“Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Hear Ye, the honorable Judge John Woodcock (Seriously?) has hereby sentenced the pregnant and HIV positive wench to prison for the sake of her unborn child.  We will also tie her up and throw her in the ocean.  If she drowns, she is innocent.  If she lives, we will burn her at the stake as a witch!”  Circa 1693 2009

I was having a great discussion with the blog writer over at Mom’s Tinfoil Hat about HIV testing and the neonate.  In the comments section we debated the ethics of testing an infant for HIV without the mother’s consent  (click here to read her post and our discussion).    Each state has different testing guidelines for HIV testing in pregnant mom’s and the neonate.  In the state where I work we have a very comprehensive perinatal HIV testing program.  In a nutshell, every pregnant woman is rapid tested for HIV.  If the pregnant woman refuses the rapid HIV test, her infant will be automatically tested immediately after birth, with or without the mom’s consent.  Sound harsh?  Let me explain.

If an HIV positive woman receives treatment while pregnant, she greatly decreases the chance her infant will contract HIV.  Without treatment the transmission rate is 25%, with treatment, it decreases to 2%.  If an HIV positive mom does not receive treatment, the infant has about a 25 % of becoming HIV positive.  If the infant is treated with AZT as soon as possible after birth, that transmission rate can decrease by 50%.  A staggering decrease in the transmission rate.

So what if the mom refuses testing and treatment for her infant?  Well, she really can’t.  The infant will be tested.  If the infant is preliminary positive, AZT will be started.  What if hypothetically the mom refuses the AZT treatment for her infant?  Well, hypothetically, the hospital can take temporary custody of the infant so he can receive the treatment.  An ugly scenario for sure, but one I can stand behind.

What I can not stand behind is this.  Imprisoning a pregnant HIV positive mom, to “insure” the health and well being of the fetus:

“But United States District Court Judge John Woodcock did not give Ms. T “time served.”  He instead calculated her sentence to ensure that she would remain in prison through her August 29 due date, stating that Ms. T was more likely to receive medical treatment and follow an HIV treatment regimen in federal prison than out on her own or in the custody of immigration officials. Judge Woodcock also acknowledged that his decision was based entirely on her HIV status:  if Ms. T were pregnant but not living with HIV, he would have sentenced her to “time served.”  RH Reality Check

No, I can not stand behind a Judge Woodcock (again, seriously?) deciding if a woman knows what is best for her own body.  I can not stand behind imprisoning an HIV positive woman to force treatment upon her.  I can not stand behind this archaic witch hunt of an unfairly stigmatized disease.

RR