Is it okay to ask someone to get tested before we meet

[hntnhole]

16 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

It's not illegal or immoral.

But as you phrased it ("ask someone to get tested"),

I agree.  While asking someone to get tested prior to meeting up, the implication of that question is a bit much.  What seems to me to most effective would be making sure you've taken all the precautions yourself.  Asking another guy to get tested may not be illegal or immoral, but it definitely puts him on the defensive, rather than an equal footing with you.  Once you've taken all the precautions yourself, and can offer proof of negative tests for the lesser, treatable infections, you'd at least be able to answer the other guy's equally-reasoned request for your own "proof".  

What you don't mention, is whether the guy is a prospective boyfriend/husband/buddy (implying some kind of ongoing relationship) or a hook-up that you may never see again.  I agree that asking that question is neither illegal or immoral, but it does seem to be a bit pushy.  

Good luck.

[ErosWired]

25 minutes ago, justsexnowatl said:

are you gonna ask for a rapid test before every single fuck?

It bears mentioning, in addition, that at-home rapid STI test kits generally cost north of $40 US. In the United States, going to a clinic for testing may incur a cost as well, especially for the uninsured or under-insured. How many guys are willing to drop forty bucks every time they want a shag? The men who fuck me fuck for free.

[hntnhole]

On 6/26/2023 at 2:51 PM, ellentonboy said:

I don't recall anyone every asking me to see any kind of medical reports - EVER.

Neither have I.  The very notion of carrying a folded up report in my back pocket when I'm out in the backrooms/fuckjoints, proving that at some certain moment prior, I had tested negative is nuts.  Just because earlier that month I had tested negative for the lesser infections doesn't mean that I didn't pick up some bug in the preceding few nights.  

Protection, at whatever level an individual guy deems appropriate, is that guy's business, which applies to every other guy equally.

[BlindRawFucker1]

Of course it is okay to ask a guy to be tested.

 

Of course it is okay for him to say “NO!”

 

Then what?

[norefusal]

not sure why everyone is misinterpreting my comment. i'm not saying it's wrong to ask questions. but the OP didn't word the post like he's asking about a status. he phrased it like he's demanding to see a test result as a requirement to sex. hipaa may not cover private citizens demanding health information that is none of their fucking business, but i still say demanding to see someone's test results goes against the spirit of the law. it's our own private business. we can voluntarily share as most of us often do, but requiring to see a medical test result? uncool. 

and let's be truthful, THE only reason most of us list our statuses online is to increase our chances of getting laid because irrational prejudice against hiv+ men is still pervasive in current culture. also uncool 

[Rillion]

I'm finding it more common for guys to have screenshots of their test results from their quarterly PrEP testing regime. Mistr is making it easy to get prep and get tested plus share those results easily. Of course nothing prevents someone from catching something a few minutes after taking the battery of std tests (and they may have already become infect with HIV before the test but not yet developed the antibodies to trigger a positive test result.

 

While not perfect it does show the person is paying attention to their sexual health and taking it seriously.

[hntnhole]

5 hours ago, BlindRawFucker1 said:

Of course it is okay to ask a guy to be tested.

 

Of course it is okay for him to say “NO!”

 

Then what?

Then, each guy goes his separate way. 

Each guy can ask whatever he wants to ask.  I'm guessing though, that kind of question - asking to see the piece of paper from the medical testing facility proving nothing more that on x date prior, the guy tested negative - would be considered intrusive by the questioned guy. 

Point:  if it's ok for a guy to ask another for personal information, and prove it, it's just as ok for the questioned guy to simply ignore the questioner and walk away.  

[hntnhole]

8 minutes ago, Rillion said:

While not perfect it does show the person is paying attention to their sexual health and taking it seriously.

This is an interesting and complex issue, isn't it?

All of us that have sex with other gay men regularly understand that taking precautions are the responsibility of the individual.  We also know that some guys don't recognize that as an important issue, which means each of us that do take health issues seriously have decisions to make, issues to come to terms with.  What it comes down to is, each guy has to decide for himself what level of risk he's willing to take, and regulate his sexual behavior accordingly.  

While interesting, this thread raises the issue of exactly whose responsibility it is to share information.  I have no idea what the bareback action is in your area, but where I live, we fuck guys without knowing or caring what their name is, and then move on to the next one.  How much information is a trick entitled to?  That can only be answered by the individual guy, given the inclination to do so.  Frankly, I think it's asking a bit much of his potential partners, if he asks to see official proof of this or that, but then I don't know the lay of the land re; gay hookups) where he lives either.  

Topics like this are the reason I enjoy BZ so much, and thanks to all you guys that have been sharing your thoughts.

[Alexpdx]

My experience is that younger folk are much more comfortable asking and being asked these kinds of questions (I’m bi, so I see it with all gender identities). The only people I’ve seen get upset by questions about STIs and testing are people from my generation. Which seems odd since we all went through the AIDS crisis - I’m not sure why that is. But the kids these days seem very open to talking about sexual health issues before hooking up. 

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, Alexpdx said:

But the kids these days seem very open to talking about sexual health issues before hooking up. 

I’m not sure it’s so much that the younger generation is more open to talking about sexual health as it is that they’ve been raised in the age of social media info oversharing and they don’t have as much of a filter for talking about anything. It’s not a question of what are you willing to talk about - it’s what aren’t you willing to talk about.

[BootmanLA]

On 6/27/2023 at 7:06 PM, BigBearSean said:

HIPAA ONLY applies to doctors giving away your medical information without your consent or a subpeona.  You can ask anyone any medical question at all.  And they can choose to answer them or not.  That's freedom of speech.  HIPAA in no way, shape, or form has ever stopped anyone from asking anyone else their health status.  Or ask you about another's health status.  It just can't be given away by medical professionals and institutions without consent.

That's not exactly accurate. HIPAA applies to more than just doctors; it applies to anyone who has professional (that is, through his work) access to covered medical information. That means it includes nurses, any other allied health profession (audiologists, pharmacists, lab technicians), and insurance employees, among others.

Second, even a subpoena can't necessarily force disclosure of HIPAA-protected information. If health care information is subpoenaed, then the custodian of that information (the doctor, insurance company, or whomever) must make reasonable attempts to notify the patient that the information has been subpoenaed, and the patient has to then be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the disclosure or to seek a protective order from the court overseeing the subpoena. (Remember that a subpoena is a request for information from a party to a legal action, not a demand from the court, so compliance with a subpoena has to allow for time to handle objections.)

That's different from a court order to supply the information (and for the purposes of HIPAA, that includes administrative tribunals, such as an SSI disability hearing panel. But such an order must specify the exact information requested, and the custodian of that information can ONLY supply that information, not anything else.

But in general: yes. Not only can person A ask person B about his health information, but A is under no obligation to keep that information confidential if B does tell him.

Lastly: One of the drawbacks to HIPAA is that there is no "private cause of action" under it - which in layman's terms means, if your doctor (or nurse, or whomever) violates HIPAA by disclosing some of your health information, you can't sue them yourself. What you can do is file a complaint with whatever regulatory body covers the offending person. That might be the state medical board, for instance, or the state nursing board. Or the state department of insurance (or its equivalent) if an insurer leaks your information. It's then generally up to the regulatory board to punish a violation, as they see fit.

You may also have a state cause of action (in state court) if your state recognizes this as a valid claim (some do, some do not). Where such claims are recognized, it's usually as some sort of variant on "breach of contract" or something similar. The state law may incorporate HIPAA by reference, saying in essence that if a provider or his business associates within your state violate HIPAA, you can sue them in state court for damages.

[PigBoyDallas]

I don't think its immoral or whatever to ask to see a guy's test results before you fuck raw. A lot of guys will probably pass you up as other guys won't be so picky. And its not because they have something to hide...guys on Prep get tested regular and results are online and not easy to send or have personal information. If you do anonymous/confidential testing it doesn't have your name on it and it may be a few weeks/months old. How do you know if you've been exposed to HIV since then? I know a guy who's poz detectable who picks up anonymous results thrown in the trash so he has something to show guys to claim he's neg (he gets off on stealthing guys). I know some guys have wanted to do Oraquick tests before going raw and I get wanting to do that. Seems expensive, but I get it. I escort off and on and know other guys who do too and that's something that happens. Ultimately you take the chances even if you think the guy is on the level.

[Close2MyBro]

On 6/28/2023 at 7:01 PM, BootmanLA said:

That's not exactly accurate. HIPAA applies to more than just doctors; it applies to anyone who has professional (that is, through his work) access to covered medical information. That means it includes nurses, any other allied health profession (audiologists, pharmacists, lab technicians), and insurance employees, among others.

Second, even a subpoena can't necessarily force disclosure of HIPAA-protected information. If health care information is subpoenaed, then the custodian of that information (the doctor, insurance company, or whomever) must make reasonable attempts to notify the patient that the information has been subpoenaed, and the patient has to then be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the disclosure or to seek a protective order from the court overseeing the subpoena. (Remember that a subpoena is a request for information from a party to a legal action, not a demand from the court, so compliance with a subpoena has to allow for time to handle objections.)

That's different from a court order to supply the information (and for the purposes of HIPAA, that includes administrative tribunals, such as an SSI disability hearing panel. But such an order must specify the exact information requested, and the custodian of that information can ONLY supply that information, not anything else.

But in general: yes. Not only can person A ask person B about his health information, but A is under no obligation to keep that information confidential if B does tell him.

Lastly: One of the drawbacks to HIPAA is that there is no "private cause of action" under it - which in layman's terms means, if your doctor (or nurse, or whomever) violates HIPAA by disclosing some of your health information, you can't sue them yourself. What you can do is file a complaint with whatever regulatory body covers the offending person. That might be the state medical board, for instance, or the state nursing board. Or the state department of insurance (or its equivalent) if an insurer leaks your information. It's then generally up to the regulatory board to punish a violation, as they see fit.

You may also have a state cause of action (in state court) if your state recognizes this as a valid claim (some do, some do not). Where such claims are recognized, it's usually as some sort of variant on "breach of contract" or something similar. The state law may incorporate HIPAA by reference, saying in essence that if a provider or his business associates within your state violate HIPAA, you can sue them in state court for damages.

You can sue your doctor for disclosing that information under California law, which supersedes Federal HIPAA regulations. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://privacyrights.org/consumer-guides/health-and-medical-privacy-laws-california-medical-privacy-series

Edited July 24, 2023 by Close2MyBro

[BootmanLA]

7 minutes ago, Close2MyBro said:

You can sue your doctor for disclosing that information under California law, which supersedes Federal HIPAA regulations. [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://privacyrights.org/consumer-guides/health-and-medical-privacy-laws-california-medical-privacy-series

It's not that California law supersedes Federal law - it can't.

Rather, it's that state laws can provide MORE protection than federal law does - as, for instance, in some states it's illegal to discriminate in housing based on sexual orientation, even though federal law offers no such protection. That's not the same thing as superseding.

In this case, federal law says: Your data is protected under federal law, but there are certain situations in which it's not a violation of federal law for a provider to disclose that information, typically in response to a court order. What California has done is said that regardless of whether federal law doesn't prohibit that disclosure in those circumstances, state law nonetheless DOES prohibit it, and that state law also includes a specific right to sue for a violation. But that's still not "superseding" anything. It's providing a layer of protection where the federal law does not.

[Close2MyBro]

34 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

It's not that California law supersedes Federal law - it can't.

Rather, it's that state laws can provide MORE protection than federal law does - as, for instance, in some states it's illegal to discriminate in housing based on sexual orientation, even though federal law offers no such protection. That's not the same thing as superseding.

In this case, federal law says: Your data is protected under federal law, but there are certain situations in which it's not a violation of federal law for a provider to disclose that information, typically in response to a court order. What California has done is said that regardless of whether federal law doesn't prohibit that disclosure in those circumstances, state law nonetheless DOES prohibit it, and that state law also includes a specific right to sue for a violation. But that's still not "superseding" anything. It's providing a layer of protection where the federal law does not.

You know nothing about California. If California law cannot supersede federal law, then how can they be a sanctuary state when federal immigration is clearly illegal without federal approval? States have NO right under The Constitution to decide immigration matters, but yet many do. As a past California resident, I know first hand that California does what they want even when the Federal Government challenges them.