Should Mandatory HIV Testing be Legal?
One of the more controversial issues of today is HIV. After comparing two essays with two different viewpoints on this topic, I found one to be more persuasive than the other. In the first essay, by RoseMarie Gionta Alfieri, she does an excellent job of relating to her readers, appealing to their emotions and, using good authority. In the second essay, by Amitai Etzioni, he did not accomplish those important tasks. Because of this, Alfieri has a more persuasive essay than Etzioni.
“Should the State Know Your HIV Status?” serves as Alfieri’s title and the question she asks her readers in her essay, first published in Ms. Magazine in 1998. The primary purpose of her essay is t point out the negative effects that could occur if mandatory testing were enforced. She states many reasons why she is against mandatory HIV testing. She says, “The possibility exists that a woman could be tested and treated but not benefit from the treatment, leafing her ill, psychologically and emotionally damaged, and facing possible job loss and discrimination” (9). She believes that it would be hard on all women, not just those who are infected with the HIV virus. She also considers the mandatory testing of infants to be wrong. She encourages pregnant women, or women trying to get pregnant, to get tested, but feels the decision should be primarily up to the mother.
Amitai Etzioni has a different view on the matter. In his essay, “HIV Sufferers Have a Responsibility,” which appeared in Newsweek in 1993, Etzioni tells us why he thinks HIV sufferers should have to disclose their illness. He argues that they should disclose this information for the good of society, in order to help save lives, regardless of the personal consequences. In his essay he states, “the first victims of nondisclosure are the loved ones of those already afflicted with HIV” (56). He also says that the people who are likely to be infected – gays or drug addicts who share needles – have a social obligation to come forward and be tested (55).
I believe Alfieri relates better to her readers than Etzioni does. Alfieri’s essay was published in a women’s magazine and she does an excellent job of relating to all women, not just those infected with HIV, because the things she writes about, such as mandatory testing and unknown transmission, could affect all women. She is strongly against mandatory HIV testing and name based reporting. She feels women should be able to make their own decision about being tested (8). Most women would agree with this point because no one wants to be controlled. She also tells us how the government is trying to require testing of all pregnant women and newborns (7 – 8). Alfieri reports that, in a sense, mandatory testing is already being done. Various pregnant women have been tested without consent and found out they were HIV positive (9). I am sure the majority of women do not want their babies or themselves tested without their knowledge. That is a personal matter and everyone should be able to make their own decision. Another point she makes, and that many of her readers could relate to, is unknown transmission of the disease. Alfieri explains, “An infected person may live symptom-free for more than a decade, and consequently may unwittingly transmit the virus through unsafe sex and/or needle sharing” (6 – 7). May people believe that a thing like that would never happen to them, but later find out they were wrong. I feel that is Alfieri’s way of telling women to be more careful. These points, of course, do not just affect HIV infected women, but all women.
On the other hand, not as many people can relate to Etzioni’s essay. I belive he is writing in general to the public but mainly to HIV sufferers. Etzioni writes, “the more responsibly HIV sufferers act, the fewer dead they will leave in their trail” (55). I believe that in that statement he is telling HIV sufferers to act more carefully or they will take the lives of innocent people. He also adds, “The moral duty of those already afflicted, must be clearly articulated: being intimate without prior disclosure is like serving arsenic in a cake” (55). That point, obviously, is also intended for HIV sufferers. I feel not as many people can relate these points. His essay is intended primarily for those infected with HIV.
Alfieri also has more effective emotional appeals than Etzioni. Alfieri writes that nearly 6,500 women become infected with the HIV virus every day (7). When Alfieri wrote that she was most likely trying to shock her readers; most people do not expect the statistics to be so high. Gerald Stine, professor of genetics and microbiology at the University of North Florida, writes, “The largest-growing segment of HIV and AIDS cases is minority women, especially poorer women, who cannot afford to be sick” (qtd. In Alfieri 8). This statement should obviously make readers feel pity of the poor women who are unfortunate enough to have this happen to them. Another one of her strong emotional appeals is women transmitting HIV to their newborns. She points out if an HIV positive mother breast-feeds her healthy newborn she will transmit the virus to the baby. However, some women do not get their test results back for six to seven weeks after delivering the baby, once the disease has already been transmitted (8). After reading that, how could her readers feel any thing but compassion for those babies and their mothers? Finally, one of her stronger emotional appeals is when she talks about Nushawn Williams, the man who had infected 13 girls, and women, with HIV and had no regard for the health of others (4). This should make any human being feel hatred for this man and compassion for those unfortunate girls and women.
On the other hand, Etzioni does not have enough emotional appeal in his essay. He does have one strong point when he writes, “The first victims of non disclosure are the loved ones of those already afflicted wit HIV, even – in the case of afflicted women – their children” (56). This should also make people feel pity for those afflicted. Also, he quotes one of the Ten Commandments for his last sentence, “Thou shalt not kill” (56). That statement bluntly points out to HIV suffers that by not being careful they could end the lives of other people. It should also make them feel guilty. These are strong points but they do not compare to all of the emotional appeals of Alfieri.
Finally, Alfieri has very good credibility. She refers to and quotes several experts, which in turn add authority to her essay by showing that these ideas are not just her own opinion but other people believe it as well. Several times throughout her essay she quotes Gerald Stine, professor of genetics and microbiology at the University of North Florida and the author of a series of books on AIDS. He adds some very important points to her essay, for example, the fact that the largest number of AIDS cases is among minority women. He also informs us of the fact that many people who are HIV positive are still having unprotected sex. Some of the other experts she quotes often are Terry McGovern, executive director of the HIV Law Project, Lisa Cox, program and policy directory for the National Women’s Health Network, and Leslie R. Wolfe, president of the Center for Women Policy Studies. Those are only a few of the well-credited individuals she refers to. This enhances her credibility because, again, it shows that this is not just her own opinion.
On the other hand, Etzioni does not refer to many experts. For example, he quotes Rob Tier, a gay activist in Washington, and only once quotes The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Compared to Alfieri’s essay, that is very little evidence and expert opinion. However, he himself is well accredited. He received his B.A. at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and his M.A. and Ph.D at the University of California at Berkley. Nevertheless, I feel his paper is written mainly on his own opinion. He does not have enough support or expert opinion to back up his essay.
After comparing these two controversial essays, it is clear to me which one is more persuasive. I believe Alfieri did a better job of relating to her readers, appealing to people’s emotions, and establishing better credibility. However, I do not think Etzioni has a bad essay. I believe the primary problem with his essay was that he did not have enough evidence to back it up.
Works Cited
Alfieri, RoseMarie Gionta. “Should the State Know Your HIV Status?” The Mercury Reader. Ed. Scott Stankey. Needham Heights, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2000. 4-11.
Etzioni, Amitai. “HIV Sufferers Have a Responsibility.” The Mercury Reader. Ed. Scott Stankey. Needham Heights, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2000. 54-56.