The media has recently covered the proposal to make premarital HIV testing a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. The idea is that couples who want to be legally married need to fi rst get an "AIDS-free certifi cate" to prove that they are not HIV-positive.
The plan was initiated by a number of high officials in the Provincial Government of Bengkulu. It then gained support from the regional Ulema Council (MUI) and finally, the Ministry of Religious Affairs.
The plan is rapidly gaining support in other provinces. In Lebak, Banten, a number of Religious Affairs Offices (KUA) are reportedly ready to implement the measure. MUI chapters in Maluku, Jambi and North Sumatra are also considering pushing the idea.
They believe the strategy would be a good way to prevent young people from engaging in premarital sex, as they would not be permitted to marry if they were found HIV positive.
They are calling on the local government to make this policy a regional regulation (Perda).
But the idea is certainly not without its critics. In Jambi, the Indonesian Network of People Infected with HIV/AIDS (Jaringan Orang Terinfeksi HIV/AIDS Indonesia) strongly objected to the idea, saying that the disclosure of a person's HIV status not only violates their rights, but leads to social stigmatism and discrimination against anyone who is found to be infected. They point out, moreover, that everyone has the right to marry, be they HIV positive or not.
In the hustle and bustle of the presidential campaign, this issue has not gained public attention. However, learning from the recent experiences of our neighbors - India, Malaysia, and China - it can be assumed that this issue has the potential to be quite contentious.
In these countries, supporters of premarital HIV testing argue that this procedure is helpful in preventing HIV positive people from passing on the virus to their children. The supporters of the policy also argue that premarital HIV testing can help protect women, who in a lot of cases are infected by their partner.
In regards to the issue of confidentiality, proponents argue that is a minor concern compared to protection and prevention; "privacy for you may be death for me," they argue.
Finally, there is the middle ground argument that premarital HIV testing would just be a normal procedure, similar to checking someone's family background, before tying the knot.
In Indonesia, this sort of background check is common; in Javanese this is known as checking the bibit (origin), bebet (quality), and bobot (rank of social status).
Given these arguments, making premarital HIV testing mandatory appears alluring. But before anyone goes any further, it is urgent for us to consider a few things.
First, we need to take a look at the basic principles of HIV testing. According to UNAIDS, all HIV testing must be confi dential, involve informed consent, and include counseling. Any form of mandatory testing would therefore not be supported by UNAIDS. Obliging sometime to disclose their HIV status, whatever it is, constitutes an additional violation.
The feasibility of such a policy should also be scrutinized. As stipulated by UNAIDS, HIV testing should be accompanied by pre and post test counseling.
Should someone engaged to be married test positive for HIV, they would have to be referred to the relevant support organization for further treatment.
Are these services widely accessible and affordable for all Indonesians? Testing for HIV requires not only a test kit, but a great deal of related infrastructure.
It is also important to remember that the test alone is costly. A study in China shows that this is one of the major barriers to the acceptance of premarital HIV testing. It is likely that cost would be a problem here too. If the test was made mandatory, a market would be created, subject to the pitfalls of any profit driven enterprise.
For example, it could be that those who deal with marriage legalization could determine one official agency to provide HIV certification. This would mean good business for that organization, but would be detrimental to the effort to make HIV testing available for all.
There is another crucial question to ask: Would this really help prevent HIV? Or is it just an attempt to control premarital sex? Considering the MUI's deep interest in this issue, it is reasonable to suspect the latter likelihood.
Like everywhere in the world, compulsory premarital HIV testing is a tricky subject and the debate could be endless. It is better that we save our energy and focus on other preventive measures that are more feasible and effective.
If there is one thing that should be made mandatory in the fi ght for HIV prevention, it is education about the disease, especially for young people. We should openly communicate with them about how the disease is transmitted and, most importantly, how it can be prevented.
The writer is a volunteer resource specialist at Prevent Child Abuse New York.
