To think consent is required to do a HIV or hepatitis blood test??

We generally do. In a&es that routine screen everyone theres posters everywhere letting people know. But it's equally an odd one as if I told the average Joe bloggs what blood investigations I was sending on them they wouldn't have a clue what most of them are. The life expectancy for an early picked up hiv dx is higher than average as they basically have their own private drs that investigate the hell out of any tiny symptom that would just be ignored without a diagnosis

I thought these tests were standard practice in cases of suspected pneumonia?

Yes. It’s very weird. Nobody should have any testing run without giving express consent.

Did they not mention anything about what tests would be performed?

Yep, I had 10 years of infertility then IVF... I have been tested a ridiculous amount of times during that process for someone in a monogamous relationship since 18 (although I did study medicine and once had an accident when the vial shattered while doing a blood test for HIV/AID's. Although I was not cut just sprayed and the patients next sample was negative anyway) but at the end of the day I know it will be negative, I have nothing to 'hide' so have no reason to object.

If it did somehow come back positive (given that accident or my DH cheating is pretty much my only real risk and the accident was over a decade ago and Ive been negative seemingly 100 times since would be a surprise) then it would be a huge shock but Id want to know rather than die of it untreated.

That was in the 80s/ 90s/ early 00s before the treatment was as effective as it is now. If someone is diagnosed in 2025 before HIV damages their immune system, the person's life expectancy is only about 1 year shorter than mine (non smoker, little alcohol and no chronic conditions).

My experience when getting investigations for an unusual blood count was they asked for my permission to test for HIV. They didn't for any other blood disorder they were testing for.

At one point if I remember correctly, even a test for HIV could count against you when applying for health insurance or mortgages.

I was hospitalised with a severe case of pneumonia as an otherwise very fit and healthy 40 year old. When I was discharged, the Dr. explained they tested me for HIV because they couldn't understand why such a healthy young person could have got so sick with pneumonia. They definitely didn't ask permission for any specific tests, but I was glad they were trying to figure out why it happened. It was definitely hard to explain, I rarely get so much as a cold. It's the only year I neglected to get a flu shot though, so I never made that mistake again.

It takes no extra time really at all to gain consent. People have the right to opt out of any testing, it's a basic principle. I'd be annoyed if I was tested for something without my knowledge, if they offered me hiv screening I'd happily take it but just tell me.

Yup

No only in high pick up areas like London. It's too expensive to do it everywhere

Isn't it done as part of your initial pregnancy bloods as well? I'm sure I was tested in all 3 pregnancies (first was 12 years ago!)

Not really anymore (for at least 9y at least

In icu anyone that has an immunocompromising severe illness will be tested. If they're awake we tell them. If they're ventilated we just do it

On a ward if we think it's possible we ask consent

Many many many areas have a high enough prevelance rate that they routine screen anyone who comes into a&e as the pick up rate makes it worth it. Finding out you have hiv so it can be managed hugely increases life expectancy (actually have a better life expectancy with well managed hiv than diabetes for eg

The conditions they tried to test you for, are very often underlying the reason people contract pneumonia. They were obviously trying to find out why. If you had continued to get worse or not responded to treatment, no doubt you would of been upset if you deteriorated

Flipping this around, do you know what they were testing your blood for? Did they specifically get your consent to test the blood for infection A and infection B etc. If not then why need consent for these specific ones but not the others?

OP, if they took blood, presumably you consented to a blood test. I don’t think there is anything about testing for HIV specifically that requires special permission. It’s seems like allowing the stigma of AIDS to negatively impact healthcare provision is something we left behind several decades ago. But they should have needed consent for a blood test and that consent should have involved telling you what the blood teat was for.

If not, they really should have, and you have grounds for a complaint, though I doubt it would have much impact other than you maybe getting a pro forma apology unless lots of people have complained about the same thing. If they did tell you and they mentioned several specific things but did not mention HIV, I think you also have grounds for a complaint. If they told you something along the lines of “common illnesses that cause respiratory problems” or gave you a list of things you didn’t bother to read, or some other catch all, and you didn’t dig into it then not so much. I know I’ve glossed over the specifics of things that I’m being tested for when I’ve been ill - trusting the staff to know better than me what is useful for diagnosising or treating me. It’s not an ideal approach but it’s hard when you’re ill to take everything in.

Routine testing is a great thing. Remove the stigma and prevent transmission! What reason could you possibly have to object to these tests?

I knew about this and welcome it
I think the admission form tells you this.

You where very sick with an infection that was overwhelming your immune system so they where looking for an infection that can do that and ran several blood tests including a blood test for an infection that overwhelms the immune system?

Is that right?

Wheres your objection?

They did exactly what you went there for, if you had to personally understand and consent to every single individual test for possible infections then the paperwork would be insane and the wait time way longer while professionals try to explain to people with no knowledge what every single test is.

You where sick, you went for help and gave informed consent for any relevant tests to diagnose you.

I agree op that you should have been informed and given the chance to opt out. Doesn't matter how great a service it is , you should still have the opportunity to say no to it.

Many people who were given infected blood in transfusions still don’t know they have hepatitis. The NHS has signs up in our a and e department to let you know you will be tested for these viruses so they can help treat people and stop the spread. It’s a good thing.

You do know that HIV is treatable these days op?

Pneumonia is quite commonly found amongst aids patients so I guess they wanted to make sure they had the right diagnosis

I don't disagree it's an amazing screening to have in place but as a health professional I cannot imagine taking anyone's blood without informed consent. It's a basic principle. We screen for hiv as part of booking bloods but I always tell the women what tests we are doing.

I think this is a really positive thing and maybe if it becomes a routine part of testing the stigma and fear of HIV, which isn’t a death sentence anymore, will lessen. Both of these illnesses stand a better chance if treated earlier.

I think it's absolutely amazing they are blanket testing for HIV and if someone has such a massive issue with it they can opt out.
If I had it I would want to know, and if it helps to prevent transmission then isn't that only a good thing?