In a message dated 12/24/98 3:18:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

>
>  This brings up a question I have.  Also addressed in this issue (I cannot
>  remember if this was the reason this particular woman refused treatment)
>  was the fact that there is a list of about 60 contraindications to being
>  tested for HIV.  Pregnancy being one----meaning that pregnancy can give a
>  false positive test----resulting in unnecessary treatment.  I was
>  wondering if anyone had information about this.  Is this correct?
>  Presently, in the U.S., most women are tested for HIV as part of the
>  pregnancy "routine" tests.

It was not contraindications to being tested,  it was pregnancy could cause a
false positive HIV result.  I discussed this article with the HIV/Aids
Specialist that works for Visiting Nurse Service. He felt the information was
not correct. He said that the testing is done with both the Elisa test and the
Western Blot. This would cover the false positives. He did not think to highly
of the article.
  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. 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.  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.
I hope this helps.
Roni Chastain, RN, LCCE, FACCE
Long Island, New York