Quote of the day

I paraphrase a comunity physician from a meeting today:

"Its a bad idea to test kids for HIV because if they're positive, then we'll be obligated to look after them".

Is it not a worse idea to let them die undiagnosed? Or wait until they present with obvious AIDS, at which point they may be too ill to save, or they may end up with permanent side effects? (He seemed to think that preferable).

But part of his point was understandable; they don't want to create a visible need if they won't have the resources to deal with it. So we tried to reassure him that we were happy to look after any seropositive kids he found if he did decide to test kids. On one hand, I can understand his anxiety... but if we don't test kids, we won't know how many resources we need to advocate for.