Wonders Never Cease

I read this article earlier today, and before you read my thoughts in reaction to it, I suggest you read it for yourself in full:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/05/new-test-mobile-phones-diagnose-stds

I really couldn't say whether I felt excited or frightened after reading this article. I still don't know how I feel exactly. First of all, we're talking about peeing on a cell phone to get the results. I don't classify myself as a germophobe by any means of the sort, but I absolutely could not place a phone anywhere near my face after I've peed on it, even after cleaning it off. And that's just for me. What if one of my friends wants to "borrow" my phone and use the application to give themselves a test for any STD? I sure am not going to use a phone if one of my friends peed on it!

Second, what guarantee is there the cell phone will even work after using this application? Cell phones are not typically known for their durability after getting wet. I've known plenty of friends whose cell phones ended up in pools, tubs, sinks, and even toilets. Obviously their phones were rendered useless after their phones got wet. I couldn't fathom calling Verizon up to tell them my cell phone was ruined because someone peed on it. Sure, I could lie about it, but I think their techies are bright enough to figure out what happened to the phone. Would a phone's warranty even cover a case like this?

But here's the $64,000 question: how accurate are these tests? Granted, one of the doctors interviewed in the article said that anyone who receives a positive test should immediately see an actual doctor, and rightfully so. I would think they'd need to be handled like a home pregnancy test. But wouldn't anyone using such an application want to take it a couple times, just to get a definitive answer? That's assuming, of course, that people using the application are smart enough to do so. I would suspect not everyone would be so wise.

There's a bigger picture to consider here though. Isn't it slightly disturbing that such an application was devised, developed, and ultimately produced? Moreover, that a need for such an application was determined bothers me too. According to the article, the developers targeted younger people, specifically people in their teens and their early twenties. That bothers me more than anything else, but I suppose I would be naive to think that kids in their teens don't have sex.

I guess this isn't too much unlike the controversy of offering sex education in high school. There are some potential benefits to developing the application given the convenience factor, but I'm sure if the application becomes available in the U.S. parents will probably assume making this application available will encourage their kids to have sex, et cetera.

I know it sounds like I'm opposed to this application being made available, but I'm still unsure of how I feel about this application. I guess I'm surprised such an application could even be successfully developed more than anything else. Honestly, could such an idea even have existed 10 years ago? And where do things progress from here?

Where things go from here may in fact be the biggest question of all.