Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:36:07 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Option #1 -- abort baby of HIV+ mother and everyone applauds; risk of death
to baby 100%
Option #2 -- carry baby to term and deliver it and breastfeed it and you are
accused of child abuse; risk of death to baby 30%
The difference is that in the first option, you don't have a child with
AIDS, and in the second option, you do. In the first option, the "child"
doesn't exist yet, and doesn't suffer. In the second option, the child is a
real child, and if it gets HIV and then AIDS, it definitely will suffer. In
the first option, the cost to the health care system and society is minimal
-- just the minor cost of an abortion, no one needs to know. In the second
option, the cost to the health care system and society is major -- first for
the court battle, then for foster care, and eventually for major medical and
long-term hospice care of the child if it gets HIV and then AIDS.
I'm not advocating for option #1, make no mistake, merely laying out what I
suspect the arguments would be. This is the same thing people are saying
all over Africa -- better that we have LOTS of babies dying from being
formula-fed than ANY babies dying from HIV/AIDS contracted through
breastfeeding. The goal for the "HIV activists" (and dare I say the infant
formula companies) is "No babies getting HIV/AIDS from breastfeeding." It
is clearly not THE BEST POSSIBLE MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY STATISTICS UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES -- which would clearly come from universal breastfeeding.
Kathy Dettwyler
***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|