or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Would you let your child play with an HIV+ child?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Would you let your child play with an HIV+ child? - Page 7

post #121 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinipela79
I am pretty sure that you are more likely to be killed in a car accident on your way to the playdate than by contracting HIV.
:LOL Yup. Thanks for putting things in perspective.
post #122 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by meowee
And that makes us scumbags? I think you are all being naive about the risks here. .
I must have missed the post where someone called people saying no scumbags. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how about we keep the perceptions of and name-calling to a minimum, eh?

To answer the OP, Dh and I have discussed it, because of this thread. Our consensus is that we would. Would we be more cautious or watch the kids together a little closer? Probably. I mean, there are risks in everything we do in life, and anytime we can lessen the risk, obviously we will. But I wouldn't keep my son from playing with someone because of risks. I mean, heck, everytime I put him in the car, I take a risk because of other people and I'm certainly not going to stay home all day, every day because of that.

For those of you who say no, what if your child has already been playing with an HIV+ child and you find out after the fact (which would be the most likely scenario), how would you explain that to your child? Not trying to start anything, just curious.
post #123 of 184
Quote:
and knowing a close personal friend who contracted HIV from a "low risk" behavior- giving oral sex 3 times to an HIV pos man-
How is this low risk? Isn't it drilled into our heads that unprotected oral, anal or vaginal intercourse is a high risk behavior?

A family friend of ours died of AIDS a few years ago. My best friend from high school has HIV. Still doesn't mean I'm going to discriminate against any friends my children want to have.
post #124 of 184
No. Nada. No way. Forget it. I'm with meoww on this one. Too many factors involved for me to feel even remotely safe with this one.
post #125 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveChild421
I would never let a child who is still in the biting, licking, stratching, crazy behaviors out of no where, too young to explain how HUGE and horrible HIV is to them phase play with a child who I KNOW to have HIV. .
If I were the parent of a child with HIV, I would probably work hard to avoid the biters--there is some nasty bacteria in the human mouth! I imagine that would be pretty dangerous for the child with HIV!
post #126 of 184
Greaseball I personally don't consider any sexual contact with an HIV+ person "low risk" but according to thismama:

Quote:
Even giviing oral sex to someone who is HIV+ is widely considered to be low risk unless you have open sores, and you are talking about someone ejaculating into your mouth. Getting a scratch or a child's bite seems pretty insignificant comparatively.
sunnmama: I would hope that parents of HIV+ kids would make sure their kids don't play with biters, etc or put others at risk in any way- but the real world is far from ideal and kids will do crazy things- I know kids who eat each other's scabs on dares, kiss each others bleeding wounds, etc you just never know.

It is about risk vs benefit- I know that driving probably is more dangerous than letting kids play with HIV+ kids, but the thing is I can't avoid driving- I can avoid letting my toddler play with an HIV+ kid very easily. There are plenty of other kids out there. Again, it may not be "fair" to the HIV+ child but this isn't about race or political affiliation- it's about THE WORST DISEASE OUT THERE!!! This isn't the sniffles or something.

If I found out at any point that a child was HIV+ no my young toddler would not be allowed to continue playing with that child- as I said before if they were older obviously its a non-issue. I don't know how I would explain the complexities of this to a toddler but I think I would just say that so and so is sick and can't play with you anymore.

Whoever said HIV or AIDS isn't lethal- yeah I know people can live for 20+ years with the disease but they all eventually die of complications from it before their time- there is no way I think any risk when it comes to contracting HIV is ok- I don't want my child to subsist on AZT or other drugs for years and never be able to do things they normally would. I see the pain my friend is going through everyday!!! I cry for him, I don't know what to do, I know I'm going to lose him before he was supposed to go- so yes I may be in the minority but I still take HIV VERY seriously.

I don't want what I see my friend going through to happen to my child and no amount of risk is "insignificant" to me when it comes to MY child. No I can't keep him in a bubble, but I can reduce risks that I see- and him having a playmate that is HIV+ is not a risk I see as one I can take- if I could avoid driving I would, if I could move to a little farm in the middle of no where I would- but I have to live the life I have and there is no way I would put my kids at risk- no matter how "small" when it comes to this disease that has ravaged my friend.

Did anyone see on the news today that they have now discovered a new drug-resistant extra virulent strain of HIV in a man in the US- they said it appears to be spreading among gay men who use crystal meth. I know people who have died of AIDS painfully and slowly- sorry if I can't be PC and let them play with HIV+ kids- I think I would have an anxiety attack trying to watch them closely and make absolutely sure they don't do anything that could put them at risk.

Also, has anyone seen the research and stats on condoms and HIV- much of what I have seen appears to point to the fact that even consistent condom use does not prevent HIV from being transmitted in all cases- yes "low risk" but still- who wants to play Russian roulette- and what about the condom breaking? My dh agrees- he has seen his dear friend suffer from AIDS and has said he would forbid our kids from dating an HIV + person- I just can't go that far- but I would hope that after considering the limitations HIV puts on a relationship and the risks involved they wouldn't want to date an HIV+ person

I am normally so PC- I guess what I have experienced in reality has just blown any desire to be PC out of the water for me on this issue- forgive me- I don't mean to offend- I have just seen it up close and personal and my heart breaks about my friend and this disease that has robbed his life from him.
post #127 of 184
To the OP, I would have absolutely no problem having my children play with a HIV+ child, nor would I have an issue with my teenager dating an HIV+ boy.

To LoveChild421, if HIV is ultimately lethal, please can you explain this to me because it has confused me no end for ages:

Normally and traditionally, antibodies indicate that the body has mounted a successful defense against a germ. The germ "failed." I was under the impression that the presence of antibodies only signifies that some germ or other foreign substance has been recognized by the body, which has then tried to ward it off with an immune defense.

However, current AIDs "wisdom" asserts that antibodies to HIV indicate that the person would sooner or later die. This strikes me as an horrendous piece of reasoning, starting with the bald and unproven assertion that HIV was lethal; therefore, antibodies would do no good.

Then there is the so-called vaccine. Scientists are (or at least taking about) coming up with a vaccine against HIV. What would that vaccine do? It would nudge the body into producing antibodies against HIV.

But if HIV was actually lethal, that would do no good at all we would all be HIV+ and doomed to die.

In other words, if you got these antibodies because HIV entered the body, you're a gonner. But if the same antibodies were produced by the vaccine, you would be immune to HIV. TBH, that medical assumption strikes me as BS.

The NIH is on record as saying that those who volunteered for a clinical trial of the HIV vaccine would be given a special letter from NIH afterwards. This letter would essentially say: If this person ever tests positive for HIV, disregard the test; the antibodies were produced by the vaccine and the person is immune to HIV.

How insane can it get? Personally, I think an HIV test is a death sentence because of all the lethal drugs a person with HIV antibodies is required to take. Because of this I would never willing get an HIV test (although I have had two, one when pregnant with DD#2 because my midwife requested it and one for my "green card" -- negative), and I would never get any of my children tested either, I'm not about to hand them a "death sentence" on a plate.
post #128 of 184
uccomama,

No one will force an HIV+ person to take any drugs. The choice is theirs to make. In fact, many people who want to take them can't afford them. They are extremely expensive. I think the most important reason to know your HIV status is so that you can take the precautions to avoid infecting another person. As long as you are already taking those precautions, I guess there is no reason to worry about it.

As for dying from HIV.... a person does not die from HIV. HIV will progress to AIDS, and the person will eventually die from complications due to AIDS. AIDS basically destroys your immune system, and leaves you open to infections and diseases that would otherwise be relatively harmless. Therefore, a simple cold can become a death sentence.

Antibodies are present when your body is fighting something. They do not necesarily (sp?) mean that the body has won the fight. As for the vaccine, they have been trying to develop one for years now, and have not had any luck. Honestly, I do not ever see a vaccine coming our for HIV. I think the only way it will be eradicated is through education and testing. Many people pass HIV because they do not know they are positive, or do not know how it is transmitted. It is transmitted through blood, semen, vaginal fluids, and breastmilk.

I would have no problem with my dd playing with a HIV+ child. Even if the child was bleeding, the blood would have to be consumed by my dd, or it would have to enter into an open wound on her body. Both of those cases are highly unlikely.
post #129 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommystinch
uccomama,

No one will force an HIV+ person to take any drugs. The choice is theirs to make. In fact, many people who want to take them can't afford them. They are extremely expensive. I think the most important reason to know your HIV status is so that you can take the precautions to avoid infecting another person. As long as you are already taking those precautions, I guess there is no reason to worry about it.


Really, tell that to the HIV+ children of the Incarnation Children's Center, NYC, who were force fed toxic AIDs drugs. Here's a short excerpt from an article by Liam Scheff of the Observer:

Quote:
In New York's Washington Heights is a 4-story brick building called Incarnation Children's Center (ICC). This former convent houses a revolving stable of children who've been removed from their own homes by the Agency for Child Services. These children are black, Hispanic and poor. Many of their mothers had a history of drug abuse and have died. Once taken into ICC, the children become subjects of drug trials sponsored by NIAID (National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, a division of the NIH), NICHD (the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) in conjunction with some of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies - GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Genentech, Chiron/Biocine and others.

The drugs being given to the children are toxic - they're known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they're held down and have them force fed. If the children continue to resist, they're taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their intestines.

Quote:
As for dying from HIV.... a person does not die from HIV. HIV will progress to AIDS, and the person will eventually die from complications due to AIDS. AIDS basically destroys your immune system, and leaves you open to infections and diseases that would otherwise be relatively harmless. Therefore, a simple cold can become a death sentence.


I know no one dies from HIV. But your (mainstream science) hypothosis that HIV causes AIDS has never been proven. Here is a link to a short article on Peter Duesberg: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/tbcould.htm. Of course Duesberg was discredited and he went onto cancer research and has done extremely well and is up for a Nobel prize, so this guy is no quack.

And what about the people who have been diagnosed with HIV and AIDS and still live, years later, in a state of great health, who haven't taken the drugs, who haven't psychologically caved in to the diagnosis, who reject the whole medical AIDS paradigm?

Quote:
Antibodies are present when your body is fighting something. They do not necesarily (sp?) mean that the body has won the fight.


About antibody testing: they never get down to finding the actual virus in the body, just the antibodies, and they never touch on the question of how many such germs are actually in the body. If you only have sixteen germs of a particular kind, they are not going to be able to cause any harm at all. You need a whole bunch. Perhaps millions.
post #130 of 184
Okay, if HIV is not very dangerous (or at least, less dangerous than the drugs used to treat it), why is it such a problem in Africa?

Because, as far as I know, most people over there aren't getting the drugs, so they should therefore be the picture of health. If that's the case, then I sure wasted a hell of a lot of $$ and time in activism then. (And yes, I know about people who seem to have a natural resistance. However, they are not the majority of the population.)

Where is this information coming from, exactly?

It's one thing to have the drugs be toxic when given to *children*--that's kind of a no brainer. Lots of drugs do that. But I'm sorry, when I hear someone say that HIV is "no big deal", it reminds me of the people who say that condoms don't protect against STDs. It might have a grain of truth to it, but it's quite a bit misleading.

But you know, probably a discussion about if HIV is, in fact, a serious danger to someone who has it (and if we should encourage everyone to reject drug treatment) probably belongs on another thread.
post #131 of 184
Without a second thought.

As someone who has had a lot of involvement in the gay/les/bi/tran community I know enough about HIV and AIDS to know that a HIV+ child is not a threat to my little one. The only thing I would worry about is something my cousin/best friend and I did when I was younger and that' become "blood sisters" (you know, two kids have a cut and they mix blood) but that's something I would think the HIV+ child (and mine too hopefully) would know not to do.

I asked my df the same question and his immediate reaction was a blank stare and "well yea, why not?"

I think a child should have friends based on who they are not what they have.
post #132 of 184
For me the answer is yes. I think it is safe to assume he already has. Why would a known risk be more dangerous than an unknown risk? I do not control the world we live in but I can control my reaction to it. I refuse to live in fear and I don't want my children to either.

I was told that circumcision would protect my son from HIV. My response was that education would work a heck of a lot better. Universal precautions are universal and we use them. No fear. No discrimination. Just normal healthy respectful behaviors.
post #133 of 184
Right now no - several reasons -
First off - for the sake of the HIV+ child as my kids are sick a lot. By a lot - I mean someone has been sick with at least some level of cold for over 6 months. By the time one cold goes all the way through everyone - someone else has come down with something else. The twins were preemie and they don't have good immune systems and come down with something a few days after we leave the house every time. Kids with HIV/AIDS don't have good immune systems so exposure to my children (who have colds right now a lot) could get them very, very sick.

I would not take my children around ANYONE who is immunocomprimised even if my children appear to be well. I feel very badly because we had a friends who had kidney failure and was on dialysis and we took our children over to visit him a lot (NEVER when obviously sick) but kids are contaigious sometimes a day or so BEFORE showing symptoms and the last time we visited him in 2002 our children came down sick the next morning. He got the same illness later that week, was admitted to hospital where he died. We felt absolutely horrible.

Next - yes - I would be fearful with my children NOW at the ages they are playing with HIV+ children. I have 5 kids 5 and under and I don't think that *I* could supervise well enough (esp as I do have a biter - Maddy is not that verbal and has had a lot of adjustment with the twins esp now that they are mobile). So - I would be scared now to let them play with an HIV+ child. Now when my children are older and probably even my 5 year only WITH supervision and explanation - yes - just not unsupervisied (I did the "blood brothers" stuff too as a child and other stuff - so I would want an adult supervision). Yes - I know anyone they are in contact with could be and I do try really hard to teach them about proper precautions in general with bodily fluids because you really do never know. I definately don't quiz the moms of the other children at church, children's choir, ballet, or soccer.

This question made me think - It's theoretical for us right now. We don't know anyone that we know of that has HIV. Besides - we're not managing playdates with ANYONE at the moment. However - I do have a friend with an immunocomprimised child that I haven't seen in over 3 years because of the risk to her child. We just e-mail and phone occasionally.
post #134 of 184
I'm not going to read all the replies.

Hell yes I would let my child play with yours! Hell yah! If you could make it all the way over here we could get together every day!
post #135 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherylE

I would not take my children around ANYONE who is immunocomprimised even if my children appear to be well. I feel very badly because we had a friends who had kidney failure and was on dialysis and we took our children over to visit him a lot (NEVER when obviously sick) but kids are contaigious sometimes a day or so BEFORE showing symptoms and the last time we visited him in 2002 our children came down sick the next morning. He got the same illness later that week, was admitted to hospital where he died. We felt absolutely horrible.
I am so sorry to hear this! Believe me, I know how scary it can be. My younger daughter has End Stage Renal Disease ie: kidney failure (also requiring nightly dialysis. She is now 20 months old. When she was 6 months old, we took her to a friends holiday party where a few kids had colds. The next morning when we got up, she was grunting. We took her to the pediatrician who put her on O2 and sent us, by ambulance to the nearest Children's Hospital. She had immediately developed Pnuemonia secondary to Para-influenza which also collapsed part of 1 lung. We spent Christmas day waiting to find out whether she'd live. I lived in the ICU for 3 weeks and then out in recovery with her for another month as she proceeded to suffer from repeated hospital acquired illnesses. Kajsa is still trying to catch up with physical developmental delays from that time. No one in our family will ever be as naive or innocent.
That said...there is absolutely no way that I would ever deny her the ability to play with other children. I feel this so strongly that I am shaking as I type. She has so much to go through in her life. I cannot deny her the happiness that social interaction brings. Does this mean that I would be careless about it? -- No. All of our friends know to let me know if their children are sick. If we're going to a mutual friend's home, they'll call so that I can stay home. There are things I'd never do: leave Kajsa at a mall drop & shop, visit a friend or relative in a hospital with her, etc. I NEVER leave her side. That's just life.
So, my wandering and very long winded point is: more than likely any HIV+ kiddo's parent/caregiver is so used to taking extreme precautions that you more than likely wouldn't have as much to worry about as you might think.
The best plan might simply be frank, open and straightforward communication with all responsible adults involved. That would allow for brainstorming & problem solving. Plus, then the lines of communication are open & you don't need to worry about it being awkward later if you were to think of new concerns or suggestions.
post #136 of 184
I would allow my 4yo dd to play with any child that she decided to be friends with. As long as the other child was kind and played well with my dd, HIV+ or not. I would have no problems joining a play group/pre-school that had a HIV+ child also attending. But how would I know that information?
How do any of us know that information. Do we approach every playing situation as if a HIV+ child is present? If you are afraid, then maybe
you should be.
Life has risks, it isn't like I allow dd to play with knifes and run in the street, but with the activities my daughter takes part with at her pre-school I don't see how she would be in any danger of an HIV+ child also participating. They color, do crafts, have stories read to them. I don't see the harm.
Dd is a rough player, toyboy if you will. She enjoys tumbling and pushing a little bit (normal kid play being watched, not violent play) while at gymnastics. Although I have never witnessed her bite another child or be bitten by another child. She has had her share of scrapes and bumps but never by the actions of another child. Maybe I would be more careful if she was younger than 18 months, before she knew not to pull on others hair, or grab too hard. But then again, I was careful when dd was that age with all children. Sitting on the floor playing with them.
Personal choice I feel that each parent would have to make on their own. I can't say others choice to say no is wrong, just slightly sad for the children missing out on playing and making new friendships.
post #137 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerchild
Okay, if HIV is not very dangerous (or at least, less dangerous than the drugs used to treat it), why is it such a problem in Africa?

Because, as far as I know, most people over there aren't getting the drugs, so they should therefore be the picture of health. If that's the case, then I sure wasted a hell of a lot of $$ and time in activism then. (And yes, I know about people who seem to have a natural resistance. However, they are not the majority of the population.)

Where is this information coming from, exactly?

It's one thing to have the drugs be toxic when given to *children*--that's kind of a no brainer. Lots of drugs do that. But I'm sorry, when I hear someone say that HIV is "no big deal", it reminds me of the people who say that condoms don't protect against STDs. It might have a grain of truth to it, but it's quite a bit misleading.

But you know, probably a discussion about if HIV is, in fact, a serious danger to someone who has it (and if we should encourage everyone to reject drug treatment) probably belongs on another thread.
Well, they don't test much for HIV in Africa, they don't have the resources, so they base their AIDS diagnosis on the following criteria: fever, cough, weight loss and diarrhea for 30 days, well. I have been coughing for over 30 days now (I suspect I have whooping cough), my tummy has been upset for a while, and I had a fever a week ago, and I have lost some weight, so I guess if I was living in Africa I would have AIDS. When they tested AIDS patients in Africa (according to the above criteria) 50% were HIV-. Just for the record, I don't believe Africa needs a dime of AIDS relief, they need money for food (and not "white man's" food -- but assistance to be able to grow their own native foods), clean water, and basic low tech, nurturing healthcare.

If you have any interest at all in the "other side" of the AIDS issue, I recommend you take at look here: http://www.sumeria.net/aids.html

For a much shorter article written by Christine Maggiore go here: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cmknow.htm

Christina is HIV+ and mother of two boys (IIRC) which she has not had tested, and also EN'ed, she has been featured in two articles in Mothering.

One more thing AIDS drugs are toxic to EVERYONE. AZT is a chemotherapy drug which was never used to treat cancer because it was too toxic. But obviously not toxic enough for those tested HIV+.

Oh, if you take anymore, the HIV test is a fraud too! see here.
post #138 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uccomama
Just for the record, I don't believe Africa needs a dime of AIDS relief, they need money for food (and not "white man's" food -- but assistance to be able to grow their own native foods), clean water, and basic low tech, nurturing healthcare.
While I agree with you that the number of AIDS cases in sub-Saharan Africa is most likely overreported because, as you said, the resources to test everyone who exhibits symptoms just aren't available, I have to strenuously disagree that African nations don't need money for AIDS care and relief. My son is from Ethiopia. Children there who are eligible for international adoption are tested (several times) for HIV. The number of children who have tested HIV+ has increased dramatically, shockingly, frighteningly in the past decade. AIDS *IS* a huge problem in Ethiopia, and one that the Ethiopian government has NO HOPE of dealing with on its own. The government's entire annual health services budget isn't even large enough to care for Ethiopia's orphans for one month. Ethiopia desperately NEEDS money for AIDS relief.

It's not an either/or situation. Ethiopia needs money for AIDS relief AND for agricultural development on its own terms.

And now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Namaste!
post #139 of 184
What Africa needs are some missionaries that don't tell absolute lies about AIDS. We learned in class that some missionaries are telling them that condoms actually cause AIDS because they have "worms" in them that transmit the virus. Also, someone should tell them that raping virgins is not a way to get rid of the virus. That would be a lot more useful than all the abstinence talk. They are not going to be abstinent, and in some African traditions, fertility must be proven before marriage.
post #140 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by dharmamama
The number of children who have tested HIV+ has increased dramatically, shockingly, frighteningly in the past decade. AIDS *IS* a huge problem in Ethiopia, and one that the Ethiopian government has NO HOPE of dealing with on its own. The government's entire annual health services budget isn't even large enough to care for Ethiopia's orphans for one month. Ethiopia desperately NEEDS money for AIDS relief.

It's not an either/or situation. Ethiopia needs money for AIDS relief AND for agricultural development on its own terms.



Namaste!
But what are these poor children going to get for their relief money....toxic drugs that kill them. For example the NIH/Nevirapine scandal, gosh I don't even know what to call it, where mothers and babies are given a drug known to cause liver damage, death and a rash so horrible that it needs to be discontinued immediately.

See here.

Africa doesn't need that kind of help. Sorry to continue to hijack your thread. I will shut up now
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Would you let your child play with an HIV+ child?