HIV testing? - Mothering Forums

 
Thread Tools
#1 of 11 Old 02-09-2006, 12:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The military hospital I'm seeing now includes HIV testing as part of its standard package. So far, I've declined everything except that, though I haven't gone in yet for the blood draw.

My sexual history isn't all that interesting (alas )-- four partners total, though I don't think I was ever very responsible about using protection. And I've been monogamous with DH for over three years. Never used intravenous street drugs.

I've tested negative twice in the past two years since DH and I got married... is it really necessary to be tested AGAIN? And I've seen some people round here say the test isn't particularly reliable anyways-- was wondering what to make of that.

Whatcha think?
eightyferrettoes is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 11 Old 02-09-2006, 12:16 AM
 
ChattyCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Between the pig farms and a swamp!
Posts: 3,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If you've had negative tests, after you got with your dh (and I'm assuming you trust him), I don't think you need the test. It's just become standard procedure among all OBs to test pregnant women. They actually get a large segment of the population (who are obviously sexually active) available to test. And, since most HIV+ people don't know that they're HIV+, it makes sense to offer the test to women when they have the chance. But, I don't think everyone needs it.

Since we did IVF, both dh and I have to have had an entire infectious diseases panel within the preceeding 12 months of treatment (some wonderful new federal law). It used to just be a recommendation, but now the clinics can get shut down, if they don't do it. I was so pissed off that we had to pay even more money out of pocket to have tests run that I knew were worthless. We've been married for 6 years, and had all of the tests run when we were ttc our first over 4 years ago.

All of these *recommendations* can be so frustrating.
ChattyCat is offline  
#3 of 11 Old 02-09-2006, 09:56 AM
 
myhoneyswife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, Zone 4 :)
Posts: 1,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, I'm thinking that they're using pregnant women more as case studies for outside agendas... 'in our study of 295,672 women of child bearing age, XYZ percent had ABC abnormalities in their blood work, showing that we need $1,000,000,000 to further study the cause' ya know? I'm sort of a medical conspericy (though I can't spell that word) theororist...



So, I'd say the HIV test in your case is unnecessary. I got really tired of having to reassue the doctors that my husband and I were indeed faithful to eachother, so NO, I did not need STD testing, and NO, he does NOT abuse me, just give me the stupid pills!

Cara
myhoneyswife is offline  
 
#4 of 11 Old 02-09-2006, 10:23 AM
 
tatgurl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I too thought that the HIV test was unnessisary in my case and so I talked to my midwife about it. What she told me led me to make the decision to have it done anyway.
Her was her explanation, which is totally apauling for the state to do, but nontheless, here goes..... If the hospital does not have a recent neg. HIV test result in your file, they will test the baby when it's born. They do this quick test, that my midwife said is totally unreliable and comes back with a false pos. a lot of the time. anyway, if the baby has a pos. (false or not) with this test, they will not let you breastfeed the baby...
being that the baby is a ward of the state (another f'd up thing with hospitals) untill it is discharged into your care, they feel that this is in the best interest of the baby. now, here is their stupid resoning for not allowing breastfeeding.... they feel that you will pass HIV on to the baby.... wait a min... didn't the baby just test pos.??? anyway, that is the deal in my state (NY). I say have it done and save the posibility of a hassel later. My feeling is that they can test me for whatever they want to, just don't you dare touch my baby....
tatgurl is offline  
#5 of 11 Old 02-09-2006, 12:56 PM
 
Danesmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Far and Away
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Hey tatgirl -

Just wanted to respond to clarify why the state would not allow BF-ing when the baby tests positive for HIV at birth.

Because the mother supplies the baby's blood while in utero, if the baby tests positive for HIV that means that the mother has HIV (unles of course it is a false positive ). There is still a chance that the baby is not HIV positive, but the state cannot tell whether baby is HIV +/- until its body takes over blood supply etc., which takes a few weeks.

Hope that helps clarify.

Edited to add: I say have the testing done too - I didn't with my second because like you I had tested negative twice and thought it was a waste. Well, the nurse was fussing about not being able to take her gloves off to wash the baby after birth because we hadn't had the testing done recently. Save yourself any future hassle! BTW, we don't have any rules about testing the baby or breast feeding in CO. Hope that helps!

Struggling to blossom . . . .
Danesmama is offline  
#6 of 11 Old 02-09-2006, 05:00 PM
 
broodymama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Watching the rain
Posts: 7,290
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Oh yeah, just another thing to think about - I'm receiving concurrent care with my homebirth midwife and my PCM at our local military hospital. I had the bloodwork done at the military hospital and signed the paperwork DECLINING the HIV test and they performed it anyway. : My situation is similar to yours and it irks me that they performed a test that I specifically refused.

Chaotic 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 mama to 6

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
broodymama is offline  
#7 of 11 Old 02-09-2006, 07:58 PM
 
Kellie_MO4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I had the test done with my first, simply because I had never been tested before (though I had only had sex with one other guy one time before DH) and that was 2 years before I got preggo and had the test done. I didn't get the test with my next 2, and from what I saw they didn't even bother offering it to me this time (I don't remember them asking me, and it didn't show up on the ins bill) but with my 2 that I didn't test for the hospital didn't do anything different than with any other baby re: care... I say if you feel no need for it, then don't do it...

♥ SAHM to my 5 kiddos ♥
2/01, 12/02, 4/05, 7/06 and 10/08
Kellie_MO4 is offline  
#8 of 11 Old 02-10-2006, 05:11 AM - Thread Starter
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Whoa, tatgirl, that's insane! Ugh.

I'll talk to the CNM I'm seeing on Wed. to see what she says about the law up here. I'm on the fence about where to birth, mostly out of insurance concerns (sucky reason to birth in a hospital, but there it is) and the scenario you just described is like my worst hospital birth nightmare.

Well, second to having my kid circed without consent, that is. I am so paranoid about hospitals.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
#9 of 11 Old 02-10-2006, 11:03 AM
 
writermommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danesmama
Hey tatgirl -

Just wanted to respond to clarify why the state would not allow BF-ing when the baby tests positive for HIV at birth.

Because the mother supplies the baby's blood while in utero, if the baby tests positive for HIV that means that the mother has HIV (unles of course it is a false positive ). There is still a chance that the baby is not HIV positive, but the state cannot tell whether baby is HIV +/- until its body takes over blood supply etc., which takes a few weeks.

Hope that helps clarify.

Actually, a baby can test positive and then change to negative anytime up until all the mothers antibodies have left the baby's system. I don't remember the exact age, but it's between 12 and 18 months. It's called sero conversion. The baby can actually become HIV negative after a year of life testing positive. This sero conversion happens in 75% of babies born to HIV positive mothers.

The only downside to testing is that sometimes false positives do happen. There was an article in Mothering Magazine a year or so ago about this. If you test positive, make darn sure you are positive. They can actually make you take antiviral medications during your pregnancy in an attempt to increase the sero conversion rate in your infant. The 75% figure is for mothers who are on antiretroviral medications. While this is a good thing if the mom is HIV + it can be horrible if she has a false positive and then proceeds to take toxic medications in an effort to "protect" her child. THat was the basic jist of the mothering article.

I lost a close friend to AIDS in 1997, just prior to getting pregnant with my first daughter. During his illness, I read everything I could find on this disease. That's how I first learned of sero conversion. ANyway, just wanted to say that's why they try to "insist" on moms being tested. I've been married to my husband for 14 years and we've been together for 17 years. I've had 3 negative HIV tests with my past pregnancies and they still tested me with this one. I really thought this was silly. But, they really push for it and since I didn't have to pay I did it. If I would have had to pay, I would have refused the test.
writermommy is offline  
#10 of 11 Old 02-10-2006, 05:16 PM
 
laralee16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 1,499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Why, unless you have to pay for, not do it when you are doing all your blood work? I have NEVER been with anyone eles, and nor has my husband, but I still let them do mine. I was not paying for it, and they had to do a blood test anyways.

Laura wife to Chris proud mommy to our lil monkey (c-section 6-10-06), our other lil monkey (HBAC 3-08-09) Our next and last son (due by HBAC mid July 2011) and our angel (10-03-04). My middle son has many severe food allergies.

laralee16 is offline  
#11 of 11 Old 02-10-2006, 07:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by laralee16
Why, unless you have to pay for, not do it when you are doing all your blood work? I have NEVER been with anyone eles, and nor has my husband, but I still let them do mine. I was not paying for it, and they had to do a blood test anyways.
Because I'm refusing all the other blood work as being unnecessary in my situation-- and this one doesn't seem particularly necessary to me, either. And needles make me want to pass out.

And I hate having the state tell me what to do, without justification, explanation, or thought to my individual situation. I don't like the hospital's "line up and do what we say when we say" attitude toward pregnancy and birth.

I'm thinking I'll refuse. I'll talk to the CNM in case I do wind up delivering at the hospital. But the more I think about it, the less appealing the hospital looks.

Thanks, y'all.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 8,241

13 members and 8,228 guests
alenamiy , anacrish , davilaolga766 , Dooby , hillymum , IsaFrench , katelove , moominmamma , rhutes , SPrada , Tara 1st Timer , transylvania_mom
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.