New Jersey Legislation to Require HIV Testing of All Mothers, Babies
Legislation soon to be introduced in New Jersey would require HIV testing for all mothers and babies. Good. AIDS has been treated as a political disease rather than an urgent matter of public health for far too long.
Back in 2001, I wrote "Privacy that Kills" in the Weekly Standard about the difficulties that New York Assemblywoman Nettie Meyersohn, a feminist Democrat, had in getting the "Baby AIDS" bill passed, requiring all newborns to be tested. The link is for subscribers only, but here is a sampling of what I wrote:
The fight over Mayersohn's "Baby AIDS" bill was a real donnybrook. Movement feminists, gay activists, ACLU types, some physicians, and legislative colleagues unleashed a near-hysterical hue and cry. Mayersohn became a pariah, turned on angrily by former political allies and friends. "After I introduced the legislation, all hell broke loose," Mayersohn recalls. "On World AIDS Day, I had about 50 activists at my apartment building demonstrating at mid-night, going on the intercom demanding to meet...
Even more astounding to Mayersohn was the illogic of her opponents' arguments and their skewed priorities: "I was visited by the Gay Men's Health Crisis and they asked me to withdraw the legislation. I said to them, 'Your community has been so devastated by the disease; so many young lives have been lost. Why wouldn't you support this?' And they said, 'Privacy is our main concern.'"
"Then I met with the feminists. I asked them to support my bill. I said, 'This is a woman's bill.' Their response knocked my socks off. They said, 'Well, Nettie, think of the potential for domestic violence the bill will be generating if a guy finds out [his partner's] infected. This is a domestic violence issue.'" "I said, 'The real violence is getting infected!' ...
Slowly, though, the tide turned away from political correctness and toward protecting the lives of new-borns exposed to HIV. After a three-year struggle, Mayersohn's legislation passed in June 1996. New York became the first state to require that all newborn infants be tested for HIV and to disclose the results of the testing to the mothers.
Today, the law is working well and saving lives. According to the New York Department of Health, prior to the "Baby AIDS" law about 59 percent of infants with HIV went home from the hospital unidentified to their mothers as having tested positive. By the time of a study published on November 3, 1997, a magnificent 98.8 percent of HIV-exposed infants were being identified and receiving follow-up care.
It worked in New York: It will work in New Jersey, too. The legislature should pass the bill.
Labels: HIV
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:41 PM
9 Comments
9 Comments:
Wow, Wesley and I agree on something else. =)
Although, I may be a more tepid though. Mainly because of the stigma that still is associated with HIV. But for urban areas where HIV is more prevalent, this is a good idea.
It's the "mandatory" part that bothers me. Does that not bother you guys at all? Making it available is one thing, but giving the mother a hard time and telling her she "has" to or it's "mandated by law" if for some reason she doesn't want it (and I'd sort of rather not get into what those reasons might be, though I can imagine some that would seem to me reasonable), is a different matter.
re: mandatory
It doesn't bother me so much since a lot of similar things are mandatory for newborns (i.e., screening for other diseases, vaccinations), etc...
If they want to throw in consciousness objection clauses, hmmmm, that might be more effective.
My main concern is the stigma. These kind of things can easily drive the disease underground which actually kills more people.
For the babies it should be mandatory. Look at the NY stats. When caught in early babies it can be treated. Lives have been saved.
Note in the story that it would allow mothers to opt out in writing.
You _can_ opt out of having your newborn vaccinated. Nor does it always have to be a "conscientious" thing, as if you belong to some religion that prohibits it or something. In my state you simply have to explain your reasons for whichever vaccinations you elect not to have your child have, which may be medical or pragmatic types of reasons as well. And if you enter the child in school or daycare, you have to put them in writing.
Would you guys object to the parents' being able to opt-out for the newborn similarly for this sort of testing? I don't think even the argument that something has "saved lives" should be overwhelming of any other considerations. After all, I suppose it might "save (some) lives" to have parents tell the state what they feed their kids every day and have the diets approved, but it would still be an unwarranted intrusion on parental authority and sphere sovereignty.
Mother yes, baby no. This isn't forced medicating. It is testing. The baby deserves the right not to die of AIDS.
I'm not sure about the child, but in Texas pregnant women are given mandatory HIV tests.
When I moved from NC where I was allowed to opt out, to Texas, I was informed that the HIV test was standard procedure and that my doctor could not continue monitoring my pregnancy without it.
I still don't know exactly where I stand on the issue.
A potential and very real problem with these mandatory tests of diseases that DO carry stigma...is insurance. Once they find out a subscriber has or has been exposed to AIDS, they often lose coverage or have to pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts to keep it.
Once a person loses health insurance for these reasons it is next to impossible to get on a new plan. They all deny benefits. SO, society ends up paying the bill in some of these cases- because people are forced to use government programs. I have seen people quit jobs to cut back their incomes (even doctors,testing positive, who were making excellent money...but lost their insurance) have had to become janitors in order to qualify for Medicaid type coverage. THIS is a problem.
I am against any form of mandated ANYTHING. There are too many problems associated with all of it. And privacy issues are very important to most people. Yes, babies can be saved and they *should* be tested- but again, who is going to pay for it all?
AIDS is a nasty disease. Until it is dealt with in countries like Africa we will not see an end to the threat it presents. Same with many diseases. We're fighting a virus that is world wide in presence and will be spread back and forth.
Babies don't have any say in the matter of whether they get born sick or not - we have an obligation to help them live full, reasonably happy, and reasonably healthy lives. I think it should be mandatory to give all babies the biggest chance for a long life. Littles can be healed better than adults can.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home