Stallion October 1987 Magazine

ARTICLES & FICTION
14 "HIGH RISK"
By Gregg Logan
18 "JIM BAILEY"
By Robert Julian
34 "RUSSIAN RIVER"
By Charles Linebarger
50 "HAND TO MOUTH"
By George Hillarde
54 "PIERCE DANIELS"
By Robert W. Richards
66 "COWBOYS & INDIANS"
By Dave Price
VISUALS
21 "TRIGGER HAPPY"
By Dave
29 "THAT TURNER BOY"
From Falcon Studios
39 "DIFFERENT"
By Chris Morris
61 "BOXCAR BLOND"
By Graven Image
77 "BIG GUNS"
From Catalina Video
MONTHLY FEATURES
5 QUICKIES
10 ROUNDUP (Film, Books, Theatre, Music)
26 SMOKE FROM JEANNIE'S LAMP
46 VIDEO VIEWS
70 CONTACTS
EDITORIAL
To test or not to test? As the debate over mandatory vs. routine testing for AIDS becomes politicized as a conservative vs. liberal issue, I am once again forced to weigh the health concerns of society against the civil rights concerns of the individual. After arming myself with as many facts as possible, I still resist pressure to take the test, and my reasons for refusing are these: (1) I do not wish to take any test as long as my privacy is not protected; (2) I do not wish to take any test that is not accurate; (3) I do not wish to take any test that will give a diagnosis but no hope for treatment.
With regard to (1): In spite of the fact that more and more heterosexuals are being tested, the stigma of even thinking that one might have a reason to do so still exists. And if one does test positive, how, can one be certain that such information will not be indiscriminately revealed? Or that one will not be forced to inform on sexual partners whose lives could be destroyed? No matter what codes are devised or what oaths doctors swear that confidentiality will be assured, neither system seems foolproof — already a confidential log of 500 individuals whose positive tests were made at a Washington, D.C. clinic has vanished from its premises. Disclosing the contents of that book is at present a federal offense, but if future laws should require disclosure, what code cannot be broken, what doctor cannot be intimidated?
With regard to (2): The two so-called "standard AIDS tests" in use today are The Western Blot (which indicates the presence of antibodies to the virus, suggesting only that an individual has been exposed, not necessarily that the virus is still in his system) and the ELISA (which currently has about a 20% inaccuracy factor). But suppose a person has indeed truly tested positive. According to the Federal Centers for Disease Control, between 70-80% of the true positives will not develop the disease, as five-year testing now shows.
With regard to (3): 1 have seen marriages (both gay and straight) collapse, I have seen jobs and homes lost, and most frightening of all, I have seen individuals disintegrate emotionally while waiting for a positive diagnosis to escalate into ARC or full-fledged AIDS. What good does knowing do — if one is already practicing safe sex — since nothing can prevent that escalation. Believing I had tested positive would not tell me if I were a walking time bomb or not; believing I had tested negative might lull me into a false sense of security. Either diagnosis constitutes a great amount of emotional baggage to lug around in a time when most gay men are already carrying as much as they can handle.
In the meantime, I cannot trust an administration that has not proven itself trustworthy, and I will not roll up my sleeve, no matter how "routine" such testing becomes.
Jerry Douglas
Editor