| 英文摘要 |
Owing to the influence of the HIV Exceptionalism perspective, HIV testing—unlike other blood tests—is not being conducted with presumed consent of the patient. Instead, it is required that people should be tested for HIV only with their informed voluntary and specific consent. Recently the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , the World Health Organization (WHO) , and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) jointly released new guidelines for HIV testing which expand access to HIV testing in healthcare settings and extend the benefits of antiretroviral therapy to the infected. The current revisions to HIV testing guidelines, however, have raised new debates on the role of consent and counseling in the HIV testing process. To assess the necessity of adopting newly international guidelines, this study aims to discuss how HIV Exceptionalism has impacted HIV testing and screening law and policy, analyze evidence for the guideline revisions, and examine the current state of Taiwan’s HIV screening regulatory scheme under the HIV Infection Control and Patient Protection Act. It is suggested that there exists insufficient evidence to conclude that reducing pretest counseling or affirmative agreement requirements will be significantly beneficial to achieving public health goals. In addition, the HIV Act has allowed extensive mandatory screening under Article 15, paragraph one while at the same time adopted loose consultative and consent requirements under Article 15-1. To balance public health needs with an individual’s right to self-determination, public health authorities should increase access to routine physician-initiated, pre-testing information provision, and opt-in HIV screening.
|
