What is Digg?115 Comments
- jquipp, on 12/29/2007, -0/+58What are the ramifications if the mother tests positive?
- Tritis, on 12/29/2007, -3/+60She is provided the medications required to keep her healthy as long as possible, for free if she has no insurance coverage.
During childbirth there are viral-suppressant drugs that can be given to reduce the chance of transmission of the virus (Herpes too!) or a cesarean section. After child birth she knows not to breast feed as that is another method of transmission of the virus.
While in the uterus the fetus is unlikely to contract the disease. So testing is important to take the proper steps during the birthing and to ensure that the mother does not breast feed. It's a great to way end the 10 year olds dying from AIDS.
/Not a doctor but worked for the group which administered the HIV testing program for the state. - AdvancedSoul, on 12/29/2007, -4/+46Taser!!!
- lukas88, on 12/29/2007, -7/+32Correction, it will only be harmful to pregnant women who have HIV and do not want anyone to know. I think the baby's welfare is more important then their privacy.
- Rapter09, on 12/29/2007, -1/+26You know, at first I read this article and I was a little put off. I'm not a true libertarian but this seems a little Nanny-statish. It definitely does raise a few valid privacy concerns (But to me it seems like people are forgetting Doctor-Patient Confidentiality, and most people will tell their doctor a lot, so why not this?) But after that description you provided I'd have to say that I would agree with it.
Insurance companies should be banned from seeing this data, or coming to a conclusion based on the data, however, I think. - PistolSO, on 12/29/2007, -15/+36I think this could be a potentially harmful intrusion into privacy. With how private insurance companies looking to screw anybody with preexisting conditions, this can only be harmful to pregnant women.
- foofightrs777, on 12/29/2007, -0/+19Americans are generally suspicious of government and don't like to be told what to do even if it's the right thing to do.
- Cayfox, on 12/29/2007, -0/+18Thank you for your excellent and detailed explanation. Like many, I am ambivalent about the mandatory nature of this program, but the health benefits to both mother and child are extremely clear.
- SiNN4R, on 12/29/2007, -7/+22Mandatory anything is wrong in my opinion. If they wanted to make something mandatory make it mandatory for the hospitals to ask the mothers to take a test.
- Mononuclear, on 12/29/2007, -1/+15You know how much it costs to treat someone with HIV from birth to death? The cost to prevent infant HIV is a lot lower than treating the same while living with HIV. Not to mention the possibility that the infant if not prevented could possibly pass on HIV to their children which would cost even more. In the long run high prevention costs save a lot of money.
- snugglebear, on 12/29/2007, -0/+11Yeah. ***** babies. We want them to die in say, 6-8 years from a preventable condition!
- whyufail, on 12/29/2007, -0/+11Granted, looking at the government, there's plenty of reason to be suspicious, but this is common sense. You don't risk lives to keep a secret that, honestly, wouldn't be known outside of your medical records anyway. Keep in mind, there is a good amount of blood involved in birth. The doctors are at risk as well.
- CondoleezzaRice, on 12/29/2007, -3/+13Remember the violence against women act which Bill Clinton signed into law? Here, women can decline on religious grounds, but men can do no such thing, similarly they are forced to take a HIV test for men charged with sexual assault, yet no one complained about that. Double standards!
- whyufail, on 12/29/2007, -3/+13Common sense? In the US? Think about what you're saying.
- pegisys, on 12/29/2007, -0/+10Are your kids going to have unprotected sex or share needles while in daycare?
Most daycares and schools already take enough precaution to cuts that there should be little risk of transmitting HIV - urbanprofanity, on 12/29/2007, -1/+10Fortunately, men cannot give birth. The testing will cover the 37% of HIV carriers that can; and those that are unaware of their infection will no doubt be grateful to know about it and start treatment, should they become pregnant.
- fuzzmeister, on 12/29/2007, -2/+10So, you think mandatory education is bad too?
- chinolofus, on 12/29/2007, -0/+8yeah its our right to spread aids!
- vikki77, on 12/29/2007, -3/+11It should not be required, but any smart woman with a doubt would be tested. However, humanity in general is not always smart, so I can understand their desire to make it mandatory.
- Mononuclear, on 12/29/2007, -0/+8I was wondering what marriage rate had to do with testing pregnant women and I found the link to the Illinois study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2635877 It is not the same thing. They tested people getting a marriage license not pregnant women. The two are very different. Also the cost was only $2.5 million total for testing over 70,000 people or $312,000 per positive they found.
In this new case they are trying to prevent the spread of HIV to children. I assume the Illinois case was to help prevent spread of HIV to spouse? Testing expecting mothers in order to try and prevent infant HIV is very different from testing anyone who gets married which does nothing to help prevent infant HIV. - inactive, on 12/29/2007, -4/+11in Italy this is common sense since some years now.
what's wrong with it? - ohmyblazes, on 12/29/2007, -2/+9You can still get AIDS from bum rape.
- varun1s, on 12/29/2007, -3/+10So sad to see that ends (something good: hiv testing) justify the means (state 0wnz your freedom) here.
Btw, what could a state decide to do if a woman refuses? You can't put a "pause" on birth, so to speak. - Mononuclear, on 12/29/2007, -4/+11your comment is wrong and ignorant on so many points I don't know where to start...
- urbanprofanity, on 12/29/2007, -3/+10To reflect the comments that some other people have made (e.g. "fascism!"), I'd like to know why this isn't already commonplace in America. They do all sorts of tests on pregnant women in Britain including an HIV test. I suspect the only problem with the test for some people is the stigma attached to it, stigma which are outdated and uncivilised. These tests are carried out to protect the welfare of the child, which could potentially be at risk.
- islingt0ner, on 12/29/2007, -1/+7Jquipp : generally they are able to save the baby from getting hiv/aids. the mother gets a bum rap.
- foofightrs777, on 12/29/2007, -0/+5Yeah those children with AIDS in the daycare center definitely contracted the disease through "irresponsible actions"....Wow.....
- ryan83189, on 12/29/2007, -1/+6not if you use a bum wrap
- xadhominemx, on 12/29/2007, -0/+5Ya! Damn traffic lights!
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/29/2007, -2/+7Ramifications? Well, this is an attempt to stop the spread of STD's. Sure, that's a noble cause, but I think the major point is that someone is finally taking a positive step toward preventative health care, even if it is a little one. Every little bit counts. On the other hand, I think I have a problem with it being mandatory, because I can't shake the feeling that you're accusing someone of something simply on the basis that she's pregnant.
- Mononuclear, on 12/29/2007, -1/+6You are comparing apples to oranges.
- Cayfox, on 12/29/2007, -1/+6The fear is that there will be some element of coercion involved. In a country where being sick may even disqualify you from receiving treatment, and in a wider world where HIV is still a misunderstood and stigmatised disease, people may be wary of submitting to a test like this. Of course, all the evidence points to the contrary - one of the arguments against making the programme mandatory is its considerable success as a voluntary scheme, and as the article points out, this goes a long way towards combatting the ignorance and prejudice surrounding the issue.
I tend to think that there's inevitably a 'nanny culture' when it comes to public health, owing to the fact that we rely on doctors to inform us and prescribe the best course of action. We simply don't have the information to make a truly informed decision, so we are presented with a set of options packaged according to what the pros think we should do. Even if programmes like this are strictly voluntary, the choice will be: 'Take the test, or risk your child being born with a deadly and incurable disease'. Not a lot of latitude for people who resent being told what to do, eh? - fuzzmeister, on 12/29/2007, -2/+7Frankly, education is one of those places you _need_ to protect people from themselves. If education wasn't mandatory, our society would deteriorate into a fetid mess within 20 years. You need everyone to have at least a modicum of education.
- jimripper, on 12/29/2007, -10/+15Illinois tried to do this in 1988. It turned out that in order to prevent a single case of infant HIV, they had to spend several millions of dollars, and the measure was ultimately let go because of the cost; the marriage rate also dropped 14%. Forget the privacy issue, this simply is an awful screening measure simply because of the cost. And don't criticize me for putting a price on human health, we do it for everything.
- urbanprofanity, on 12/29/2007, -2/+7"If the mother objects, the objection will be noted and the newborn will then be tested for HIV, with the only exception being on religious grounds. Newborns will also be tested if the woman tests positive."
- varun1s, on 12/29/2007, -1/+6You mean whats wrong with coercion and loss of privacy? Do you like being told by others what to do? Regarding privacy, for one thing, the insurance carrier may drop the mother altogether for not trying to pay the child's healthcare costs. Children get parents' health insurance. In Italy that doesnt matter since there's universal healthcare coverage.
- BOFH2, on 12/29/2007, -0/+5they could refuse treatment at the office and the state could be notified, then they could deny benefits if the mother is on state funding, however if you make a case that you do not want it because of religious reasons then it might be waived.
- Filter, on 12/29/2007, -0/+5It already exists in Illinois. My wife has had the test her last two pregnancies. If you refuse then they test the baby at birth.
- InspectorGadget, on 12/29/2007, -0/+4AIDS alternative? Medical science trumps your politicized garbage.. This site recommends herbal treatements for AIDS (see here: http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/if_youve_tested/i ... ). Yeah, herbs are great for AIDS, thats why all those government ministers in Africa are doing so much against it telling people to eat two cloves of garlic and recieve a blessing. Oh, wait...
- Mononuclear, on 12/29/2007, -0/+4Few tests are 100% accurate and doctors can misdiagnose many things. If you think the doctor is wrong you can always get a second opinion and have another test done.
- Amadeus2490, on 12/29/2007, -1/+5I think it's really retarded that we're at the point where stopping the spread of a deadly disease that's ruining all of our fun is considered politically incorrect. We should allow people to continue to be infected and die in order to protect their liberty.
- moxley, on 12/29/2007, -2/+6Are you some sort of ***** retard? - you call them Liberals but the viewpoints which they are expousing are classically conservative. of course, you probably think being a republican/conservative is about supporting the bogus "war on terror" because most Americans are so ***** ignorant about civics and history that they don't even know what the word fascism means - however, they will soon enough as America is becoming a fascist state in every sense of the word.
Sorry to be so rude, and I see your point and understand it, about containment etc - but this isn't Ebola and I have had about as much as I can take of government supremist apologists today. - orxor, on 12/29/2007, -5/+9The right of the people to be secure in their *persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- bjornski, on 12/29/2007, -0/+3If you do it on religious grounds, let the church take care of the matter from that point. Not the system they refuse to give info to.
Considering how many tests most mothers put up with during pregnancy, an additional test isn't any more invasive. How many doctors would treat a mother, or deliver a baby, without a series of blood tests?
Should this information be used in helping you treat something like this? Absolutely.
Should a for-profit company be able to discriminate against you, and deny you what should be a basic "right" with that information, charging you extortionist prices, or denying you altogether under the guise of "profits"? No. - inactive, on 12/29/2007, -0/+3Then they test the family dog.
- Siegfriedson, on 12/29/2007, -0/+3That doesn't make it right. The state has no business forcing someone to be tested for a disease against their will. This is just another crack in the foundation of traditional America. Are all republics doomed to descend into tyranny? I believe it was Aristotle or Plato who thought so.
- xadhominemx, on 12/29/2007, -0/+3Presumably the mother would be retested if she tested positive.
- Mononuclear, on 12/29/2007, -2/+5Your name couldn't be further from the truth. Let's "get real" here. Do you actually believe in 5 years people will be herded into gas chambers as in Nazi concentration camps or are you just one of the retards who likes to exaggerate and try and draw comparisons between two very different things? Sometimes government intervention is needed. Sometimes it isn't. Yes we should stand up for what we believe in. How exactly are you doing that besides calling people sheep on the internet and trying to use the same scare tactics the government you oppose uses? It doesn't matter how apathetic people are in the US, we won't be living in FEMA camps and walking into gas chambers in 5 years or even 50 years. Making up BS FUD isn't the way to try and garner support for your cause.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is