|A couple of questions for Dr. Robert
Jul 6, 2003
I have written to you in the past; thank you for all of your responses. I don't have any specific questions about me today, just two general inquiries that I thought of during the last few long weeks
1. Wouldn't it make sense for someone in the window period to take out a huge life insurance policy before their window period expired? I understand they use antibody tests in this situation. If they use viral loads, then it's a free test! Is this a good idea? What are your thoughts on this, morally? Legally?
I don't see any laws being broken in this situation. I thought about this a few days after exposure, but now I actually see less of a reason to do this after reading about living a full life. As an optimist, I'd expect you to not even have considered this, but I was interested in your thoughts.
2. I was recently told that heterosexual males get no federal funding for the disease. I didn't know what that meant (besides that they're in what's considered a low-risk group). I figured you might be able to explain exactly what the implications of that are, if you are familiar with that at all.
Once again, thank you for your services here. Have a nice day.
| Response from Dr. Frascino
1. Is that legal? Sure, anyone can apply for life insurance anytime they want. Is it moral? Do you mean is it morally wrong to try to get life insurance if you might be HIV-positive? I suppose you could argue either way on that one. The insurance companies sure don't mind trying to pry extra dollars out of you at every chance they get. There were also companies that utilized some very immoral exclusionary criteria regarding HIV in the past, but all that is just history or fuel for a moral debate, and not really the focus of this site. The important question is: "Is this a good idea?" I'm sure the insurance companies would love it if all worried wells and folks in the window period decided to take out huge insurance policies. It would make their companies bigger than General Electric, IBM, and Microsoft combined within a matter of weeks! So, no, it's not really a good idea. If you're positive, they won't give you insurance. And, if you're negative, most likely you are not going to be HIV-infected, making the insurance company the only winner in that case. Anonymous testing sites and home testing will really make this question obsolete anyway. 2. Heterosexual males get no federal funding for HIV? Now there is a bizarre concept. This simply is not true. You don't really believe everything you are told, do you? Can you imagine our current administration discriminating against heterosexual males? Maybe when pigs fly!
Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.