Home test kits available in drugstores have allowed people privacy and convenience in testing themselves for pregnancy and the like. Nonetheless, leaders in the gay community have opposed government approval for such test kits for HIV. Rather than opposing such approval, we should support the availability of home test kits for HIV, out of concern both for the proper scope of government and for those who would buy such kits.
We should not confuse the questions of whether a particular testing method is the best one and whether government should use its powers of force to pick the best one, as a "yes" answer to one of these questions does not imply a "yes" answer to the other. Because government may not initiate force, it is not in the business of protecting a competent adult against her own lapses of judgment. Further, we cannot assume that a single optimal testing mode exists for all persons in all situations and that the federal government knows (or cares) what this optimal testing mode is.
Indeed, home testing may be the best testing method for many. While some argue that home testing will be deficient in such areas as counseling and doctor-patient contact, such arguments do not prove the need to forbid home test kits.
For example, opponents commonly argue that home test kits will leave users without adequate counseling. Telephone counseling, however, has traditionally served many purposes, both AIDS-related and non-AIDS-related, without the risks imagined in the home-testing situation. Moreover, it is naive to assume that face-to-face counseling always achieves its ends or proceeds without incident. When I obtained my HIV test results face-to-face, I received abysmal counseling.
For some persons, counseling over the telephone may be preferable to face-to-face counseling. To understand why, we need only consider the experience of the Catholic Church with its anonymous confessionals. Within the confessional, a Catholic may bare her soul to a priest whom she cannot see through the partition, recounting things that she would never dare say face-to-face to a priest or to anyone else. Such anonymity has obvious value in an area as sensitive as HIV counseling.
Opponents further argue that HIV testing should not take place outside the context of health care. That is, one should seek testing from one's doctor because it is from one's doctor that one will receive the necessary care. This argument does not explain how home testing separates a person from the medical community any more than does any other form of anonymous testing. Also, those who will not submit to any testing except home testing may regard knowing one's HIV status as a prerequisite to seeing a doctor, rather than the other way around.
In addition, while arguments in favor of banning home testing tacitly assume the ready availability of clinical testing, we should assume no such thing. Even in major metropolitan areas, clinics cannot always meet the demand for HIV testing. In rural communities, testing may not be available at all.
Finally, many persons believe that users will be unable to take samples of their own blood without a high risk of harm to themselves, to collect the blood samples correctly, or to interpret the results. This argument proves too much, as it will allow government no end of room for interference with our choices over our own bodies. Besides, government permits industry to sell many products on the open marketplace that are demonstrably dangerous to some persons.
Rather than opposing the availability of home test kits, we should welcome it. Many may benefit from such kits; whose who would benefit should be free to buy and use the kits. Even those who would not benefit should trust the decision to use such kits to individual freedom rather than to government force.