Danziger R
Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
AIDS Care. 1998 Oct;10(5):563-70. doi: 10.1080/09540129848424.
This paper compares policies on named HIV testing in the context of HIV prevention in Britain, Hungary and Sweden, and considers the extent to which these policies are based on evidence of effectiveness or on other, more contextual, factors. In Britain, testing has not featured significantly as a prevention strategy, and named testing has generally been carried out only with the voluntary, informed consent of individuals. In Hungary, testing is central to HIV prevention, and is required by law of certain groups. HIV testing is carried out mainly on a voluntary basis in Sweden, but, unlike in Britain, it has been actively promoted by public health authorities. The paper contrasts the 'right not to know' one's HIV status which is widely respected in Britain, with the 'responsibility to find out' which is more pervasive in Hungary and Sweden. Although policy makers in all three countries appear convinced that their's is the right approach, there appears to be as yet a dearth of convincing evidence to support their arguments.
本文比较了英国、匈牙利和瑞典在艾滋病病毒预防背景下关于实名艾滋病病毒检测的政策，并探讨了这些政策在多大程度上基于有效性证据或其他更多与具体情况相关的因素。在英国，检测并未显著成为一种预防策略，实名检测通常仅在个人自愿、知情同意的情况下进行。在匈牙利，检测是艾滋病病毒预防的核心，并且法律要求特定群体进行检测。在瑞典，艾滋病病毒检测主要在自愿基础上进行，但与英国不同的是，它得到了公共卫生当局的积极推广。本文将英国广泛尊重的“不知情权”与匈牙利和瑞典更为普遍的“查明责任”进行了对比。尽管这三个国家的政策制定者似乎都坚信自己的方法是正确的，但目前似乎缺乏令人信服的证据来支持他们的观点。
