Yesterday's front-page story about a successful lawsuit brought against the Government for an incorrect HIV diagnosis will not help the drive for voluntary testing.

For not only did the wrong diagnosis of St. Catherine-based teacher Joan Morgan, then pregnant for Detective Corporal Cecil Lawrence, traumatise them severely, but it also took four years for them to be awarded $4.8 million for the mental anguish they suffered. The award was made on Wednesday.

To heap insult upon the injury, it fell upon Ms. Morgan to prove that she was not HIV-positive when she filed the lawsuit as, upon the request of the Attorney-General's Office, blood was taken from her with lawyers from both sides present.

As the sorry tale goes, in March 2003 blood was taken from the pregnant Morgan at the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI). She was diagnosed to be HIV-positive, but gave birth to a healthy child months later.

Of course, the misdiagnosis caused severe strain on the relationship and Morgan, who was sent to an AIDS support group, suffered from depression, appetite disturbance and insomnia, while Lawrence reportedly faced shock and scorn from colleagues, friends and associates.

What is striking, though, is that it was a doctor at the UHWI who queried the results of the test and advised Morgan to get another test done, which proved to be negative. And still she had to do another test, this one with the blood drawn in front of lawyers, to prove, yet again, that she was not HIV-positive.

While we do not suggest that this one case indicates a trend towards wrong HIV diagnosis by the Government's blood testing agencies and requires a hysterical flurry of retesting, it reaffirms the necessity of doing a second test after the initial diagnosis. Obviously, there was no thought of doubting the validity of Morgan's first result, and congratulations must go to the doctor who spotted the discrepancies and had the integrity and courage to initiate a query against a system of which she or he was and may still be a part.

The matter of privacy also arises, and we are left to wonder just how Lawrence's colleagues knew of the incorrect diagnosis and, therefore, treated him in a manner that must have added tremendously to his existing distress.

And, while we were not told the timeline between the second and third HIV tests, certainly there was a window in which it was possible for Morgan actually to have contracted HIV, thus making the Government not liable for its initial wrong diagnosis. Thankfully, that was not the case.

All these possibilities, permutations, pauses and pain add up to a severe blow against that most effective of tools against the spread of HIV/AIDS, voluntary testing. We can only hope that the eventual transparency, despite the 48-month delay between incorrect diagnosis and Wednesday's award, negates the indignities and tardiness of the process Morgan and Lawrence had to go through.

After all, someone having to prove that they are not HIV-positive must face an arduous task.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.