Comments on: Perspectives on Mandatory HIV Testing of Pregnant Women in New Jersey

By: HIV Chat

HIV Chat — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:02:27 +0000

I think it is a good idea to have expecting mothers tested for HIV (too bad it cannot be anonymous results). If they find out they are HIV positive, they can almost eliminate (less than 1% chance) the chances of baby getting HIV by following the CDC guidelines (C-section birth, 6 weeks of AZT treatment for baby and mother) and making sure the mother doesn’t breast feed (HIV virus can be transmitted through breast milk).

By: Lauren

Lauren — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:39:11 +0000

What if testing were mandatory but anonymous. Many universities and other sites offer this option… Just a thought.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:52:04 +0000

Roberta, thanks for that – it’s always good to have more detail/discussion going.

By: Roberta

Roberta — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:59:52 +0000

I think I was misunderstood here. I posted my position on my blog site. Feel free to visit

Birdsword

By: Ilana

Ilana — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:36:30 +0000

I agree that this is a complicated issue and I can see the argument on both sides. I agree with Colleen that if NJ is able to follow up and actually provide health care for HIV positive women, then it’s a good thing (though I’m skeptical as to that actually happening given our general state of healthcare these days). On the other hand, the “mandatory” nature of this test worries me in that it somewhat disempowers women and distrusts the knowledge they have about their own health. It reminds me of the requirement in many hospitals for newborns to have eye drops administered right after birth in case their mother has gonorrhea (which can potentially cause blindness if it spreads to the baby). This standard procedure, often done even if a woman knows she doesn’t have gonorrhea, is another example of a somewhat paternalistic policy supposedly “for the woman’s own good.”

By: Hilary

Hilary — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:01:34 +0000

Thanks. I cut and pasted it in a hurry. I went back and did some much needed editing, cut some, and added a bit about the slippery slope.

It is definitely a conversation worth having. Let’s say a woman is coerced into having the test and finds out she is positive. What if she wants to refuse AZT? Refuse her cesarean? Then what? How far do we take it?

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:25:12 +0000

Birdsword, I don’t know if you meant “you don’t know” in the general sense, but I am aware of other routine tests on pregnant women – I happen to live in one of the states that already had opt-out/mandatory HIV testing. Still, I think it’s a conversation worth having, and appreciate the comments.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:10:08 +0000

Wendy, “and her choice should not be held against her” – that’s precisely one of the things I worry about.

Hilary, thanks – you have some interesting points in your post, and it definitely would have been a very long comment here!

By: Hilary

Hilary — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:03:29 +0000

I wrote a long post about this on the tinfoil hat. I was getting into too many long conversations on too many sites.

By: Wendy CPM

Wendy CPM — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:22:31 +0000

While I agree with the opinion that testing for HIV is a responsible action for everyone and especially for pregnant women, I also acknowledge that there are very serious ramifications for women who test positive. Not only is it a matter of getting treatment, but HIV still carries a huge stigma — people lose their jobs, their homes, their friends. Sometimes even when the initial test is a false positive and follow-up tests are negative, the original result follows people around. She won’t be able to get life insurance, and god forbid she ever loses her current health insurance benefits. It’s not a “no-brainer”.

It’s not the care provider who has to deal with these consequences, it’s the woman. She should always have the choice of whether or not to test, and her choice should not be held against her.