South Africa Study Demonstrates Why We Need Mandatory HIV Testing for Infants
Seven years ago, I wrote about the courageous campaign of New York Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn (D-Queens), who bucked her usual political allies to force the first "Baby AIDS" legislation in the country, requiring all infants to be routinely tested for HIV. The hell she was put through for trying to save lives was unbelievable. From my Weekly Standard article (subscription required):
But Meyherson persevered, and NY became the first state with mandatory testing. The law saved lives: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. ...
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!' If I am in a bad marriage or abusive relationship, I can do something about it. I can get myself out. I can repair a broken jaw. But if someone infects me with HIV, that will mean the end of my life. So, the feminists turned on me. ...
Today [circa 2000] 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.
Well, now more proof that instituting universal infant HIV testing would improve infected babies' chances for survival comes out of a study in South Africa. From the story:
A study of infants in Cape Town and Soweto in South Africa found that infants given immediate drug treatment had a 96 percent survival rate compared with 84 percent for children where treatment was deferred.Implementing mandatory testing in poor countries would be difficult, but should be a priority for the billions in AIDS funding that is pouring into these at-risk nations. Developed countries like the USA have no excuse. There should be mandatory and routine HIV testing of all newborns. Now.The study, sponsored by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), was so successful that it was amended in 2007, ending enrollments
for the deferred treatment group and evaluating those in the group for treatment...An estimated 2.3 million children are currently HIV infected, with around 600,000 new HIV infections in children each year. Without treatment half of all babies infected with HIV die before their second birthday.
"Children with HIV infection frequently show rapid disease progression within the first year of life due to their developing immune systems and susceptibility to other serious infections," said Dr Elias Zerhouni, director of the U.S. National Institute of Health, in a statement on the study at an IAS conference. "This is the first randomised clinical trial that shows that infants treated before 3 months of age will do better than infants who have their treatment delayed," Zerhouni said.
Labels: AIDS Testing of Infants.




3 Comments:
I'll tell you Wesley that mandatory testing makes me uncomfortable. At the same time I very much understand the value in making it mandatory. There are too many irresponsible people who won't get themselves tested unless it is mandatory even when they are at risk. Additionally the feminist/gay lobby's response is complete hogwash.
However, going back to my gut instinct, medical costs are out of control and it seems ridiculous and a tad bit insulting (both morally and financially) to me to add yet another test to the expense of child birth (which is effectively prohibitive without insurance) for people who clearly based on their sexual history, have no risk of AIDS. Some people still do lead lives of pre-marital chastity and marital monogomy.
But flip-flopping again, perhaps that's a insult/cost that must be incurred to save lives amongst the less responsible.
I generally don't favor mandatory to apply in medicine. However, there are exceptions, such as certain inoculations before children can go to school, etc.
The tests are not that expensive, particularly since other blood tests are done for infants as a matter of routine. Moreover, if the child can be prevented from getting sick, it might save money.
But that isn't the point: These babies are completely helpless and have no choice in terms of responsible behavior. Moreover, the mother may have acted completely responsibly and through no fault or warning of her own, be HIV positive. It is working well in New York. I think all babies deserve our protection, particularly against HIV.
Thanks for writing, ken.
And we should have mandatory paternity and maternity tests, to make sure no mix-ups occurred and everything is correct on the birth certificate.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home