I just finished watching todays episode of Oprah Winfrey and wanted to post here as I was curious as to how others feel.
Okay so her guest today was a woman who married a man and found out shortly after the honeymoon that she was HIV+. The husband was tested and found to also be HIV+. For a period it was thought that she had infected him, despite her having very few sexual partners or having any other high risk behaviors. When the virus progressed and he was determined to be in the AIDS stage of the illness and she was still just HIV+ it became apparent that she had not infected him but that he must have infected her. She confronted him after her brother encouraged her to and asked him how many men he had slept with. He admitted 2 relationships with men. She later found e-mails that were explicit with men. --They ended up divorcing and she suing him for 2 point something million. He is broke so she has yet to see any of the money. ---
Okay so I just wanted to give the background of this story--here is where I am wondering how others feel.
The woman who has now been HIV+ for 10 years has met a new man who knows about her HIV and they decided to get pregnant and have a baby together. She is taking the anti-retrovirals she needs to be taking to make it the least chance of the baby contracting the virus when delivered.
Okay I know women sometimes get pregnant and don't know that they are HIV+ until after already pregnant and I can totally understand why they continue the pregnancy and take all the meds they can and get the care they need to do what they can to prevent the baby from being born HIV+. But my issue is with a women who knows she is HIV+ purposfully getting pregnant and just hoping the baby isn't born HIV+.
How do you all feel about this?? I know I am probably going to get a mix of responses but I just wanted to see what others opinions were.
I was watching the Maury show (paternity testing) and there was a young lady on the show who was born HIV+. She met this guy and he was okay with her being HIV+. The young lady became pregnant and gave birth to a baby HIV-. The guy denied the baby was his and moved out of state to attend college . The baby indeed turned out to be his, but I just think it's scary that some individuals aren't concerned about catching and spreading STIs.
Having taken care of a woman who was one of the first to take antiretrovirals during pregnancy, I'm here to tell you that if she does, her chances of delivering an HIV-free child are in the high nineties. We've known this for many years.
Pregnancy can result from artificial insemination, so I wouldn't automatically assume infection risk to her partner.
And just about everyone with HIV is on some kind of assistance if only because the drugs are so freaking expensive.
HIV is a chronic condition ... if we rule out reproduction for this, then we need to rule it out for any chronic condition: diabetes, heart disease, etc.
I remember this episode and I was surprised. I recall years ago a woman had cps called on her and they removed her children from the home because she was breastfeeding her baby when she was hiv+. Things have changed. I wonder why she even told oprah of her plans. One day the child might have to sue the mom for 2.2mil if he is given the virus. Someone who contracted the virus should not be having unprotected sex and I feel terrible for her but that is a risk people take when having sex with another person, even their husband. Yes there is a low risk for the infant but 2 percent is still a chance, and yes parents still decide to reproduce when they probably shouldn't, or when there is a risk of genetic disease they are thinking selfishly too.
having taken care of a woman who was one of the first to take antiretrovirals during pregnancy, i'm here to tell you that if she does, her chances of delivering an hiv-free child are in the high nineties. we've known this for many years.
but imvho that still doesn't make it the best choice. i have cared for a teenager who was born with hiv and in addition to the full blown aids because a refusal to be compliant with medication there have been many psychological problems based largely on being born with this miserable disease and losing mom as a child.
as someone living with a disease of familial origin i think anyone with a family history of a chronic illness should think long and hard before having bio children and if that means that most of us shouldn't have them well...
What about a person with Huntington's disease? I believe that the offspring of a parent with the disease has a 50% chance to inheriting the disease themselves. Should people who carry the gene not have children?
I wouldn't speak for them but for me, HELL NO, would I purposely have a child knowing I had a chance of passing on that miserable disease or that their children could end up with it.
Heck, I have a bleeding disorder and I would feel a little selfish if we had a baby and it had to deal with it as well. I am seriously torn on this issue. There is a good chance it wouldn't be severe, but what if it was? It would have a serious negative impact on their life and I could never look my child in the eye and not feel guilty if that happened.
What if the baby is born HIV+? I know the risk is low, but seriously, what if?
why was it wrong enough for her to sue but ok for her not to tell her new partner or allow another unsuspecting person to become infected? Sounds like a selfish creep to me
Her new guy knows about her status...and what i dont understand is that they conceive naturally according to her. Does that mean her new guy is HIV+ or he doesnt care whether he gets infected or not...
Apparently if you aren't 100% healthy, at an optimum weight and BMI, under 35, and guaranteed by a licensed fortune teller to live without disability or major illness at least until your kid graduates from college, you shouldn't be reproducing?
People make selfish decisions about matters with their children every day. Women who are type II diabetics and obese choose to get pregnant and then do nothing to keep their weight in check during the pregnancy. Couples with five kids on a single $45K salary choose to have a sixth one. The entire drive to HAVE children is selfish, because it comes down to a desire to continue your genetic line. Yes, I believe we should try to make responsible choices. But as I see it, this woman's baby has a responsible parent who is doing everything she can to prevent transmission of a chronic disease that can in some cases become terminal, but is largely manageable with medications (although expensive to treat). HIV is no automatic death sentence any more, and we should stop reacting as though it is. Risk is a part of life, and as far as I can tell this soon-to-be parent is doing everything she can to stack the odds in her baby's favor.
She and her partner made this decision, and apparently did so with considerable forethought and discussion. She's HIV+ in an age when the condition can be successfully managed for decades. She isn't automatically going to wither away and die while the child is of tender age, leaving him a defenseless orphan in an uncaring world. This isn't a story out of Dickens or even a rerun of Forrest Gump. To me, it's simply a private family decision.
Specializes in Trauma Surgery, Nursing Management.
I cannot speak to the "right or wrong" of her decision. It is personal. I can see the point that other posters are making, however.
I have a rare disorder called Von Hippel Lindau syndrome that is genetic. My mother and aunt passed away from renal small cell cancer because of this disorder. I have chosen NOT to bear a child for this reason, because my mom and my aunt died at 50. It is a choice that I made BECAUSE I did not want to even consider the thought of introducing a child into this world that carried this mutation.
It is a very personal decision. I have trouble passing judgment on those who do not agree with my rationale, but consider the opinions of those who face this kind of decision. I understand the arguments on both sides. However, I myself would not choose to bear a child knowing that it would be at risk for HIV.
but imvho that still doesn't make it the best choice. i have cared for a teenager who was born with hiv and in addition to the full blown aids because a refusal to be compliant with medication there have been many psychological problems based largely on being born with this miserable disease and losing mom as a child.
as someone living with a disease of familial origin i think anyone with a family history of a chronic illness should think long and hard before having bio children and if that means that most of us shouldn't have them well...
you're absolutely right ... however i note post after post stating, "i would/would not choose ... ". the point is that it is the choice of the prospective parents ... and "choice" is meaningless if there's only one option available. i agree with another poster that just about all decisions to reproduce are made for selfish reasons.
i prefer to assume that the woman and her partner spent time thinking and talking about this before they made the decision and to respect that. without knowing about her particular course of illness or what other factors are in play, she still stands a good chance of having an hiv-free child and living long enough to raise it. none of us who chose to have kids can claim any more than that.
one could argue that appearing on national tv is an invitation to judge ... but i vote we get our noses out of their bedroom.
Just for a little perspective, I follow the blog of some medical missionaries in Africa who ran a clinic for HIV+ women and children. Prenatal/postnatal care, and ART (of course). Because of the very real risks of formula feeding in their neck of the woods, the HIV+ women were encouraged to breastfeed their babies for six months. Their conversion rate was some extremely low rate; I will post a link to the blog post(s) when I find them. I realize we're talking two different places and populations; however, I think it's a valuable lesson piece that the prognosis for kids born to HIV+ mothers is very very good, even when they breastfeed. If their chances are that good in a developing country with very very limited resources, well...in the US, this is not a battle I'm going to die fighting.
If there is any worry I have, it's that Mom's HIV will advance and she will die before her child is able to care for him/herself. But as other posters have said - this is not the death sentence it used to be. So again...this is far from the most egregious reproductive choice I've seen people make.
It's a terrible idea to bring a child into that world that will most likely be born with a terminal illness. This woman should be ashamed of herself. There are millions of children that need adoption out there.
"most likely" is not correct. If she is taking her meds and the baby is given the appropriate treatment when born then he/she may not contract the virus. I don't know that he baby will most likely NOT contract but there's also no way to say most likely WILL contract HIV.
It's her choice right? I don't think it's a choice that I would make for myself but then it's not something most have to consider.
It would be tough for her to find a way to adopt an infant or child and clearly she wants to be a mom-she sounds dedicated and she will probably do everything in her power to provide for her child.
tokidoki7, ASN, RN
417 Posts
I was watching the Maury show (paternity testing) and there was a young lady on the show who was born HIV+. She met this guy and he was okay with her being HIV+. The young lady became pregnant and gave birth to a baby HIV-. The guy denied the baby was his and moved out of state to attend college . The baby indeed turned out to be his, but I just think it's scary that some individuals aren't concerned about catching and spreading STIs.