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.
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
She stated on the show that her new partner did know of her HIV status actually--he chose to be with her. I am not sure exactly how they got her pregnant--the old fashioned way or envitro so as to not infect him. She didn't say.
Well, if the child DOES turn out to be HIV+, should he/she be able to sue his mother? She actually knew she had it and might be able to transmit it. Her ex-husband seems to not have known he had it, and he's getting sued. (of course, I think it's horrible that he put her in that position. Just a thought I had.)
I thought if you had HIV, despite medication, that that virus always transports over to the baby? Correct me if I'm wrong.
The virus does not always transport to the baby. Mom's antibodies will always transfer to baby, but this is true for any mom and every antibody to every disease that I'm aware of. These antibodies stay present in baby's bloodstream for several weeks/months. This is why, to get a true reading of baby's HIV status, you will have to test for HIV antibodies several months after birth. We draw blood for viral load too, which also gives a more accurate clinical picture.
You might have to scroll back through several years of posts on various topics to find ones relevant to this thread. (There's a lot of other interesting stuff there too, as their district of Uganda was the epicenter of the Ebola outbreak a couple years ago.) I was trying to save everyone here the work, but it was a lot of searching and my computer is slow.
I thought if you had HIV, despite medication, that that virus always transports over to the baby? Correct me if I'm wrong.
"Antiretroviral therapy administered to the mother during pregnancy, labor and delivery, and then to the newborn, as well as elective cesarean section for women with high viral loads (more than 1,000 copies/ml), can reduce the rate of perinatal HIV transmission to 2% or less [12]. If medications are started during labor and delivery, the rate of perinatal transmission can still be decreased to less than 10% [13]."
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.
Ummmm yes HIV still has NO CURE the last time I checked and though we have made the quality of life better for those who are HIV+ with meds and extended their lives tremendously it is still a fatal disease.
The virus does not always transport to the baby. Mom's antibodies will always transfer to baby, but this is true for any mom and every antibody to every disease that I'm aware of. These antibodies stay present in baby's bloodstream for several weeks/months. This is why, to get a true reading of baby's HIV status, you will have to test for HIV antibodies several months after birth. We draw blood for viral load too, which also gives a more accurate clinical picture.
You might have to scroll back through several years of posts on various topics to find ones relevant to this thread. (There's a lot of other interesting stuff there too, as their district of Uganda was the epicenter of the Ebola outbreak a couple years ago.) I was trying to save everyone here the work, but it was a lot of searching and my computer is slow.
Thank u very much for taking the time to do this. My knowledge of HIV/AIDS and pregnancy pre and post partum could do with updating! I will do some searching later on :) I don't work with young kids/paeds at all so my knowledge in this area is limited.
Specializes in Medsurg/ICU, Mental Health, Home Health.
I thought if you had HIV, despite medication, that that virus always transports over to the baby? Correct me if I'm wrong.
You've been misinformed, or you've misunderstood. As long as the mother's positive status is known, it is relatively easy to prevent mother to child transmission during pregnancy and birth.
Regarding your cousin's situation...it's time for someone to correct me if I'm wrong! I didn't think spina bifida had an isolated genetic component. I know there is a great deal of research that support a genetic basis in some instances, but I didn't realize we had come far enough to actually recognize this gene or mutation.
So from the comments on here, the baby STILL has a risk of contracting the virus?
I remember helping to care for an HIV (converting to AIDS) patient who was the brother of my workmate & cousin of my boss. He was in a very bad way, had peripheral neuropathy, acopia, had lots of infections. Anyway, he told me how when he went to gay clubs that because the newer medications for HIV are usually effective, him and other guys at these clubs don't use condoms (he actually said 'riding bareback' and I had no clue what he meant at the time!), because they know they can just go get medication. A CN said to me once it's like diabetes: people know they can get Insulin etc so they don't bother changing their lifestyle, or eating habits etc. Diabetes used to be a death sentence.
No wonder the virus is spreading. Maybe people need more education, or is it that we have just got blase re HIV and other diseases?
Specializes in Medsurg/ICU, Mental Health, Home Health.
So from the comments on here, the baby STILL has a risk of contracting the virus?
I remember helping to care for an HIV (converting to AIDS) patient who was the brother of my workmate & cousin of my boss. He was in a very bad way, had peripheral neuropathy, acopia, had lots of infections. Anyway, he told me how when he went to gay clubs that because the newer medications for HIV are usually effective, him and other guys at these clubs don't use condoms (he actually said 'riding bareback' and I had no clue what he meant at the time!), because they know they can just go get medication. A CN said to me once it's like diabetes: people know they can get Insulin etc so they don't bother changing their lifestyle, or eating habits etc. Diabetes used to be a death sentence.
No wonder the virus is spreading. Maybe people need more education, or is it that we have just got blase re HIV and other diseases?
Yes, even with proper treatment, there is a risk of the baby seroconverting. But with said treatment, the risk is minute.
Regarding the comparison of HIV to Diabetes, one of my favorite Infectious Disease consultants said he'd rather have HIV than diabetes, because HIV is easier to control! Thought that was interesting!
Thank you. It has been a hard lesson in life I would not wish on my worst enemy. When your child dies, they really do take part of your heart and soul with them when they go.
You've been misinformed, or you've misunderstood. As long as the mother's positive status is known, it is relatively easy to prevent mother to child transmission during pregnancy and birth. Regarding your cousin's situation...it's time for someone to correct me if I'm wrong! I didn't think spina bifida had an isolated genetic component. I know there is a great deal of research that support a genetic basis in some instances, but I didn't realize we had come far enough to actually recognize this gene or mutation.
Hi. Thanks for the info. I've never cared for mums and HIV+ babies or anything.
I THINK it was spina bifida - I know he had a shunt in his head, but I can't remember exactly what he had. Anyway I know it was a genetic disease he had. I was there when the Dr tried to talk her out of it, & she was just so ******* stubborn. I don't keep in touch with my cousin. But I remember years ago with these disabled kids she had, that she always used to complain re her hubby not helping (he didn't care anyway as he was a womaniser, drinker, etc), and how hard it was attending all the Drs appointments, physio, etc, etc, but she could have saved herself a lot of time and just not had anymore. She already had a girl b4 having this boy with the SB so she had a 'complete' family. She was just being plain, darn selfish and wanted attention for herself having these kids, because her hubby didn't give it to her, and she was in an unhappy marriage. Not an uncommon phenomenon I've found working in mental health. I remember we all went out of our way to help my cousin, ie: with lifts to hospitals, emergency babysitting when she had to rush her boy to hosp if his shunt blocked, & she just kept churning these kids out. I refused to see her after a while after her hubby gave me a lift one night and asked me to have an affair with him, while trying to paw me in my flat. I told my cousin she needed to leave her hubby after this, & get professional help. I reported her to child welfare (cos her hubby & her used to have screaming fights, violence, etc) but don't know what happened. I decided to stay out of it as she had no intention of changing or becoming a responsible mum. I believe she became a RN and midwife now.
These types of needy people really, really concern me with their lack of insight. I've nursed HIV/AIDS patients till death, and even though they do have great meds now, it doesn't mean they are problem free (they get side effects from meds, infections, hospitalisations). I think this woman & her hubby need a psych evaluation and it should be court ordered. I haven't seen the episode but do they realise they can still die early & who will care for the baby? I think she is a very ignorant and immature person like my cousin, who needs more education re AIDS, methods of transmission, later effects of the illness, etc. And the baby should be taken off her till both of them are evaluated by a psychiatrist. I mean as nurses we are supposed to put children first & do mandatory reporting (well in Aust anyway).
Also there are different strains of HIV. What if the baby gets a different strain altogether from the parents if the virus mutates? Just thoughts.
"I saw this show too. She talked about how depressed she was and at times she didn't have much desire to keep living. She is on public assistance and the medications make her feel sick, she doesn't have much stamina or energy..."
I did not see the show so am responding to what has been said before.
I don't want to weigh in with an opinion either way on if she did the right thing either way regarding the baby and the HIV status.
However, SHE IS ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE and chose to have a baby! I have seen a lot of L&D posts on this site talking about these women who keep having babies despite being dependent on public assistance. It's never a good discussion. So, let's assume she will never recover her 2 million or 12 million or whatever it is. This means she will remain on public assistance for the rest of her life. That includes her L&D bill, all the testing the baby will have to endure, and, if the baby does end up being HIV+, it will also include baby's meds. And what if mom does end up with AIDS and die? Now the baby/child will receive a government stipend (thanks to you and me paying our taxes) until the child is 18. Does this not bother anyone but me? Maybe she should have thought about that kind of selfishness before bringing baby into the world.
And just to be fair, ALL mothers on public assistance should be thinking of the burden they are putting on society before getting knocked up again.
mentalhealthRN
433 Posts
She stated on the show that her new partner did know of her HIV status actually--he chose to be with her. I am not sure exactly how they got her pregnant--the old fashioned way or envitro so as to not infect him. She didn't say.