An unfortunate juxtaposition of interests rectified?

[j2k4]

Let's hope so...

This is what one might call a too-typical clashing of causes brought about by, well.....just read it.

Civil libertarians against public health
Rich Lowry

February 4, 2005

Do we as a society prefer sick or healthy babies? Do we want babies to be infected with a potentially deadly virus or not? The answers seem obvious, but in a decade-long debate, a host of liberal groups, in effect, came down on the wrong side. Fortunately, in New York City -- once the epicenter of the epidemic of babies born with HIV -- their lunatic obsessions were rejected, and now the scourge of newborns infected with HIV has been all but eliminated.

According to The New York Times, in 1990 there were 321 newborns infected with HIV in New York City. In 2003 there were five. A decade ago many pregnant mothers didn't know they were HIV-positive. They weren't urged to get tested, and so they couldn't take drugs that would make it less likely their babies would be infected. Newborns were tested, but -- incredibly -- in blind tests, meaning the mothers wouldn't be informed of the results. The mother wouldn't know to get treatment for her child or herself.

As AIDS expert Roland Foster points out in a recent study, the most common AIDS-related opportunistic infection is pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. Babies with it generally die in a month. According to a New England Journal of Medicine study in the mid-1990s, two-thirds of children with this infection weren't getting treatment, because no one knew they had HIV. It is hard to imagine a more cruelly negligent public-health policy.

Liberal Democratic New York assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn was appalled -- as would be anyone with a wit of common sense -- when she learned of the situation. She resolved to pass a law mandating that all newborns be tested and their mothers informed. For this, Mayersohn seemingly bought the enmity of the entire liberal world.

Gay groups, the HIV/AIDS lobby and the American Civil Liberties Union all opposed her on privacy grounds. As if a newborn has a "right" to have his infection kept from his mother so he can potentially die or get sick. Where does it say anything about that in the Bill of Rights? Feminist groups from NOW to NARAL attacked her for supposedly proposing to violate the reproductive rights of women. Her district office was picketed. Opponents argued that pregnant mothers just couldn't handle testing. "I'm sure we are going to see some women completely freaking out, committing suicide and running away from the whole situation," the director of the HIV Law Project predicted.

"Just the opposite has happened," Mayersohn says. After a three-year fight, her bill passed in 1996. It revolutionized public health in New York. "The way they used to do counseling," she says, "they told women, if you get tested and test positive, you will lose your home and lose your job. After the law passed, they told women, your baby is going to get tested anyway, so if you get tested now, you can do something to keep your baby from being born HIV-positive."

More mothers and babies now get care. An HIV-positive mother has roughly a 25 percent chance of delivering a baby infected with HIV. If she takes the right drugs during pregnancy she can drastically diminish those odds. An HIV-positive mother can also pass the infection to her uninfected baby during breast-feeding. If she knows she's infected, she can avoid that. Finally, if a baby is infected with HIV, he can be treated early with drugs that might wipe out the infection.

Then-Rep., now Sen. Tom Coburn pushed legislation similar to Mayersohn's at the federal level in the 1990s, but was frustrated by the same forces that opposed Mayersohn. Consequentially, the testing policy varies from state to state. Nationally, the rate of infants infected with HIV has declined, but it has not been stamped out. California -- where lunatic obsessions still reign supreme -- has resolutely resisted the New York approach. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times reported that cases of HIV among children were actually increasing.

So let's ask one more time: Do we want healthy babies or not?

Does this type of thing happen in the U.K.?

Canada?

Anywhere but here?

[Biggles]

Having read the article I feel I must make what appears a frivolous comment. I quote from the posted article

"as would be anyone with a wit of common sense"

I assume that the author meant "whit" and that this was corrupted somewhere in the publishing process. Unfortunately this leads me to question the veracity of the whole piece. That's just the kind of guy I am, if they can't get the simple parts right then why should I accept their version of the events.

That aside, I will get back to you re the concept, tho' I am unable to answer the actual question about whether it would happen here (or in Canadia)

It is not an issue I have ever seen raised over here. I am sure there must have been instances where HIV mothers have become pregnant - no idea what the rules are. I would guess the NHS would treat them without discussing the matter with anyone else.

[j2k4]

Having read the article I feel I must make what appears a frivolous comment. I quote from the posted article

"as would be anyone with a wit of common sense"

I assume that the author meant "whit" and that this was corrupted somewhere in the publishing process. Unfortunately this leads me to question the veracity of the whole piece. That's just the kind of guy I am, if they can't get the simple parts right then why should I accept their version of the events.

That aside, I will get back to you re the concept, tho' I am unable to answer the actual question about whether it would happen here (or in Canadia)

I caught that, too, but I'm willing to chalk it up to the fact that young Lowry is only in his thirties, and that it could also have easily escaped the notice of a similarly afflicted proofer.

Spell-check would have missed it, I think.

The circumstances are real, however.

[vidcc]

Wit is also "The natural ability to perceive and understand" so if it had said "the" wit instead of "a" wit...... but in any case i don't really see a problem with either choice.

[Busyman]

I see what the liberal groups were trying to get at....AIDS victims may not want to be identified. There has been this fear of folks being labeled a "leper". The groups may think of this being a way of identifying the adult as having AIDS through testing of the child.

Problem for them: This is for the child so privacy is out the window. Children should be tested for everything to ensure their health so fuck the "IhaveAIDSandwanttohideitatanycost".

It's for the kids so if the mom is "outed" as a byproduct so be it.

[MagicNakor]

I would argue that New York City never was the "epicenter of the epidemic of babies born with HIV," as that dubious title would likely be given to numerous places in Africa, but regardless...

Mandatory HIV testing for newborns has never been a hotly debated issue in Canada. It's never really even been an issue raised.

The CMA counselling guidelines state, "[a]s with adults, testing children for HIV requires informed consent, confidentiality, and pre- and post-test counselling." The guidelines continue by saying that, when the issue of testing an infant arises, both the mother and infant will have a test result and that, therefore, "all issues pertaining to the testing of one of these people also apply to the other."

It's strongly advised that pregnant women be tested for HIV, hepititis B, rubella, and syphilis. Various provinces/territories have their own take on it (some state that it must be offered, others have no policies), but none has mandatory.

[TheDave]

W is only 3 inches away from B

"anyone with a bit of common sense" works. also if it was hand written a very slanted B could look like a drunken W

[vidcc]

The problem is that, as it stands it doesn't make sense. Neither does it convey what the author appears to have intended.

If it was taken in just that sentence then it wouldn't make sense however It does if one takes the whole article thing in context. the author is making one of those "the trouble with liberals" opinions and those tend to be directed at the theory of liberals either not having common sense or, more often not, liberals not being even able to understand the concept of common sense.

to the article.
I see no problem with routine testing of pregnant women for HIV, although it is not needed in the vast majority of cases, if the mother is negative then testing the baby would be futile.
I think the author has probably cherry picked and worded what he thinks the
objections were to make it seem as if the objectors don't care about health of infants. we only have his opinion.

[vidcc]

jp

you are not familiar with the author or the conservative blog I take it

[vidcc]

That is correct.

I base my opinion on the piece alone, with no prior knowledge of the author or the "conservative blog" of which you speak.

yes and that is why i am trying to convey that it may have been the intended word, because i am familiar with conservative blogs.
I have not said that whit is wrong i have simply said that he may not be saying what you assumed he said.