Mandatory HIV testing - Page 3

[Kidzaplenty]

Originally Posted by MegBoz

I agree! It's legally-mandated testing I have a problem with.

But what is the difference between this test and all the other state mandated tests for newborns (with the distinction that you can choose to get this test instead of the baby)?

Or, do you have a problem with all the state mandated tests for newborns?

[rayo de sol]

The states that require the pregnant mother to get the HIV test, force the test on the newborn if the mother refuses and then--if positive (and there's a high rate of false positives, not to mention that the newborn is merely showing the mother's antibodies, not its own, for the first 18 months of life)--force AZT drugs on the baby and don't allow the mother to breastfeed.

How do we fight this? How can we refuse testing for ourselves and for our babies?

I am enraged over this. It's like a nightmare.

Now, please be nice to me even if you disagree with the following. Each person is entitled to her opinion.

There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. In fact, all the epidemiological and microbiological evidence taken together conclusively demonstrates that HIV cannot cause AIDS or any other illness. The concept that AIDS is caused by a virus is not a fact, but a belief that was introduced at a 1984 press conference by Dr. Robert Gallo, a researcher employed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). (14)

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

[rayo de sol]

Interesting Mothering article that's very relevant to our current discussion:

Safe and Sound Underground: HIV-Positive Women Birthing Outside the System

[Kidzaplenty]

Originally Posted by rayo de sol

The states that require the pregnant mother to get the HIV test, force the test on the newborn if the mother refuses and then--if positive (and there's a high rate of false positives, not to mention that the newborn is merely showing the mother's antibodies, not its own, for the first 18 months of life)--force AZT drugs on the baby and don't allow the mother to breastfeed.

How do we fight this? How can we refuse testing for ourselves and for our babies?

I am enraged over this. It's like a nightmare. [/url]

So, am I to assume that you are against PKU testing as well? Since it has similar required testing and results?

[leila1213]

Originally Posted by soso-lynn

...magical thinking is ignorant, blind trust is ignorant...

So, once again, NO ONE would EVER get any kind of treatment or diagnosis before confirmation tests clearly indicate a positive.

I think there is a difference between what RedPony is saying works for HER in terms of trusting her husband & making choices for HER babies' welfare, and saying that EVERYONE should be held to the same requirements, regardless of their own viewpoints (and constitutional liberties) on the subject. She is not thrusting her ideals or opinions on every pregnant woman & newborn in the country, only saying how she came to her own decisions/conclusions, kwim?

And although I don't think what she has said constitutes 'blind trust' or 'ignorance', making unqualified blanket statements about the validity of a test AND ITS APPLICATION IN REAL LIFE AS WELL AS ITS IMPACT ON REAL PEOPLE is really going too far. You can't know how EVERY provider is going to apply the testing/treatment standards with EVERY patient, nor how possible false positives could affect people & their families, any more (and I think quite a bit less) than RedPony could know with absolute certainty that her DH hasn't/wouldn't cheat on her. The difference being that the trust in one (her DH) only impacts her and her family, while the trust in the other (the test, the system, the HCPs) impacts MANY MANY MANY moms and babies.

[noobmom]

The good thing about mandatory testing is that it takes the pressure of deciding to test off of the couple. Imagine this scenario: Husband and wife are at OB's office. Maybe the husband or the wife had a one-night stand somewhere along the way. "Do you want to test for HIV?" How could anyone answer anything, but no? In a perfect world, sure, people will be honest, but in a perfect world people don't cheat on their spouses either and we know that happens a lot. Who, exactly, would flag themselves as high-risk for HIV? Presumably people who engage in risky behavior are at least partially in denial.

I live in a state where the test is mandated. It doesn't bother me. I'm low-risk, but I absolutely would want to know if by some chance I had HIV while pregnant. It seems simple enough to avoid the test if you want to by having a home birth or foregoing prenatal care with a medical doctor. If you DO want to use an OB or other doctor for care, it fair enough that they would want to know your HIV status since it affects your care. Seems the same as knowing your blood type and whether you are Rh pos or neg.

Is treatment mandated as well? I would be more upset by that than just mandated testing.

[MegBoz]

Originally Posted by noobmom

The good thing about mandatory testing is that it takes the pressure of deciding to test off of the couple. Imagine this scenario: Husband and wife are at OB's office. Maybe the husband or the wife had a one-night stand somewhere along the way. "Do you want to test for HIV?" How could anyone answer anything, but no?

This is easily rectified by the HCP (health care provider - healthy pregnant women, at least 80% of all pg moms, really should be in the care of a midwife, not an OB.)
anyway, this is easily rectified by the HCP simply saying, "I'm sure you're low risk and it's a one-in-a-million chance, but ya never know, and it's better to be safe than sorry. We'll be taking blood anyway for other tests, such as RH, so we might as well test for that too."

And there you have it, the HCP can take the pressure off the couple with a simple statement such as the above. It isn't an issue that requires the law!

Originally Posted by noobmom

I live in a state where the test is mandated. It doesn't bother me. I'm low-risk, but I absolutely would want to know if by some chance I had HIV while pregnant. It seems simple enough to avoid the test if you want to by having a home birth or foregoing prenatal care with a medical doctor.

Uh, so you advocate, essentially, I'm paraphrasing here, "The medical care you receive must be of a specific type. If you don't want that type of care, then you can just go underground, outside the system."
Nice! What a kind, compassionate view!

Originally Posted by noobmom

If you DO want to use an OB or other doctor for care, it fair enough that they would want to know your HIV status since it affects your care. Seems the same as knowing your blood type and whether you are Rh pos or neg.

I could be wrong, but I have the impression here that you think when a person goes to a doctor, the doctor treats the patient & tells her what to do, and it's her job to comply?
Whereas, the reality of it is that the HCP is a service provider who makes recommendations. Whether or not to go along with those recommendations (i.e. "Do what the doctor says.") is the patient's choice.

The same would apply in the case of being Rh pos or negative. It is the Mama's choice to get tested and to subsequently accept treatment if necessary based upon test results. It is MAMA'S CHOICE here, not that the doctor needs to know so that HE can make the choice for her. See what I mean? Flip that on it's head.

A great example of this is testing for GBS. I know some women who refuse to be tested, although it is the "standard of care" and the CDC recommends testing and treatment for all + women. But it is still our choice. (I personally plan to be tested again whenever I have #2, but to refuse treatment if I"m positive, and only accept IV antibiotics if I develop 2 or more risk factors (positive swab is only 1 "risk factor") - which, BTW, is how they manage it in the UK.

Originally Posted by noobmom

Is treatment mandated as well? I would be more upset by that than just mandated testing.

Check out the links for Mothering articles above. I don't believe treatment is mandated by law, but, there is always that oh-so-fun issue of a call to Child Protective Services if you refuse - just like some of us wack-job crunchy mamas have dealt with for the horrific, endangering actions of having home birth, and refusing vaccinations and eye ointment at birth.

[mediumcrunch]

Originally Posted by frugalmama

Law in TX here too - they tested me not once, not twice, but THREE times during my pregnancy and after the birth.

yup, they test at the initial prenatal visit and then in the second trimester and then again at the hospital. It's absurd.

I figure between 9 pregnancies and pre-marriage testing I have had no less than 15 HIV tests in the last 18 years. What an incredible waste of resources. And yes, I consent without a fight. It is not a battle I wish to pick.

[soso-lynn]

Originally Posted by rayo de sol

The states that require the pregnant mother to get the HIV test, force the test on the newborn if the mother refuses and then--if positive (and there's a high rate of false positives, not to mention that the newborn is merely showing the mother's antibodies, not its own, for the first 18 months of life)--force AZT drugs on the baby and don't allow the mother to breastfeed.

Can you give any real life example where someone was treated for HIV after a false positive on a screening test? It just does not work that way. It is not a matter of individual doctors making decisions or anything like that, it is a matter of empirical testing in a lab.

Also, AZT was the drug of choice in the 90s but there now are many other drugs that are used in combination so the appropriate term is ART (anti-retroviral therapy).

[rayo de sol]

Originally Posted by soso-lynn

Can you give any real life example where someone was treated for HIV after a false positive on a screening test?

Yeah, read the links that I posted above in my last post.

CPS will take your baby away from you to give it the drugs even if it tests a false positive, and they won't let you breastfeed.

[Kidzaplenty]

But the same thing happens for the other newborn screenings (PKU and such), so again, are you against all manditory testing or only the HIV?

[rayo de sol]

Originally Posted by Kidzaplenty

So, am I to assume that you are against PKU testing as well? Since it has similar required testing and results?

No.

I am only against mandatory HIV testing.

I am against mandatory HIV testing because of the extremely high rate of false positives that occur. The HIV test doesn't even test for the virus. It tests for common antibodies that are present in many conditions, one of the main ones being pregnancy.

The harm caused by false positives is appalling and is a human rights abuse.

Also, there is more and more doubt in the scientific community that HIV has anything to do with AIDS. AIDS is not caused by a virus; it's a condition of a lack of immune health that's brought on by many factors like poor nutrition. AIDS isn't even a specific disease. It's a collection of possible diseases, like tuberculosis, that includes a different list of diseases in every country. There's no unified, world-wide definition of what exactly AIDS is.

AIDS is not a contagious disease. At most, it's a state of poor health that should alert us to the fact that we can't go on abusing the environment and our bodies the way we have been. We did not evolve to thrive on the modern day foods that we currently subsist on.

Being "HIV positive" is not a death sentence. Don't start taking the pharmaceutical's drugs needlessly. And don't let them give those harmful drugs to your babies.

[rayo de sol]

Originally Posted by Kidzaplenty

But the same thing happens for the other newborn screenings (PKU and such), so again, are you against all manditory testing or only the HIV?

Crosspost. See my response to your other post.

I am assuming (haven't gotten around to educating myself about PKU yet) that the PKU test is an accurate test that actually finds the truth. The same can't be said of the HIV test.

Therefore, I currently have no problem with the PKU test (an accurate test), but I have a lot of problems with the HIV test (which basically tests for common antibodies, not the virus itself).

Does the PKU test have a high rate of false positives like the HIV test does?

[dinahx]

I'm sorry but there IS an inherent problem with testing Pregnant women for HIV and that is that you are taking away their right to be tested ANONYMOUSLY, a right that is granted to ALL other population groups. Tests during pregnancy are Confidential and there is a huge difference. You are taking away the right of a pregnant woman to direct her own health privacy and that is a huge violation. During my last pregnancy I was tested without my knowledge OR consent and the people at the lab knew my status before I did (negative but still!). During my second pregnancy I insisted on being tested anonymously before I would go 'on record' and the public health nurse tore me a new one! She was like 'what are you going to do if it is positive?' I was like 'have 5 freakin minutes alone with my PRIVATE health information?'. Also Anonymous testing offered to the general public is rapid result (15 minutes) while confidential testing mandated for pregnant women can take up to 2 weeks for the results. Again, lots of issues here.

[rayo de sol]

Originally Posted by soso-lynn

Also, AZT was the drug of choice in the 90s but there now are many other drugs that are used in combination so the appropriate term is ART (anti-retroviral therapy).

Well, I don't keep up to date with the latest propaganda from the AIDS publicity machinery, but it doesn't really matter which drug they're forcing on newborns against the mother's will. It's heinous no matter which drug is currently in fashion.

[noobmom]

Originally Posted by MegBoz

Uh, so you advocate, essentially, I'm paraphrasing here, "The medical care you receive must be of a specific type. If you don't want that type of care, then you can just go underground, outside the system."
Nice! What a kind, compassionate view!

Well, that is kinda what I'm saying, although I would hope that it's not underground in the sense that it's illegal. You wouldn't go to a traditional Western doctor and when you're looking for a neuropathic remedy, would you? Or for an acupuncture treatment? No, of course not. Neither would you go to a chiropractor if you wanted a surgical treatment.

Originally Posted by MegBoz

I could be wrong, but I have the impression here that you think when a person goes to a doctor, the doctor treats the patient & tells her what to do, and it's her job to comply?

I'm sorry I gave you that impression--I certain don't have that kind of relationship with my doctors. They respect my wishes and if they don't, I find a new doctor, simple as that. However, I think people put doctors in a difficult position when they choose to withhold important information. Doctors are trained to make recommendations based on the information given. You are essentially asking them to "fly blind" if you refuse testing that is designed to allow them to make the best decisions possible. I don't think doctors should be allow to force you into testing or treatment, however, they can refuse to see you. Which bring you back to the above, being outside the system.

Originally Posted by MegBoz

Whereas, the reality of it is that the HCP is a service provider who makes recommendations. Whether or not to go along with those recommendations (i.e. "Do what the doctor says.") is the patient's choice.

Again, that's fine, but people need to be prepared to hear, "I'm sorry then, you'll have to find someone else to treat you." I don't view my relationship with my doctor (particular one I see as frequently as an OB) in the one-sided way you do. In my mind, it's more of a partnership which requires some negotiation. A doctor's office is not a restaurant and the doctor is not my waiter. I don't get a menu and pick and choose what I want. I work with the doctor to come up with a plan that works for both of us. Both the patient and the doctor need to be within their comfort zones...and if those zone don't overlap, then it's a bad match.

Originally Posted by MegBoz

The same would apply in the case of being Rh pos or negative. It is the Mama's choice to get tested and to subsequently accept treatment if necessary based upon test results. It is MAMA'S CHOICE here, not that the doctor needs to know so that HE can make the choice for her. See what I mean? Flip that on it's head.

See, the thing is, I don't understand how you expect the doctor to make a recommendation without testing. Sure, the mom can accept or reject treatment, but how exactly does the doctor even know WHAT to recommend without knowing her status? No, the doctor doesn't make the choice, but by not testing, you've taken away a major piece of information. Do you understand why that would be frustrating and unfair (yes, unfair) to a doctor?

Again, I view treatment and testing quite differently.

[dinahx]

When you go to a restaurant, the waiter doesn't call the police when you don't order the special.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by noobmom

A doctor's office is not a restaurant and the doctor is not my waiter. I don't get a menu and pick and choose what I want. I work with the doctor to come up with a plan that works for both of us. Both the patient and the doctor need to be within their comfort zones...and if those zone don't overlap, then it's a bad match.

Originally Posted by dinahx

When you go to a restaurant, the waiter doesn't call the police when you don't order the special.

Yes, I could agree with Noobmom's point if it were not for the "police" thing. The doctor's power to enforce his recommendations, either on the pregnant woman or on her baby, changes the dynamic of the doctor/patient relationship completely.

[soso-lynn]

Originally Posted by rayo de sol

Yeah, read the links that I posted above in my last post.

CPS will take your baby away from you to give it the drugs even if it tests a false positive, and they won't let you breastfeed.

Originally Posted by rayo de sol

No.

I am only against mandatory HIV testing.

I am against mandatory HIV testing because of the extremely high rate of false positives that occur. The HIV test doesn't even test for the virus. It tests for common antibodies that are present in many conditions, one of the main ones being pregnancy.

The harm caused by false positives is appalling and is a human rights abuse.

Also, there is more and more doubt in the scientific community that HIV has anything to do with AIDS. AIDS is not caused by a virus; it's a condition of a lack of immune health that's brought on by many factors like poor nutrition. AIDS isn't even a specific disease. It's a collection of possible diseases, like tuberculosis, that includes a different list of diseases in every country. There's no unified, world-wide definition of what exactly AIDS is.

AIDS is not a contagious disease. At most, it's a state of poor health that should alert us to the fact that we can't go on abusing the environment and our bodies the way we have been. We did not evolve to thrive on the modern day foods that we currently subsist on.

Being "HIV positive" is not a death sentence. Don't start taking the pharmaceutical's drugs needlessly. And don't let them give those harmful drugs to your babies.

Originally Posted by rayo de sol

Well, I don't keep up to date with the latest propaganda from the AIDS publicity machinery, but it doesn't really matter which drug they're forcing on newborns against the mother's will. It's heinous no matter which drug is currently in fashion.

I did not realize that you were one of those people who chose to ignore science and facts in favor of conspiracy theories. I guess there is no point debating this with you just like there is no point discussing any kind of science with a creationnist or any such denier of reality.

There is absolutely no debate in the scientific community on what causes AIDS and most tests for most infectious diseases are for antibodies. The actual rate of false positives for HIV tests (I mean with confirmation) is 1 in 250,000 and the vast majority of those cases have a known cause such as having partcipated in a vaccine trial or having multiple transfusions. Cases where a baby would be treated after a false positive would be if the mother was not tested during her pregnancy and only tested at the birth. At that time, there is no time to wait for confirmation since immediate treatment can literally save the baby's life.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by soso-lynn

The actual rate of false positives for HIV tests (I mean with confirmation) is 1 in 250,000...

I assume this is correct, but I have never been able to find an explanation of how the rate of false positives could be determined. When would you decide a positive test result had been false? Or is the 1 in 250,000 a theoretical estimate?