmatized in our society when that's how we define someone who is infected?
STDs spread largely because people don't know they have them. If someone knew, for example, that they had chlamydia, a bacterial STD, they would get it treated and it would not be spread to anyone else. But about 2/3 of women who have chlamydia don't know they have it, and perhaps a third of men, so it just keeps moving from person to person, not because anyone is "dirty" but because the bacteria stays inside people, unrecognized, even for years, until someone diagnoses it and treats it.
The same is true with genital herpes. Ninety percent of those infected with herpes have no clue. They infect someone else who notices, and then all hell breaks loose - who gave what to whom and how dare you! But its nowhere near that malicious.
Perhaps the irresponsible part relates more to not getting tested before having sex with a new partner. If people did get tested for STDs more often, there would likely be less of them. So whose fault is that? I think the blame falls on both clinicians and sexually active people. Spur of the moment sex with a new partner is hot and interesting and fun, but it really doesn't allow for the time it takes to sort out STDs, does it? Is there a middle ground somewhere in there?
And clinicians - how receptive are they to patients requesting full STD screening? And how good are they at including all the possible STDs that someone might reasonably have? They are notoriously not great about including herpes testing in an STD screen, and that's the most prevalent STD in the US!
I think the burden must fall on the sexually active person who holds off on penetrative sex until testing has been done or least uses condoms for everything until testing can be done.
Or maybe its me. Maybe if I could figure out how to make testing hot and interesting and fun, people would do it more! But that's a whole different blog.
~Terri
Related Topics: Technorati Tags: STD, testing, herpes, chlamydia, sexual health
6 Comments:
I agree, every sexually active person should be tested. The problem I have with that is that I keep hearing how unreliable the tests can be. My boyfriend had 2 cultures done, they both came out negative. He finally had a blood test, which came out positive. I have genital HV2, and possible HV1. How do we know if the test is telling us the true story?
And why all the stigmatism with HV? if we could just all be open about it, things wouldn't get so out of control.
I am 65, people got "cold sores" no one thought a thing of it when I was younger, now it is a big dirty deal. I don't understand. It is hurting people and causing so much stress. I causes people to lie.
So if both people are + for genital Herpes can reinfection happen in other areas of the body. For example if you are lying next to someone who may be shedding (but no active outbreak) is not on any of the medications, and the other persons outbreak only happens on the labia is it possible for you to get a new outbreak in a new area because of being reinfected lets say on buttocks.
It is the responsibiliy of anyone who engages in sexual behavior to get STD tested on a regular basis especially if having unprotected sex.
Where the fault comes in is on the medical profession. I have HSV-2, but the only way I found out I had it was because I was going through an outbreak...I didn't know what the hell was going on, had flu like symptoms and couldn't urinate. I had not to long ago been STD tested and told that I was clean of everything. My doctor failed to mention that there was a separate test for herpes. I did not know that. As medical professionals it is their jobs to inform their patients. You can't get tested for something that you are not aware of. This has implications for more then just the medical profession, it effects those of lower socio-economic class etc.
I think that when people go for their physical they should be tested for ALL std's. I think if more people were tested and knew their status it would make the stigma much less. Also, I wish there was more information about std's and it wasn't taught as some dirty secret disease, that it can happen & this is what a person can do to be healthy & keep others healthy.
I applaud your candor and your willingness to post an article of this nature. I think that instead of perpetuating this idea that STDs permanently, and irrevocably brand someone as "dirty", there should be a greater emphasis on testing, prevention and management. Let's face the facts, most everyone will encounter an STD. Some are worse than others, and some will remain with the individual for the duration of their lives; but we should not focus on this "branding" of a person as "dirty" or "clean". Contracting an STD is not always a hapless consequence of one's irresponsibility. Sometimes a committed partner may fail to realize that he or she has come into contact with an STD, or they may have not realized that their cold sores could spread the infection to the other individual through oral sex. This stuff happens. It happens in every tier of society - no one is exempt, and thus, with such a diverse population being vulnerable - why should we stigmatize anyone? We are all fair game. And I feel that there should be a greater emphasis on testing, even if one is in a seemingly monogamous relationship. Bottom line, people should be informed, and responsible - but unfortunately, mistakes happen, but we're human - you should not be ostracized for having an STD. If people latched onto this notion more strongly, testing would not seem like such a menacing, scary, and stigmatized thing. Having people be ready and prepared to ascertain whether or not they have an STD is better than having a great portion of our society hide in shame, for fear that anyone may identify such an infection and consequently "brand" them dirty.
Sex education in school and home is the way to solve sex related social, emotional and medical conditions. Abstinence, is not healthy, as I had to masterbate to fullfill my needs created by nature/GOD, till the age of 23 years and when I finally had sex, I felt I lost a good part of my life and pleasure.Also, I am not any better, than anybody who had PROTECTED sex at sixteen or onwards.The authorities do not want to put out the true word, because then how they will make big deal out of it followed by big money. As we know in Europe things are much better, with fewer sex related problems and they are not backwards or christians in any way, rather very progressive. Minimal teen pregnencies and rapes.
Post a Comment