I am confused about Roni Chastain's note about HIV and birth. Can someone
clarify a couple of things for me?

>Women have to agree to be tested, they can refuse. In  NYC all babies are
>tested and now the results are given to moms. They used to not report positive
>status to the moms because of the confidentiality law.

What confidentiality law? Does this mean that a child's test results are
not
passed on to parents to respect the child's confidentiality? Has this
ever applied
to anything other than HIV?

> Now, because the
>treatments can drastically reduce the transmission rate in newborns,
>especially if started on AZT within 24 hours after birth, they do notify the
>moms.

I thought that we couldn't tell the baby's HIV status for several months
after
birth. What are the effects of giving AZT to a newborn who does not have
HIV?
How long have they been doing this? Do they know that HIV is not
transmitted
or is it possibly delayed? How is this related to moms taking AZT while
pregnant?

>The other important thing we just were told is that it is safer to
>schedule a c/section for delivery. Before the mother goes into labor, and
>especially before ruptured membranes. This also reduces the transmission rate
>in newborns. The doctor giving the lecture explained they actually lift the
>uterus out of the abdomen before removing the fetus to lessen the exposure to
>the moms blood.
How does C/SEC and lifting the uterus out of mother's body reduce
exposure to Mom's
blood? The baby has been exposed to Mom's blood through the uterus for 9
months
before birth. Is there something different about the birth process itself
than
pregnancy?
Also, There isn't that much blood involved in a vaginal birth until the
placenta
separates after the baby is born. I don't know that the exposure to blood
is any less
in a C/sec.
  Thanks for clarifying.
  Naomi Bar-Yam


------------------------------------------------
New England Complex Systems Institute
http://necsi.org
------------------------------------------------