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.
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!
Wow that is an interesting comment! Was he interesting to work with?
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.
No, the disease has no cure. However, the life expectancy of an HIV+ individual has expanded to such a degree that people have a significant possibility of dying from some other type of condition long before they might be expected to progress and die from the direct effects of AIDS. The average lifespan with appropriate medical care and drug treatment is now 24 years after infection. So if this woman has a an HIV- baby and lives the exact average lifespan, she'll probably be able to see her child graduate from college (assuming the kid doesn't go on the 7-year plan).
I apologize if I made it sound as though there is a cure for AIDS/HIV. Clearly, there is not, although I'm sure we all hope and pray for one to be found or created soon. But HAART treatments are effective enough that they can limit the negative behaviors of the virus if taken in compliance with a physician's directions. The development of such treatments has transformed what was a disease that automatically condemned the patient to a painful, horrific death from complications of AIDS within a few years of being diagnosed with HIV to a chronic condition that will be have directly fatal consequences for some sufferers but will allow many others to live for a quarter of a century or more and die of illnesses or injuries unrelated to AIDS/HIV.
All those who state that HIV is not the death sentence it used to be are absolutely correct; there are people who live with this virus for many years before it starts to take over, as long as they are stringent about regular testing to assess their viral load and continuing with their ARVs.
Mother-baby transmission has been drastically reduced by ARV treatment, and all the gynaes I know admit their HIV+ mothers a couple of weeks before due date and deliver baby by caesarian. This reduces the chances even further.
I agree with those who express concern that this woman may not live to see her child grow up, but transmission of the virus to her husband may also be largely prevented with care, and it is a natural desire for any human being to want a child to carry on the family name-he wants an "heir" and she is motivated to give him one! So, she may die but he may live to a ripe old age. He wouldn't be the first single parent out there and he certainly wouldn't be the last. It may be selfish for anyone to bring a child into the world in its current chaotic state, but if we all stopped having children for every "what if" the race wouldn't last very long....
In Africa, the situation of AIDS orphans is very tragic; the infrastructure to maintain them and provide them with a decent quality of life is minimal. In America, however, the social systems are in place, so the real argument of this thread is less the possibility of HIV being transmitted from mother to baby, and more about where your tax dollars are going. For myself, I'd rather see my hard-earned money going towards making life as normal as possible for the HIV+ and the AIDS sufferers than watch it being frittered away on luxury lifestyles for politicians and public "circuses" to impress the electorate
No, the disease has no cure. However, the life expectancy of an HIV+ individual has expanded to such a degree that people have a significant possibility of dying from some other type of condition long before they might be expected to progress and die from the direct effects of AIDS. The average lifespan with appropriate medical care and drug treatment is now 24 years after infection. So if this woman has a an HIV- baby and lives the exact average lifespan, she'll probably be able to see her child graduate from college (assuming the kid doesn't go on the 7-year plan).
actually she has been hiv+ for 10 years, so if she lives the expected span, her child will have her until they reach junior high.
actually she has been hiv+ for 10 years, so if she lives the expected span, her child will have her until they reach junior high.
Fair enough. I stand corrected on how much of her child's life she would see if she lived the exact average lifespan of an HIV+ patient post-diagnosis. She'd see the child to the verge of high school. Again, certainly not an ideal situation (and it wouldn't necessarily be the choice I would make), but not something that makes her seem a monster of selfishness to my point of view. I'd hate to die and leave my own child if he were only 14. On the other hand, there are probably plenty of people who would consider me selfish for having had a child given my health, my quite limited physical abilities, and the significant risks we both faced during my pregnancy. It's a slippery slope.
Although it's her choice not mine and she has a right to do it, I think it's selfish, irresponsible, and quite frankly just stupid. Not to mention that people who do these thins run up healthcare costs for the rest of us, and it's possibly a death sentence for the baby.
I don't know what I would do in that situation but I do know about that maternal feeling.
I did not watch the show but did she say she was fairly "healthy"?
Of course when I see hiv+ patients on my floor they are usually very sick and being non compliant so I don't have this image of the healthy AIDs person to go to.
HIV/AIDs will always have a stigma because it is mostly known as a STD which always brings about judgment in general.
As a nurse, I do understand the advances in the care and how much better things are but as a young woman, the "it's manageable" attitude is kinda scary because I know many of my peers (non nurses) are not as cautious because of that.
Well I just wanted to tell you all that I have read your posts and I think the show/topic definately brings up a lot of thoughts and discussion. It's a topic that you can look at as a health care professional but also on a personal level. It was interesting to read all of your views. All I know is that as I watched the show I found myself having some serious thinking going on---trying to figure out just how I felt about the whole thing--so I thought it would be nice to hear from all of you with all the professional and life experiences you have to bring to the table. Thank you to all of you for your thoughts on the topic.
Fair enough. I stand corrected on how much of her child's life she would see if she lived the exact average lifespan of an HIV+ patient post-diagnosis. She'd see the child to the verge of high school. Again, certainly not an ideal situation (and it wouldn't necessarily be the choice I would make), but not something that makes her seem a monster of selfishness to my point of view. I'd hate to die and leave my own child if he were only 14. On the other hand, there are probably plenty of people who would consider me selfish for having had a child given my health, my quite limited physical abilities, and the significant risks we both faced during my pregnancy. It's a slippery slope.
if we're going to target hiv+ folks with ltd lifespans (and how it affects their offspring), we can also focus on older men who continue to have kids.
example: my father, who is now 80, on dialysis and has emphysema...
will likely leave this earth soon...with a 17 yo dtr.
he (re)married a woman 25 yrs his junior (in 1984) and had a child together in 1993.
my first thought, was will he see her to college, marriage, kids?
probably not.
so, we may as well start demonizing men who remain capable of fathering children, til death do they part.
I think she gets the selfish person of the year award. In a world where HIV+ positive babies sit unwanted in orphanages, why would anyone WANT to create another one??
How does she know her baby won't be HIV+? Why would ANYONE want to intentionally create a hiv+ life? Even with the best care, that baby can be hiv+. He/she will have a shortened lifespan and be prone to health problems. He/she will likely watch her mother slowly die in front of her, as mom's HIV eventually turns into full blown AIDS. It's not just about the shortened lifespan but about watching mommy slowly die of pneumonia. Or about knowing the kid's adolescent years will be spent visiting mom in the hospital as she goes in and out.
If this was a HIV mother doing some other high risk behavior with a child that might give the child HIV, I think we'd be horrified. But somehow it's ok because mom did it while the baby was still in the womb, so we can forgive her for exposing baby to the virus?
I'd have to wonder about the mental health of the boyfriend. I am not saying people with the virus aren't worthy of love, but from his point of view: if you want to start a family, why does a HIV+ woman seem like the best choice? Have we become so desensitized to what it means to have AIDS that we don't think their life will be any different? When she does go into full-blown AIDS does he have the maturity & financial resources to care for her.... AND for his new possibly-hiv+ baby? Will he spend his life in grief if the baby he intentionally creates does come up HIV+? How long-term stable is this relationship -- and who will take on a HIV positive child if she's in the hospital and he can't deal with it anymore? At the very least I'd make a goal with the boyfriend to address the knowledge deficit: is he really making an informed decision?
carolmaccas66, BSN, RN
2,212 Posts
Wow that is an interesting comment! Was he interesting to work with?