The Guardian’s Health Editor Sarah Boseley made a blunder last week, claiming the US Food and Drug Administration had approved a rapid HIV home-test kit, before the committee had even met to discuss the matter.

The article has sparked off renewed interest in the ethical issues that surround HIV-home testing. It also makes us think twice about the accuracy of leading news websites.

The home kit currently under review could allow home users to test themselves for HIV antibodies (See Testing for HIV factsheet) and have the results within minutes, all within the privacy of their home. Take a quick mouth swab with the OraQuick Advance Rapid HIV-½ Antibody Test, and 20 minutes later you get a result. If only one blue line appears, you are in the clear; two blue lines means you are HIV-positive. In other words, it is very similar to a home pregnancy testing kit.

The kit can only be administered by doctors and clinics in the USA, who offer the test to their patients under supervision and with counselling. On November 3, the FDA will consider whether the test is suitable for home use.

Boseley’s article, published on The Guardian website, had no sources in it, which should have sparked some warning lights for readers. But it didn’t prevent the Mail&Guardian Online running the story, with a South African view patched onto the end of it.

It’s easy to take for granted that international media reports are accurate, especially those coming from publications of high regard like the UK-based Guardian. But even a casual fact check by a local editor would have picked up that something was fishy with Boseley’s piece – newspapers in the USA are still speculating whether the review will be a success.

In the article, Solly Mabotha, director of media and public information at the health department, said the department was against a home test.

“If you do the test at home and hide away so you are the only one who knows you have HIV, that doesn’t work. Because our view is that you need people to advise you on what you want or need to do. Maybe you have to change your diet, and you have to find out if you need medication or not.

“It doesn’t make a difference to us that the US has now decided to approve these home tests. There are facilities to do a test at and we encourage people to go there.”

The Guardian issed an apology on Monday, and by Thursday this week the Mail&Guardian Online’s version had surreptitiously changed from “US approves home tests for HIV despite suicide fears” to “US to approve home HIV tests despite suicide fears”, apparently without a correction notice.

Despite the original article’s inaccuracy, it nevertheless brings the debate back home to South Africa, where HIV/AIDS-testing remains a major issue. Nearly 700,000 people used voluntary testing and counselling services in 2003/2004 according to the health ministry. But what about people who feel ashamed to go to a clinic for a test, or too afraid to receive their results?

Earlier this year, a local supermarket franchise was lambasted by the South African Medical Association for selling home testing kits over the counter.

Kgosi Letlape, the chairman of SAMA, told Agence France-Presse: “Imagine allowing a 13-year-old to self-diagnose cheaply and without any support or counselling - it could destroy their lives; it could lead to suicide, or someone going on a spree and infecting as many people as possible.”

Letlape also said a home test in South Africa would be problematic because counselling is vital considering the number of misconceptions surrounding HIV/AIDS. Employers forcing workers to take rapid HIV-tests with home kits was also a concern.

On November 3 we will know whether supervised HIV-testing is still a requirement in the USA. If home testing is allowed in that country, we should re-open the debate in South Africa. - Lunga Madlala

This entry was posted on Friday, October 21st, 2005 at 6:53 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.