The problem here I think is that we all get tested. Without any
differentiation in our lifestyle or possibility of being infected. The
official medicine declares all of us immoral just because we are women. They
call it "non-discrimination" that I - who is married and monogamous and the
lady, who is "professionally funning on the corner" have to undergo the same
tests. They tell me and I quote here - you can never be sure about your
husband. I think this attitude is disgusting. But it is a "standard of care"
at least here in New York. I believe that it should be our right to decline
the testing. But if I refuse testing I know that I will be threatened,
reported to the health department, investigated by the Child Services, and
very possibly treated in labour as "presumed positive".
I have six kids and so far has not been successful in obtaining a simple
doctors note that I do not have Gonorrhea. Why? The doctors - notice the
multiple here - have told me that they can not guarantee that I will not
"pick it up" between them giving me a note and going into labour. And so
each time we try to fight the eye drops. And no one is wiling to wait with
them -- especially if you are a medicaid patient.
By the way, last time I was labeled - "social high risk" just because it was
a baby number six. It did not matter that I was married and all my kids have
the same last name. The computer flagged me. I got unwonted pressure to have
Depo, and totally idiotic counseling by social worker. But at the same time
the hospital did not have pump kits at all. The nurses told me that they had
to order them. They have been out for a while.
Sorry. Getting off my soap box.
-- 
Henya
Brooklyn,NY

Want to know me better - visit my blog
http://chickenstitches.blogspot.com/

Visit my Etsy shop http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=7346623

Find me on Ravelry as knitmammy http://www.ravelry.com/people/knitmammy


On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Lara <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Nikki Lee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > After the research that she described, and her descriptions of the
> > speculations and the half-baked decisions by governmental authorities, I
> > suggest that every pregnant woman absolutely refuse HIV testing. And
> refuse
> > to have the baby tested as well.
> >
> > One example was of the mother that had 5 HIV tests; 2 were positive, 2
> were
> > negative, and 1 was ambivalent. If babies are tested before 16 months,
> odds
> > are that the HIV test will reflect the mother's HIV status. Another thing
> is
> > that while fragments of HIV have been found in human milk, there seems to
> be
> > no evidence that those fragments are infectious. This is like Hepatitis B
> > and C; while fragments of the virus have been found in human milk, it is
> > safe to breastfeed because the milk is not infectious.
>
> Hi Nikki,
>
> You make points about breastmilk and HIV here; however, I don't
> understand why you are generalising that to talk about testing in
> pregnancy, and why you are making a pronouncement that each and every
> pregnant woman should refuse HIV testing (as opposed being presented
> with accurate information and making her own decision).
>
> It is my understanding that HIV treatment during pregnancy significantly
> reduces the risk of the child contracting and dying from HIV/AIDS. This
> is a wholly separate matter from the issue of testing in breastfeeding.
> It is also a separate issue from the inaccuracy of testing in infants
> (an issue which has been well known and described in the medical world
> for a very, very long time). The fact that very early testing is
> inaccurate doesn't mean that vertical transmission of HIV is a
> fabrication.
>
> There is also the matter - again, completely separate from the above
> issues - of breastmilk itself potentially not containing infectious HIV
> particles, but blood from nipple or ducts being well and truly
> infectious. While the babe may need to have an open lip or mouth lesion
> or compromised gut to be infected, these conditions in infants aren't
> exactly nonexistent. I am not proclaiming that mothers with HIV should
> never breastfed - we know well that at least in certain conditions it is
> far safer to be breastfed than to be bottle fed - but that there is a
> lot of room for a nuanced discussion.
>
> Lara Hopkins
>
>             ***********************************************
>
> Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
> To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
> Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
> COMMANDS:
> 1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set
> lactnet nomail
> 2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
> 3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
> 4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
>

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome