'The Voice' Crowns Its Winner
Mitch Kellaway: Father's Day as a Transgender Man
New Jersey to test pregnant women for HIV
Filed under: Your Pregnancy, Health & Safety: Babies
The state of New Jersey has moved to make HIV testing mandatory for all pregnant women, both at the start of the pregnancy and again during the third trimester. If a woman declines -- it is allowed -- then her baby will be tested. The child will also be tested if the mother tested positive for HIV.
The idea is to reduce the incidence of mother-to-infant transmission of the virus. With early detection, antiretroviral therapy can reduce the risk of transmission to less than 2 percent. State senate president and acting governor, Richard J. Codey, signed the bill at a hospital last Wednesday. "We can significantly reduce the number of infections to newborns and help break down the stigma associated with the disease," he said. "For newborns, early detection can be the ultimate lifesaving measure."
Of course, the plan is not without its opponents. Both the state chapters of the ACLU and the National Organization of Women have questioned the law improperly violates a woman's right to privacy. In addition, Riki E. Jacobs, executive director of a New Jersey non-profit that helps people living with AIDS, has come out against the law, noting that "New Jersey already reduced the perinatal rate of transmission with mandatory counseling of pregnant women. The issue is getting those women who are not in prenatal care in for services and testing."
I'm not sure which side is right. On the one hand, you would think that women would want to do everything they could to ensure the good health of their children, but on the other, I'm not sure it's the government's place to force women to undergo such testing. What do you think? Should the government require women to be tested or should that be a personal choice?
The idea is to reduce the incidence of mother-to-infant transmission of the virus. With early detection, antiretroviral therapy can reduce the risk of transmission to less than 2 percent. State senate president and acting governor, Richard J. Codey, signed the bill at a hospital last Wednesday. "We can significantly reduce the number of infections to newborns and help break down the stigma associated with the disease," he said. "For newborns, early detection can be the ultimate lifesaving measure."
Of course, the plan is not without its opponents. Both the state chapters of the ACLU and the National Organization of Women have questioned the law improperly violates a woman's right to privacy. In addition, Riki E. Jacobs, executive director of a New Jersey non-profit that helps people living with AIDS, has come out against the law, noting that "New Jersey already reduced the perinatal rate of transmission with mandatory counseling of pregnant women. The issue is getting those women who are not in prenatal care in for services and testing."
I'm not sure which side is right. On the one hand, you would think that women would want to do everything they could to ensure the good health of their children, but on the other, I'm not sure it's the government's place to force women to undergo such testing. What do you think? Should the government require women to be tested or should that be a personal choice?
TheTalkies:RelatedVideos
-
HIV Testing for Women
Dr. Jennifer Lewis describes what women should know about the HIV testing process and how to deal with a positive result.
-
Advice for Pregnant Women at Risk for HIV
Are you pregnant and are about to have a HIV pregnancy test? Watch this video to find out what to expect and to answer questions you may have.
-
Top News Headlines: N. Korea Orders Rocket Preparation
More headlines: Cyprus 'won't leave euro;' pope includes women in feet-washing ceremony for first time; HIV, hepatitis tests urged in Oklahoma.
-
The Tests Women Need to Keep Their Heart Healthy
Dr. Suzanne Sorof describes the tests women should have to maintain a healthy heart.
SitesWeLove
- Site Map
- |
- Staff
- |
- Terms of Service
- |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Trademarks
- |
- Advertise With Us
- |
- About Our Ads
- |
- AOL Downloads
- |
- Contact Us
- |
© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Aol Family
ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)
12-30-2007 @ 5:40PM
Jenny said...I'd have to read the epidemiological studies to really know how effective the testing is, and I haven't done that. But I'll assume that someone who proposed the legislation has.
I was not aware that AIDS testing wasn't already mandated in my state, as it was presented to me in both my pregnancies as "you should get it, but you can opt out." This table summarizes the laws in various states: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=563&cat=11 Once I had been tested once I declined subsequent tests because I thought they were a waste of money. Ultimately, though, I think one of the purposes of a law like this is to ensure insurance companies must cover the testing, and that's a sad commentary on our health care system.
I also wanted to point out that this kind of testing is hardly limited to AIDS. Most states mandate syphilis testing in pregnant women, and some other STDs as well.
Reply
1-01-2008 @ 9:52AM
Sandyone said..."But I'll assume that someone who proposed the legislation has."
First mistake!!!
The HIV test really isn't completely accurate and a false positive can ruin a mother and baby's lives.
12-30-2007 @ 7:16PM
Joy said...I guess for me personally, I would rather have it done. I would want to do as much as I could before the baby came to see to it that we had every advantage. Like Jenny said, not just for AIDS but for other things as well. I can’t see how anyone wouldn’t want that but….I’ve been wrong once or twice before.
Reply
12-30-2007 @ 7:37PM
Cynthia said...I just assumed all women were tested for HIV when they were pregnant. I know it is on the routine blood panel where I live (Canada) and really never thought of it being different elsewhere.
Of course, we have universal health care so the cost of the test was no issue. If they are going to mandate women get it in the US, I think the government ought to be paying for it. Other than that, I have zero objections to every pregnant woman being tested for HIV or other diseases that may harm her baby if left untreated.
Reply
12-30-2007 @ 8:42PM
Jennifer said...I guess I thought it was already mandatory in my state (New York). I never had a problem getting it done while pregnant. I was never pressured, it was just presented with the other battery of tests. If they were going to draw 15 vials of blood what was one more?
Reply
12-30-2007 @ 9:44PM
SKL said...I think it should be a woman's choice. Presumably it is a woman's choice whether or not to see a doctor at all if she's pregnant. Aside from major Big Brother concerns, if a woman can choose to violently, intentionally kill her unborn child, based on someone's interpretation of the Constitution, I have a hard time accepting that the same reasoning doesn't apply to refusing a blood test.
Reply
12-31-2007 @ 6:04AM
Manda said...I have had two children and was tested with both. I don't have HIV, but I can tell you that if I had come up positive with either one of them I would have wanted every precaution taken to insure that they wouldn't get it. I think any mother that would choose privacy over the health of their child should think twice about having children.
Could you imagine transmitting HIV to your newborn baby and then them having to go through childhood, let alone the rest of their lives, dealing with that. Children can be very mean and hateful and your child would have to just deal with it day in and day out. They wouldn't have done anything themselves to contract this disease, other then being born. And they definately didn't ask to be born. So, forget about the privacy of the mother, what about the rights of that child? The right to start out life fair and normal.
Reply
1-01-2008 @ 9:53AM
Sandyone said...See, that's SKL's point. Either the baby's got rights or it doesn't. The government doesn't get to pick and choose (unless we let it, which is what so many people seem to think is a great idea).
What about the right to be safe from false positives? A woman who tests positive will then be *required* to undergo treatment. The treatment for HIV is pretty nasty stuff. Maybe she doesn't want her baby to have it, but the courts will compel her. That's not so good for babies or mothers.
*Maybe* when they get a perfect test, I'll give up some of my privacy rights. Maybe. Until then, I'll take responsibility for the health and safety of my children.
12-31-2007 @ 10:41AM
CLM said...Part of me is very concerned that such mandatory testing will lead to abuse. On the other hand, there are numerous people who have been unknowingly infected by their partner(s), so the testing would have the benefit of protecting the fetus and potentially saving the mother from an early death by AIDS. Of course, the legislation assumes that all pregnant women are receiving adequate prenatal care, when it is quite clear that is not the case. Frankly, that is the issue the legislators should be addressing.
Reply
12-31-2007 @ 1:52PM
Catherine said...I can't help wondering though, how many women's lives might be ruined by false-positives?
"Health officials in New York and San Francisco said yesterday that a widely used rapid test for the virus that causes AIDS had been producing too many false-positive results, frightening healthy people into thinking they might be infected."
"In New York, Dr. Susan Blank, an assistant health commissioner, said that city clinics performed 3,600 to 3,700 tests for the virus, H.I.V., each month, largely using OraQuick, and until recently they had about five false positives a month, a rate well within the maker's prediction. But in November, Dr. Blank said, the number shot up to 30, which was cause for concern."
Just some 'Factors Known to Cause False-Positive HIV Antibody Test Results'
# Naturally-occurring antibodies
# Flu
# Flu vaccination
# Herpes simplex I
# Herpes simplex II
# Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu)(11)
# Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines
# Pregnancy in multiparous women
# Rheumatoid arthritis
# Hepatitis B vaccination
# Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections
# Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions
# Epstein-Barr virus
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 8:29AM
Sandyone said...I wonder if this was brought up in the legislation discussions. I also wonder how this information affects the beliefs of folks who commented that they're fine with mandatory testing.