Mandatory HIV testing - Page 4 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 107 Old 01-02-2010, 10:50 PM
 
rayo de sol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by soso-lynn View Post
Alos, it is important to understand that drugs are not necessarily started the second someone gets a confirmed positive.
Untrue.

Quote:
When treating pregnant women who test positive for HIV, most physicians follow US Public Health Service guidelines, which include aggressive combinations of anti-HIV drugs during pregnancy and AZT administered intravenously during labor, followed by formula feeding and six weeks of AZT for newborns, whether or not they test positive.2 But many doctors, like Dana's, add their own codicil--a call to Child Protective Services if the parent doesn't comply.
http://www.mothering.com/safe-and-so...outside-system
rayo de sol is offline  
#92 of 107 Old 01-05-2010, 06:43 PM
 
wombatclay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: running the red queen's race
Posts: 14,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
~~~A note from your friendly neighborhood moderator~~~

MDC is an amazing, vibrant, and passionate community. In such a community there are bound to be disagreements. Please help us keep MDC welcoming as well as informative by following the user guidelines!

Quote:
Do not post in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, name-calling, personal attack or in any way which violates the law.
Quote:
Do not post or start a thread to discuss member behavior or statements of members made in other threads or to criticize another discussion on the boards. Do not post to a thread to take direct issue with a member. If you feel a member has posted or behaved inappropriately in a discussion, communicate directly with the member, moderator or administrator privately and refrain from potentially defaming discussion in a thread.
Although this thread has returned to Birth & Beyond, please note a general discussion of HIV/AIDS belongs in the Health & Healing forum. Please help us maintain the "birth" focus in this thread and consider starting a seperate thread in Health & Healing to discuss HIV/AIDS more generally.

Be pretty! Be practical! Be Pagan! Visit Pagan Hearth & Home!
 mama to lady.gif(4/05), hearts.gif(6/07vbac), diaper.gif(8/09vbac), and babygirl.gif (9/11vbac)

wombatclay is offline  
#93 of 107 Old 01-05-2010, 11:19 PM
 
soso-lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayo de sol View Post

What if a mother wants to use herbs (or other natural healing modalities) to heal her newborn of a supposed positive HIV test (assuming that the test was accurate)?

The law was made based on one flawed study from the pharmaceuticals, which (surprise!) said that their drug prevented the baby from staying HIV positive. Why would we ever trust a study that the pharmaceuticals performed themselves? They aren't objective. They have the most to gain.
There is a lot more than one study that shows how efficient treatment is in preventing transmission to the baby. I am all for natural minded health care but herbs cannot prevent a retrovirus from replicating just like herbs will never make a woman whose tubes are blocked get pregnant. There are some things that require drugs, even sometimes risky drugs with high toxicity. Once again, all this fear of treating babies over false positives can be avoided by simply not waiting until labor (hence when there is no time to get an accurate result) to get tested. Those quick tests you mentionned are actually not recommended and probably have not been used in a long time.

Also, HIV is actually one area of research that gets lots of non-pharmaceutical research funds. There are many activism and community groups who look very closely at what research is being done and they tend to get very loud about it so the big pharma conspiracy really does not hold up for HIV. Perhaps a little look at the history of HIV research would help you understand the dynamics behind it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayo de sol View Post
Me too! They can never admit that HIV doesn't cause AIDS because their HUGE house of cards would collapse, and sooooo many people would be out of a job. Not to mention all the lost profits to the pharmaceuticals selling all those worthless HIV tests and AIDS drugs. Yup, I predict that the AIDS powers that be will continue lying to people for as long as they possibly can.
I wish I could just ignore this kind of statement but it is just way too dangerous to say nothing when people make such comments. Perhaps if you get the opportunity, you should go in a lab and look at an actual HIV virus in action. This is not made up. Perhaps you could go volunteer at a local AIDS clinic and see for yourself the reality of it. I would love to see you explain to my neighbour that the fact that he is dying right now has nothing to do with the positive HIV tests he has been getting since the early 90s.

This distinction between AIDS and HIV is an old concept of the beginning of the pandemic when it was not fully understood. AIDS was defined by the secondary infections and diseases acquired from HIV infection. Now that we do understand the mechanism behind HIV and its evolution, that classification is no longer necessary. I would like for you to explain what AIDS is if you do not think it is related to HIV, given that the diagnostic criteria for AIDS involves having HIV.

Finally, when I say that there is no debate in the scientific community, I do not include people with dubious credentials and clear agendas. Debate among people who do not understand (or chose to ignore) the science is not debate among scientists but debate with scientists.

To get back to the issue of prenatal testing for HIV, I do think that people with different views (no matter how unfounded) should have the right not to get tested. However, I also think that when someone's views on a disease put them at greater risk of transmitting it (I assume that people who do not believe in STDs do not use proper protection and perhaps would not notify their partner if they had a positive test show up), it is very difficult to stand by and do nothing, especially when it comes to an infant for whom transmission can be prevented.

People who are concerned with HCPs taking quick actions without full evidence of infection or CPS getting involved in medical treatments (or informed refusals of medical treatment) should not be arguing the old myths and misconceptions about HIV but rather fighting to bring true and evidence-based information to those involved. The only reason anyone would forcibly prevent an hiv-positive mother from nursing her baby or force treatment for no good reason is if they are stick in the middle of the hysteria and panic surrounding HIV. Get rid of that hysteria and the alleged threat of lives being destroyed over HIV testing stops existing.

Single mom to E (2004) and D (2010)
soso-lynn is offline  
#94 of 107 Old 01-05-2010, 11:39 PM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayo de sol View Post
And I actually do believe very strongly that global warming is for real, but science is not cut and dried.

Science is changeable--and quite corruptible. Scientists don't want to lose their jobs, they want funding; to succeed in their field, they have to play along with the party line.

Many scientists are corrupt. They are the pawns of Big Business, especially Big Pharma. Where do you think their funding comes from?

Therefore, we can't take everything they assert at face value.

Wow, as a scientist, that perspective it pretty defeating. Judging the group by the fringe is rarely a good idea.

I assure you the majority of scientists aren't pawns of Big Pharma and not all funding comes from them. In fact, unless you are a commercial scientist and you work directly for them, very little funding comes directly from Big Pharma. Most of the money comes from granting agencies.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#95 of 107 Old 01-06-2010, 01:44 PM
 
MegBoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by soso-lynn View Post
I think that the easiest way to overcome that and stop the social devastation caused by HIV is to start viewing it as any other infectious disease and not as something special or different. It is really ridiculous that we are at the point where some legislations feel the need to make it mandatory. Most of those laws actually come from the point of view that making it compulsory alleviates the burden on patients of having to fully disclose their lifestyle or be afraid that asumptions will be made about them if they choose to get it done. For example, there is no need to make testing for rh sensitization required by law since no stigma is attached to a positive result.
Bolding mine

HOW can we view it as "any other infectious disease"? It IS transmitted through sex (or needles). Why would we ignore that fact? What would we have to gain by ignoring that fact in order to view it as "any other infectious disease"?

If you are correct that the laws were created, at least in part, to "alleviate the burden" of choosing to get the test, I think that is awful, just absolutely terrible. Having government "play Mom" & tell me they know what is best for me, and they will decide for me is atrocious.

Also, as I've posted before, it could simply be alleviated by my MW saying to me, "Yeah, Meg, you're right, I'm sure you don't have it! I'd just like to test anyway, it makes me feel better to get it on the books & we're taking blood anyway." I would literally and say, "OK."

Quote:
Originally Posted by soso-lynn View Post
When people start equating getting tested for certain diseases with the level of trust in their marriage and other things of the sort, we end up with simple things reaching irrational levels of complication such as laws forcing things on patients.
Again, bolding mine.

Ok, this really confuses me. I was one who said previously that I don't need to re-test for HIV because I trust my DH - and to tell me I should get tested anyway is to tell me I should NOT trust my DH.

I'm not "equating the disease with the level of trust in my marriage." It is simply fact! DH & I don't do IV drugs & have never had a blood transfusion. So sex is the only way we could get HIV, right?

OK, so if I was already HIV negative after being married to him for 5 years when I had DS, (So we will assume DH is also HIV-), and we continue to have sex with only one another, then what is the point of getting HIV tested again whenever I have baby #2??? There is no way I could have contracted HIV now unless my DH has cheated on me! Or am I missing something here?
I am not making some sort of artificial connection with HIV testing to the trust level in my marriage - that is simply the fact of the matter.
MegBoz is offline  
#96 of 107 Old 01-06-2010, 01:45 PM
 
MegBoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noobmom View Post
Agreeing that a HIV test can be mandated does not mean I think that a pregnant woman needs to agree to everything. It's one test.
So where do you draw the line??? My point is that it is wrong to ever force a woman into any medical procedure or treatment. Wrong. Period. I don't care that it is "just one test!" The fact that it is "just one test" doesn't change that. As Pirogi states, it's a bodily integrity issue.
MegBoz is offline  
#97 of 107 Old 01-06-2010, 06:14 PM
 
Spirit Dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eastern Canada
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegBoz View Post
Bolding mine

HOW can we view it as "any other infectious disease"? It IS transmitted through sex (or needles). Why would we ignore that fact? What would we have to gain by ignoring that fact in order to view it as "any other infectious disease"?

If you are correct that the laws were created, at least in part, to "alleviate the burden" of choosing to get the test, I think that is awful, just absolutely terrible. Having government "play Mom" & tell me they know what is best for me, and they will decide for me is atrocious.

Also, as I've posted before, it could simply be alleviated by my MW saying to me, "Yeah, Meg, you're right, I'm sure you don't have it! I'd just like to test anyway, it makes me feel better to get it on the books & we're taking blood anyway." I would literally and say, "OK."


Again, bolding mine.

Ok, this really confuses me. I was one who said previously that I don't need to re-test for HIV because I trust my DH - and to tell me I should get tested anyway is to tell me I should NOT trust my DH.

I'm not "equating the disease with the level of trust in my marriage." It is simply fact! DH & I don't do IV drugs & have never had a blood transfusion. So sex is the only way we could get HIV, right?

OK, so if I was already HIV negative after being married to him for 5 years when I had DS, (So we will assume DH is also HIV-), and we continue to have sex with only one another, then what is the point of getting HIV tested again whenever I have baby #2??? There is no way I could have contracted HIV now unless my DH has cheated on me! Or am I missing something here?
I am not making some sort of artificial connection with HIV testing to the trust level in my marriage - that is simply the fact of the matter.
I agree with what MegBoz is saying. My dh and I were virgins when we got married and have only had sex with each other (no drugs or transfusions either). WIth my 1st pregnancy I declined HIV testing (thankfully here in Canada it is optional) because I am 100% sure I do not have it. I do 100% trust my dh. And no I am not stupid or naive. It seems or society has a problem with trust anyway. I hear a lot, "Oh I trust ___ but just to be sure..."
I also declined STD testing and I was offended when my dr said "But you can never be sure...", implying my dh may have cheated. How in the world is it her place to judge my marriage AND try to undermine MY OWN health care decisions?


I do not think the government has ANY right to mandate any medical or health choices for me or my family (including PKU or whatever) . I am appalled and even scared at the ever increasing role of authority the government is taking in this area. Honestly what is next? For example I am sure down the road there will be some type of forced vax? And if you force the HIV test on a mama, then say she is positive they will force drugs on her baby and formula. So in the US at this point it is forced testing AND treatment (CPS taking a newborn from its mama is force). Really what next? Honestly all this is part of why I have chosen to UP/UC my currant pregnancy.
Spirit Dancer is offline  
#98 of 107 Old 01-06-2010, 07:49 PM
 
MiaMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But sex and needles are not really the only way to get some of the viruses, they are just the most common ways. Right? They are "blood-borne pathogens." At some previous jobs I have worked, we had extensive training in universal precautions, because we do not have to have sex with people in order to be exposed to bodily fluids.

Now, I am not sure how long the HIV virus can survive outside the body, so I am not sure if someone could be exposed to enough bodily fluds to transmit the virus without knowing it. However, I know I have had my BIL's blood on me when he gashed his foot open and I rushed to help him. I don't know enough about his health status to rule that out as a potential source. But, I did not share needles with him OR have sex with him.

I wonder who my husband has helped when injured or sick in the past 5 years? Part of the reason I trust my husband completely is because I know he is the type of person who would never hesitate to assist someone in trouble.

Also, how many times in history have doctors themselves accidentially spread disease? I have had blood draws, and I am pretty sure the office used proper contamination procedures, but am I 100% sure? Not quite.

I am not saying I support mandatoy anything, I am just saying that there are other possible infection vectors other than sex or drugs.
MiaMama is offline  
#99 of 107 Old 01-06-2010, 11:19 PM
 
soso-lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegBoz View Post
HOW can we view it as "any other infectious disease"? It IS transmitted through sex (or needles). Why would we ignore that fact? What would we have to gain by ignoring that fact in order to view it as "any other infectious disease"?

If you are correct that the laws were created, at least in part, to "alleviate the burden" of choosing to get the test, I think that is awful, just absolutely terrible. Having government "play Mom" & tell me they know what is best for me, and they will decide for me is atrocious.
As MiaMama said, sex and IV drugs are not the only way to transmit HIV. There are many other diseases that can be transmitted through sex that do not have the same social context as HIV. People do not panic over an hepatitis or HTLV test the same way they do over HIV, for example.

As far as what I said about the laws, I was simply making the point that, while mandatory testing might not be the solution, the ideology behind those laws was not to control and enslave people's bodies but rather to solve a real problem of people being scared to get tested because of social repercussions of doing so. I think that when discussing a law and its social consequences, it is important to look at the initial goal of such legislation. In this case, there is a lot more to it than government trying to invade people's privacy.

Single mom to E (2004) and D (2010)
soso-lynn is offline  
#100 of 107 Old 01-08-2010, 02:24 PM
 
MegBoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by soso-lynn View Post
the ideology behind those laws was not to control and enslave people's bodies but rather to solve a real problem of people being scared to get tested because of social repercussions of doing so.
OK, then education is the key here - educating people on the fact that you can get HIV other ways besides sex, blood transfusions & needle-drug use. There you go. That's the solution! Education & allowing people to make their own healthcare decisions.

Incidentally, I've also had "blood-borne pathogen" training. If I was exposed to the blood of a stranger, I'd get the HIV test. & I do think it's wise for a healthcare professional, such as nurse of EMT to get tested, as well as perhaps to get the Heb B vax. But DH & I work behind computers all day. Neither of us has ever encountered any strange blood! It's not part of our lives.
MegBoz is offline  
#101 of 107 Old 01-09-2010, 02:17 PM
 
rayo de sol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This movie looks really interesting.

House of Numbers
rayo de sol is offline  
#102 of 107 Old 01-09-2010, 10:52 PM
 
soso-lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayo de sol View Post
This movie looks really interesting.

House of Numbers
Ok, so science is biased and cannot be trusted yet a documentary with a bunch of out-of-context quotes and interviews with lunatics that ends up doing nothing more than showing that those lunatics exist should be proof that HIV is not real? I have seen this and can assure you that in no way does it advances your argument.

Single mom to E (2004) and D (2010)
soso-lynn is offline  
#103 of 107 Old 01-09-2010, 11:36 PM
 
Sorin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In the city of broad shoulders
Posts: 297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I almost hesitate to dip my toe into this discussion, but it was on my mind because I just had a conversation with my midwife yesterday on this exact issue. I have been tested for HIV, HepB, and will be tested for HepC at my next visit. I have absolutely no problem with it, and I understand the reasons behind it. I want to have a waterbirth, and my status is necessary for my care providers to know to even make a waterbirth possible at the hospital where I am delivering. As we know, birth is a messy business, perhaps a bit more so in a tub (at least in terms of bodily fluids floating around instead of being wiped/whisked away!) Knowing that I am negative makes a waterbirth for me possible, as they will not allow (whoops! There's that dreaded word!) a woman who is positive for any of the above diseases to have a waterbirth. This is a policy in place for the protection of the care providers, and I understand it. Why should they take my word for it that I am negative when it comes to the protection of their own health? Poke me, draw some blood, test it, prove that I'm negative, and let's get rolling on this waterbirth.

I also understand the need for state mandated testing. We live in a society, and we (the people, the government, ect.--fit whatever "we" you want to in here) have an obligation to take care of the citizens in that society. You know that saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my nose?" To me, state mandated HIV testing is the same thing. I absolutely have the right to refuse to be tested in 99.9% of all situations. BUT, when I became pregnant, it is just not about me anymore. There is a baby to think about. There are care providers to think about. I can argue to high heaven about my 0% risk, but the fact is that people lie. People are unaware of what really constitutes risk. People are deceived. If I have to "succumb" to mandated testing so that a doc or midwife can catch an unsuspecting woman who turns out to be HIV+ despite the fact that she truly believed that her partner was faithful and then move to help her give birth to a healthy baby and get treatment for herself so that she can go on to live a long and fulfilling life, then go ahead and stick me. I'm part of this society and care about all members in it. I have to get a license to drive a car. I have to register to vote. I have to obtain a degree to do my particular job, and I have to get an HIV test to give birth within the US medical system. I do not have a problem with any of these scenarios.
Sorin is offline  
#104 of 107 Old 01-11-2010, 02:59 PM
 
MiaMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegBoz View Post
OK, then education is the key here - educating people on the fact that you can get HIV other ways besides sex, blood transfusions & needle-drug use. There you go. That's the solution! Education & allowing people to make their own healthcare decisions.

Incidentally, I've also had "blood-borne pathogen" training. If I was exposed to the blood of a stranger, I'd get the HIV test. & I do think it's wise for a healthcare professional, such as nurse of EMT to get tested, as well as perhaps to get the Heb B vax. But DH & I work behind computers all day. Neither of us has ever encountered any strange blood! It's not part of our lives.
I totally agree that education is key.
For example, the CDC has documented cases of people aquiring HIV from their dentist and acupuncturist. It is very very rare, but I would be hard pressed to say I am 100% sure that there is no way I have been exposed. Maybe 99.999%?

I also agree that people should be able to make thier own healthcare decisions.
MiaMama is offline  
#105 of 107 Old 01-17-2010, 04:19 AM
 
nudnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What I think is the main issue here is not the testing, it's the treatment. If you are tested positive (or "maybe" positive), you can be forced into treatment you don't want. If you refuse to be tested, your baby can be forced into treatment you don't want.

Personally, I have no problem getting another test if they're drawing blood anyhow. Same with the PKU. It's information that could only help, right? It's the way they react to the test that worries me. If PKUs led to lots of babies being taken away from their mothers or drugs being forced on them, I might rethink that too.

Loads of blessings, and learning on the job.
run.gif 

nudnik is offline  
#106 of 107 Old 01-17-2010, 12:26 PM
 
soso-lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nudnik View Post
What I think is the main issue here is not the testing, it's the treatment. If you are tested positive (or "maybe" positive), you can be forced into treatment you don't want. If you refuse to be tested, your baby can be forced into treatment you don't want.

Personally, I have no problem getting another test if they're drawing blood anyhow. Same with the PKU. It's information that could only help, right? It's the way they react to the test that worries me. If PKUs led to lots of babies being taken away from their mothers or drugs being forced on them, I might rethink that too.
If you were HIV positive, would you really refuse treatment to prevent transmission? I think the number of people who actually refuse treatment after reviewing the available data and actually being diagnosed with HIV is way too low to even be significant. Within the community of people with HIV, it is widely agreed that the medical care that can prevent transmission to the baby has completely changed the lives of many HIV-positive women who now have the choice to become mothers despite their condition.

There are so many other situations where treatment would potentially be "forced" if parents refused it. Overall, if there is a significant risk to the baby that can easily be avoided, very few people would think it is acceptable to not do anything. I am pretty sure that if the PKU test showed an abnormality that was later confirmed, refusing treatment would not go over too well with doctors and potentially with judges. Or, if your baby needs oxygen at birth, your refusal would likely be ignored as well. If you're positive for gonorrhea while pregnant, refusing treatment would probably not be an option. If your child is choking on something at school, the certainly would disregard any orders you would give to let the child die. To me, those things do not even lead to a debate over freedom and such as it is so obvious that treatment is important and people just don't refuse unless they are severely miseducated on the facts.

Single mom to E (2004) and D (2010)
soso-lynn is offline  
#107 of 107 Old 01-18-2010, 05:41 PM
 
MegBoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorin View Post
I also understand the need for state mandated testing. We live in a society, and we (the people, the government, ect.--fit whatever "we" you want to in here) have an obligation to take care of the citizens in that society. You know that saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my nose?" To me, state mandated HIV testing is the same thing. I absolutely have the right to refuse to be tested in 99.9% of all situations. BUT, when I became pregnant, it is just not about me anymore. There is a baby to think about.
<snip>
I'm part of this society and care about all members in it. I have to get a license to drive a car. I have to register to vote. I have to obtain a degree to do my particular job, and I have to get an HIV test to give birth within the US medical system. I do not have a problem with any of these scenarios.
Bolding mine.
These sentiments make me
If your HCP says, "I won't attend your waterbirth unless you are tested," well, that is the HCPs right & I fully support it! If that is how they feel, & how they choose to practice, that is their right.

But your points about a baby... uh... you make it sound as if protecting my baby is the responsibility of the government! & that's what makes me . No, it's up to me - the mama! Yeah, if I'm proven to be criminally endangering my child, then the state should save him (i.e. take him from me), but health care decisions, within reason, are mine to make. & not testing for everything under the sun is, to me, within reason* - therefore I don't want the government butting in & mandating that I test.
*Note I do think it's good to be tested, but I also think it is "within reason" to refuse.

Again, the sentiment that "The government/society has an obligation to care for the citizens" as justification for legally mandated testing can SO EASILY be extended to legally mandating ALL KINDS of healthcare! Remember, there have been rare cases were the law was used to FORCE women into unwanted repeat c-sections! (The OBs genuinely thought VBAC was way too dangerous of a risk to put a baby through!) And as we all know, many, many HCPs think it's a "needless risk" to forgo or even delay vaccines.

Why do you all think it's OK to legally mandate this one particular piece of healthcare practice & not others? Why also do you not think that this opens the door to more & more legal requirements of healthcare practices?

As for the statement that, "I don't mind, go ahead & stick me." I've posted it before & I'll post it again - whenever I get PG with #2, I plan to have an HB & if my MW says, "Yeah, I know, it's a 1 in a million shot that you have HIV, but I really just prefer you test for it." I'll say "OK, no problem!" It's not the testing itself I'm fighting against on this thread, it's using THE LAW to force ANY healthcare decision that I'm opposed to.

(OK, imminent death exempted here, such as choking, that's a "life & death issue" rather than a 'health care practice' issue.)
MegBoz is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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