The
employment agency found the perfect candidate for me; an experienced housekeeper
in her mid forties, sufficiently literate and cultured. A relative suggested that
a medical examination was necessary to determine if the candidate was fit for
the job and I readily agreed. A few
years back, my 19 year old house help gave me a fright when she had an
epileptic attack so I figured it was a good idea. Even so I had no particular parameters for the
medical examination. My relative who is a health worker (a nurse by her own
claims) indicated that such examinations were routine and offered to have it
done at the health facility where she worked. The prospective employee and her
agent had expected this and were more than agreeable.
Later
when my relative nurse called in with feedback on the tests, she said the
employee hopeful was “clean” on all the tests except the HIV AIDS test which
was “inconclusive”. The employee hopeful however did not wait at the clinic for
the results of whatever examination had been carried out on her so the nurse was
somewhat disappointed because the doctor at the clinic had intended, as part of
the routine, to send her off with a dose of counsel on account of her HIV AIDS
status!
To
say I was mortified is perhaps an understatement. HIV AIDS testing had not
crossed my mind; even if it could be argued to be a legitimate concern in the
circumstances and the legal and psychological implications of testing without
the informed consent of the “victim” was not lost on me. That I did not trouble
myself with the details of the examination to be carried out on the employee
hopeful was irresponsible but that’s neither the focus nor the troubling aspect
of this confession.
HIV
AIDS testing on unsuspecting victims I found are routine in many health
facilities and health workers justify this modus operandi with the claim that
they have to protect themselves. Yep, by
knowing your HIV status and heaven knows which others. But many health workers in
both public and private facilities claim to work with limited or no resources
including protective gear or insurance back-up so perhaps there is some rational
basis to their claim. It seems though that not only health workers are taking
steps to “protect” themselves; employers and increasingly those employing
domestic help are equally concerned about the possible effect of the health
status of their employees on the job, fellow workers, clients. To illustrate
the need my relative tells the story of a house-help who unknowingly infected
the 2-year old daughter of her employers through her daily practical lessons in
teeth brushing with her own (the house-help’s) tooth-brush.
That
said, when a person who has not knowingly and willingly submitted to HIV AIDS
testing is obliged to receive news of the “fact” of their HIV status after the test
is done surreptitiously; it is as unpardonable as it is dangerous. Yet this was
only the wound to which the salt that follows was applied.
What
would make an HIV AIDS test inconclusive? What did that mean anyway? I could
not make sense of the explanation to the “inconclusive” HIV test provided by
the clinic’s doctor via my relative- that the patient was probably only in the
early stages of contracting the disease.
The real deal is this. There are HIV AIDS tests kits available these
days that provide almost instant results; the RAPID or ELISA tests. The kit approach
is quite like the pregnancy test available over the counter but in this case a certified
laboratory technician, nurse, mid-wife etc carries out the test in a certified
laboratory for purposes of quality control. This first anti-body testing has to
be confirmed even if positive by a second and sometimes third test if the first
two are discordant. As explained by a doctor, this time at the main teaching
hospital, the so-called inconclusive test simply meant one of 3 things; the
test kit used was expired or the kit was improperly stored and rendered
ineffective or the technician at the clinic did a lousy job!
