aids
...e hundred sixty-four available for testing, fifty-three were infected with HIV; thirteen were born to mothers receiving zidovudine and forty to mothers on placebo” (FDA Consumer 3). According to this data, when both mothers and babies received zidovudine, there was a transmission rate of 8.3 percent. This was a dramatic decrease in the rate of transmission when compared to the control group who had a transmission rate of 25.5 percent. With results such as these, drug intervention with respect to both pregnant women and newborns should become more commonplace with each day. For example, if the decrease in maternal transmission rate is duplicated from the AIDS Clinical Trials Group study, and the estimated seven thousand HIV-infected women deliver infants while accepting treatment with zidovudine, one will conclude that “under these hypothetical conditions, as many as two-thirds, or twelve hundred, of all vertically acquired HIV-infections could be prevented annually”(Davis 15). This decrease in maternal transmission would be ideal if all conditions were met, but there seems to be one major flaw. Many pregnant women do not know they are infected with HIV. The problem now is how to identify HIV-infected pregnant women at an early enough stage, so that the use of AZT could drastically reduce the chances of the baby being born with HIV. It is critical that the physician know of a women’s HIV-infection prior to or early in her pregnancy. Because many women who are at risk are completely unaware of it, a growing national debate has centered on mandatory HIV testing of all pregnant women. This notion of mandatory screening has raised many ethical issues. It is certain that those who test positive and accept treatment with AZT would have a decreased transmission rate, but according to some, this notion takes into account only the child and not the mother. Opponents on the other hand want to consider the woman’s right to privacy. A Center for Disease Control spokesman says, “mandatory testing destroys the relation ship of trust between the women and her health care provider”(Kent 18). Many feel that because of the stigmatization associated with the HIV-virus/AIDS, pregnant women should not be singled out. As of August 1994, voluntary testing of pregnant women seems to be the most viable way to get the cooperation for both testing and treatment. Medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say, “mandatory testing simply does not work for the populations most at risk (for the HIV-virus), and could undermine physicians’ effort to build collaborative, trusting relationships with patients” (Shelton 15). Mandatory testing could also be viewed as a deterrent to obtaining prenatal care. Those who would find it as a disincentive would most likely be those individuals most in need of education, counseling and treatment. The result would be the loss of opportunity to provide both counseling and treatment. Because of these findings, voluntary testing seems to be the most effective. On July 1, 1995, the Center for Disease Control released guidelines specific for HIV-screening. The guidelines, “recommend that physicians counsel all pregnant women about HIV and that they are to offer them the chance to be voluntarily tested” (Kent 17). According to the Center for Disease Control guidelines, those found to be HIV-positive are then offered zidovudine which has been found to reduce prenatal HIV transmission by as much as two-thirds. These guidelines were established because it is believed that pregnant women who are given information about HIV are more eager to comply than those who feel as though they are being coerced. Aggressive voluntary strategies have been shown to work. One study showed ninety-six percent of almost thirty-six hundred women at Grady Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, chose to be tested after being counseled. Along with the voluntary testing offered to pregnant women, there is a mandate testing of all babies born to women who do not receive a prenatal test for the HIV-virus. The combination of the two testing procedures works well by accounting for the rights of the newborn child. Even if the mother refuses testing and is HIV-positive, there is about a seventy-five percent chance the baby would not acquire the virus during pregnancy and labor. However, the HIV-infection can be transmitted to the infant from the mother even after birth. Breast-feeding has been shown as a way of contracting the human immunodeficiency virus. Therefore, breast-feeding should not be an option for those infants whose mother is HIV-positive. Because of the mandatory testing of the newborn, one who tests positive for the HIV-virus can be given treatment for AIDS related diseases. The infant may test false positive due to the fact that maternal antibodies can cross the placenta and enter the baby’s bloodstream. The ELISA test may record a positive test because of the presence of maternal antibodies to the HIV-virus. Testing of the baby periodically will determine whether or not the HIV antibodies present are actually produced by the baby’s own immune system, or whether they were passed across the placenta from the mother’s antibodies. This combination of the two tests, “encourag...