Posted by My OB said WHAT?!?.
Nov
5
Posted by My OB said WHAT?!?.
“…We’ll Just Test Your Baby After It’s Born.”
“That’s fine. We’ll just test your baby after it’s born.” – Lab Tech to mother who asked if she could decline the HIV test that was “standard” for all mothers.
There are 78 comments to this post.
Ashley Bean had this to say,
Nov 5, 2011 @ 2:41 pm (Quote)
If you deliver in a hospital in SC (Idk about other states) then sadly this is the truth. I really didn’t mind getting tested, even though I knew I was negative, but I was talking to the midwife about it and she said that if there’s a mom who doesn’t get tested, they take the baby and test him/her and you can’t discharge until you have the HIV and PKU test done. The only option for a mom who doesn’t want a test or her baby tested is a home birth.
Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is, but its still a mother’s right to dictate what’s being done to her and her baby. Its appauling how much “control” the gov’t and hospitals have over our bodies =[
[Reply]
Knitted in the Womb Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 2:53 pm (Quote)
New Jersey also requires that either mother or baby be tested for HIV.
The PKU thing is crazy, since the test isn’t even very accurate until the baby has been eating for 48 hours…which often would be after hospital discharge (I was discharged 30 hours after birth with my two hospital births).
[Reply]
BeckyJ Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 3:48 pm (Quote)
Not to mention that the PKU test is done WAY too early! It should be done at 1-2 weeks postpartum, when all of the things they test for would actually show up.
[Reply]
Ashley Bean Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 6:53 pm (Quote)
You’re both right about the PKU test. I want to wait and have this baby tested at a week and not immediately, but its state law in SC with the PKU test. Even babies born at home are going to get tested the first time they go to a doctor. So idk if I have a choice to wait a week. I’m going to ask though because I’d rather have more accurate results. I have zero problem with them testing my baby, but I want that test to be accurate.
[Reply]
Robyn Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 4:02 pm (Quote)
I don’t know about SC, but here in NC when I had my home birth my midwife did all the post-partum and well-baby checks at my home. She came at 24 hours, 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks and then the 6 week visit was done in her office. When I asked her about when to see the pediatrician, she said that under normal circumstances her visits cover baby care until 2 weeks. She also did the PKU. The awesome part of that was that she suggested that we go to the pediatrician when my baby was 2 days old because she picked up an irregular heartbeat at the 24 hour visit. The doctor who saw us (part of the clinic that I take my kids to) asked about the test. He even called my midwife to ask questions about my pregnancy and the birth and asked her about it. While he wasn’t thrilled that she waits until the baby is a week old and the milk is fully in to do the testing, he left it at that and simply said that they needed the results in her file as soon as we got them.
[Reply]
melissa Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 7:02 pm (Quote)
I think Illinois requires mom or baby to be tested too. Which, I said I know I’m negative, but I’d much rather you test me than test my baby. The other ladies in my prenatal “orientation” declined the test, and the nurse kept saying, “ok, but you know that they will test your baby. in the hospital. because you won’t let us test you.”
[Reply]
*sigh* This submission hardly thrills me, but you know what? It never fails. No, none of us KNOWS anything, unless we tested negative, got pregnant via IVF or something and haven’t had sex since. (Okay, even then there’s always a miniscule chance, but close enough.)
I’m kind of insulted that others are so incredibly insulted by the mere fact that such tests, etc. are routine. Having an STI does not make one dirty or immoral. Many, many people are in denial, and even those of us who feel confident swearing our partners are faithful– I mean, REALLY REALLY have EXCELLENT reason to believe they are faithful, are with our partners most of our waking hours, have a fabulous relationship, etc.– are not always right. STIs and infidelity are not things that happen to other people, and the mere implication that anyone can have an STI– in and of itself– should not be taken as an “insult.”
Now, I am not talking about someone being directly insulting, telling someone who chose not to have the test, “Well, a lot of women say their husbands are faithful, but you really can’t trust men.” Or, “Yeah, you say you were both virgins, but blah blah blah.” …or otherwise actually being actively insulting. That’s disrespectful.
But “We do these things as a standard of care, just to be safe” or “You may decline testing now, but legally we have to blah and such.” If anyone takes these sorts of statements as *insults*, I suggest you rethink your judgment of just who gets STIs and who gets cheated on (or cheats). You’re welcome to decline them, if you have that legal right– by all means. But to be insulted by them? The mere existence of routine STI tests should be no more “insulting” than tests for GBS, RH incompatibility, genetic disorders, antibodies for other, non-sexually-transmitted infections, etc.
I waited until I was married to have sex. My husband and I have an incredible relationship (if I do say so myself). And yet? I would never, EVER say “never.” And I find it kind of “insulting” when other people do. Because they never seem to be the artificially-inseminated, virginal wives of men with severe spinal cord injuries. So the fact that they think it couldn’t POSSIBLY happen to them– because they just KNOW– implies there’s something wrong with the rest of us. And something REALLY wrong with those among us who have STIs or who have been cheated on.
[Reply]
Mama Wrench Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 6:18 pm (Quote)
Okay, that’s your perspective — but there are others of us who are already tested regularly, have only ever had ONE sexual partner, have zero history of STIs or promiscuity and have zero reason to be tested, or to have to pay for a test when we have years of medical history indicating that there’s no reason for one.
I’m in the military, I get STI and HIV testing every year, for the last 6 years; my last pregnancy I was tested twice because I switched clinics. The only way my son could have gotten infected between my womb and the examination table is if the hospital had screwed up.
Seriously, if someone gets upset over unnecessary testing, they probably have a reason to. And I don’t think that being subtly accused of lying about your sexual history or being treated like a doe-eyed little girl for trusting one’s partner is a bad reason to get offended.
[Reply]
Dreamy Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 9:12 pm (Quote)
If you have yearly testing, that’s one thing, and beyond the scope of my comment, which specifically addressed people who “just know.” If you are accused (subtly, or not-so) of lying about your sexual history– I am pretty sure I already addressed that. Not acceptable whatsoever.
But it’s not only the comments above of which I’m speaking or potentially speaking. This comes up frequently, with the reasoning that “I KNOW my husband would never be unfaithful and thus I resent it when they insist ‘just in case.’”
I wouldn’t call that SPECIFIC reasoning being a “doe-eyed little girl” but I think, yeah, there’s a form of denial at work. Not because the chances any such given woman is wrong are 90% or 50% or even 25%, but no matter how sure you are (when based on “I just know” and not testing), the chances (of there “being a chance”) are nowhere NEAR 0%. And a lot further from 0% than most women would assume.
And I have only had ONE sexual partner myself.
I am very, very much against unnecessary interventions, and very, very much for patient autonomy. That’s not at all what I was addressing with my comment. I thought was made clear by my many disclaimers.
What I was addressing was a common refrain that women are personally insulted by the very idea that “you never know.” Not just when it’s accompanied by obnoxious “Yeah, yeah, that’s what they all say” language (subtle or not-so). But just the attempt to insist on or strongly encourage testing, even when couched in neutral language, that “you never know, and this is really important, and unlikely to cause harm in itself.” Because, you know what? With extraordinarily rare exceptions FAR beyond having only ONE sexual partner? You really never know. And for some women to be insulted by THAT fact is insulting to me. And, IMO, to all women.
[Reply]
Blue Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 1:21 am (Quote)
This reminds me of my first pregnancy. My midwife very casually said, “You’ve been married for several years, so there’s no reason to do STD or HIV testing.” I was shocked. I asked, “Why would you assume that? You know, lots of married people are exposed to STDs.” So she asked if I’ve been monogamous. I said, “Yeah, sure. But how can you be sure I’m not lying, or that my husband hasn’t cheated on me?” From a public health perspective, I think testing mom as routine practice is rational and reasonable. Though, if mom declines, I do take issue with mandatory testing of baby without mom’s/dad’s consent.
[Reply]
amanda Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:15 pm (Quote)
THIS.
after my second pregnancy i was upset about some things that happened and asked for my records. at one point, it listed that my son was the second child of a 25 year old mother with chlamydia (i was not 25 and i didn’t THINK i had chlamydia). i wasn’t sure if they had mixed up charts, or if there had been a test done that somehow i didn’t know about. i asked my gp to follow up and do a test and he refused – since both my dh and i are committed, together for years, etc etc, even said i wasn’t the ‘type’ of person to worry about that. he actually REFUSED. the judgement he displayed in that was so telling. having an sti is not a sign of anything other than having an sti, people.
[Reply]
Erica Douglas Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 2:43 am (Quote)
Excellent! You said this very well.
[Reply]
Aron Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 4:59 am (Quote)
I think the reason many people get offended is at being forced to do it “for their own good” and to pay for it when they feel it’s needless. At that point, no justification for declining the test is good enough in the health care providers eyes – hence the frustration and offense many people feel.
It is one thing to offer, strongly suggest in the interest of public health and to educate about the diseases to help decrease that stigma. That’s all great. It is not (at least to me) ok to force someone to fork over cash for for a procedure they don’t even want, regardless of their reasons. Maybe if the state was truly so concerned about this horrible public health issue they would pay for it themselves? Just a (unrealistic) thought.
But mostly the issue comes back to informed consent/refusal: the healthcare provider educates the client about the risks and benefits of the test and those of doing nothing, then the client gets to decide whether or not to consent. This should be just as true for STI testing as for c-sections, birth control, gestational diabetes testing and any other medical activity you care to name.
[Reply]
Wendy Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 5:36 am (Quote)
One semantical nitpick: I much prefer STD to STI. “Infection” just sounds like a cushy little euphemism for “disease.” They’re the same thing, technically, but ask anyone with full-blown AIDS, and they’ll let you know that they have more than a mere “infection.”
[Reply]
paranoid android Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 7:50 am (Quote)
No, they’re not the same thing at all. “Infection” = the presence of a pathogen in the body; “disease” = actual symptoms of illness. You can be infected with a bacterium or virus without having any symptoms at all. This is especially an issue in the case of HIV: The virus is present in the body for YEARS before full-blown AIDS breaks out, but it can be passed on to others during that period. That’s why these HIV screenings are necessary. If everyone who as infected became sick with specific symptoms right away, you wouldn’t need to test apparently healthy people.
[Reply]
Umm no you won’t… I had a well meaning lab tech put the HIV test back on the rec when I went in for my pre-natal blood work even though it was crossed off with my dr initials on it. I ended up filing a complaint with the lab and got a lawyer to deal with the government. I know I’m not HIV+ but it’s none of their business if I am or my children are and frankly there are to many repercussions if one day a test did come back positive for them to know my status.
[Reply]
Jessica Lucens Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 4:20 pm (Quote)
Well, actually, since many HIV+ patients end up on gov’t support & medicare, and the fact that appropriate use of anti-virals can lessen the risk of transmission to the infant to near-zero, umm, it kind of IS our business. Sorry, but this disease has much to large a group of long-term social repercussions to just let people do ‘whatever’. We tried that in the 80′s. I remember. It was a disaster.
[Reply]
Mama Wrench Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 6:09 pm (Quote)
It’s pretty grossly offensive to assume that if someone is HIV+ he’ll end up on government assistance. If she’s ALREADY on government assistance that’s one thing, but to test everybody on the assumption that they’ll end up “a drain on society” is offensive. Especially since a negative test, or a series of negative tests for the mom means that pretty much the only way for the baby to get infected would be because the hospital screwed up (used a dirty needle or misread a chart) and not because mom is just a dirty, poor slut who sleeps around at the expense of working Americans.
[Reply]
Sodayah Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 7:31 pm (Quote)
Frankly I don’t actually think it is the gov. business what my HIV status is and it certainly isn’t my employers business either however if the gov finds out they can and often do inform your insurance company which could leave a person without insurance or in some cases employment, since an employer can ask the company why you were dropped.
There is a reason that we have annon. testing centers where I live where you are issued a number and the test is run with only the number identifying it and then the results are given based on your sample number. They never know your name and therefore can’t inform the gov. if a test comes back positive.
[Reply]
I read a book dedicated to HIV in pregnancy. Testing the baby isn’t accurate for up to 6 months after the birth. They usually test shortly after, again in a few more months, and again at 6 months (for those born to positive mothers). Who would want that!? Not saying a mother needs to consent, just obviously the doc was missing the point. She didn’t feel the test was necessary for EITHER her OR the baby. If she did I’m sure she would have preferred get the test herself and spare her baby. I know my hubby is faithful and so am I, but to avoid the issue and since most positive people don’t know where they got it anyway I got the test. It didn’t cost extra as the prenatal panel is a package deal and skipping a test doesn’t save money (at least not with any lab I’ve ever worked with).
[Reply]
Toni Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 6:41 am (Quote)
Precisely. My insurance covers the total cost of prenatal labs, whether you have the HIV test or not, so for me it was a non-issue. I can see, in states where it is legally required wanting the state to pay for it, at least for those whose insurance won’t cover or who are uninsured. Now, my husband is a reservist so he gets tested every year and I am faithful and I have no reason to doubt his fidelity, but I still get it done. Mostly because I’m already getting blood drawn (what’s another vial) and I am fairly certain (as certain as one can be) that I am negative. Seems to me those most likely to decline testing (besides those who cannot afford it) are those who think they might be positive. They are afraid to find out. Which of course is irresponsible. I don’t see the big deal, especially if you “know” that you are negative… isn’t it better for you to get additional blood drawn than to force your baby to get blood drawn (not to mention risk being positive and not knowing it and potentially passing it on to your baby)? Sure you have the right to refuse but this strikes me as a dumb thing to refuse, barring if you can’t afford it. I do understand in that case, it is an expensive test and I don’t know if they would accept results from free clinics, as those are anonymous… Not sure if there are programs to help pregnant women get low cost or free testing (that their docs would accept), I’ve never looked into it.
[Reply]
Seriously, what is the big deal? They’re already taking blood. Why do you care if they test you for HIV? So what? I think some people just what something to fight about…
[Reply]
Rebecca Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 5:00 pm (Quote)
I think it also is a question of why mom was refusing. I ended up tested three separate times during my pregnancy plus a recent test about two or three months before I became pregnant. Why pay for (or have insurance pay for) unneeded tests? I had an HIV scare many years ago (umm, 18 years?) and have been tested annually since, even while in monogamous relationships, in fact my husband and I have been married 12 of those years.
Even if the HIV test adds only $20 to the bill, with more than 4 million babies born a year, this one test adds 80 million to the cost of prenatal care.
While I support HIV testing, I also think that we can test too often. The hospital I delivered at tested me despite having the records of the two other tests I’d had during pregnancy. That’s just silly.
[Reply]
Rebecca Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 5:02 pm (Quote)
And yes, they were all negative tests, so there was no medical reason for retesting. The first test was in the prenatal panel. The second test was when I was risked out of the practice I was at and despite already having records from the associated nurse practioner, they redid the whole panel. The third test was the day my daughter was delivered.
[Reply]
Rebecca Reply:
November 5th, 2011 at 5:16 pm (Quote)
The other point I meant to make was that if Mom wasn’t going to consent for herself, why would she consent to the baby being tested? Of course in hospitals that don’t allow rooming in (like all the ones locally) they could just do it anyway or without having forms signed
[Reply]
Kristin Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 8:50 am (Quote)
It’s intrusive, it’s unnecessary, it’s expensive.
Sure they are taking blood from a heel prick, it I let them. But why put the baby through more pain?
If I don’t have HIV, neither does my baby, plain and simple.
Most insurance will cover between 50%-80% of lab tests. HIV tests can be as much as $900 on the high end. That means I could be stuck paying $180 – $450 EXTRA for something that was not needed to begin with.
[Reply]
This is me…I was pregnant with my third child and had had several tests in the past at various times. I had no qualms about my husband, who had been tested 3 weeks before they made this request as part of his work-up for ear surgery. I knew without a doubt that both he and I were HIV-negative. I wasn’t insulted by the offer of a test. I simply knew that I didn’t need a test, and my insurance certainly didn’t need to incur the extra cost. And to threaten my unborn child with pain of any kind WAS an insult.
I’m so tired of all the unnecessary testing and procedures that are performed on unwitting people who don’t know that they can refuse, are intimidated by health care professionals (who make themselves purposely imposing), or don’t want the hassle of saying no. This isn’t the place for politics, but the statement that “most” people with HIV are social misfits who are a drain on taxpayer dollars is an obvious exaggeration…at least until I see statistics with sources to back it up.
As an aside, testing is not a legal requirement in my state. It was supposedly a hospital policy–despite the fact that I’d had two other babies in the same birthing center and hadn’t been tested or threatened with either of those. And this lab tech was so snotty and sure that her threat to poke my baby for no good reason would change my mind, it just made me livid.
In the end, I did have the test. My OB (who is no longer on my insurance company’s payroll) was a piece of work, and I figured if someone’s privacy and right to refuse unnecessary procedures was going to be infringed upon, it should be mine and not my child’s.
[Reply]
Tee Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 10:44 am (Quote)
The end of your story makes me sad. I really admire you for choosing the procedure for yourself instead of your child. But the simple fact of the matter is that it isn’t a choice you should have been forced to make. No means no and I really wish the medical community (and government, since there are laws about this) would get that through their heads.
[Reply]
I agree with some of the other posters on here. Why pick a fight and get all upset over an HIV test? Yes, there’s a great chance it will come back negative. But what about all the women who are completely shocked to learn they are positive? The reason for the test is to catch it early enough that the medications can be given early enough to possibly prevent transmission from mom to baby. It isn’t meant to humiliate the mom. Or to rack up dollars from lab tests. It’s to help a baby, and I don’t see how that is so wrong.
I also think some people in this world just need to fight over every little thing. Let some of it go, save your energy for the big stuff.
[Reply]
Tee Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 10:45 am (Quote)
I can’t speak for anybody else, Tricia, but I can explain why it’s a big deal to me. Nobody… not the government nor the medical community… has the right to tell me what testing I have to have done. Nobody has the right to tell me what testing I have to have done on my child. That’s why it bothers me so much. It’s not their decision to make!
[Reply]
Trisha Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 6:36 pm (Quote)
If you do not like the mandates placed forth by the medical community in which you are surrounded, nor the mandates by the government, you are free to move. Or completely skip prenatal care if you don’t like what is asked of you (routine testing, etc).
[Reply]
Kristy Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 6:52 pm (Quote)
So we are not *allowed* to have the care we *do* want unless we are willing to do everything else the medical community wants us to do as well? Doctors in your perfect world have the right to expect you to do everything they ask or just expect you to leave entirely and get no care? Really? Sad.
[Reply]
Melissa Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 7:00 pm (Quote)
Why in the WORLD would you expect that the onus is on the patients to accommodate the medical practice?
Really? I should MOVE if I don’t like how the local hospital administrators and insurance adjusters have written the policies?
I’m only “allowed” to have the care someone else has decided, all too often without reference to the actual facts of the case…or else I am not allowed to have any care at all?
Who is paying who here? (Would you tolerate this in your mechanic? Your construction foreman? No? And yet these people are also responsible for the health and safety of countless others.)
[Reply]
Tee Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 7:03 pm (Quote)
Tricia, you asked a question and I answered it. My opinion was stated politely and respectfully. I do NOT appreciate your nasty comment about “having the right to move.” That was uncalled for.
[Reply]
Rebecca Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 1:35 pm (Quote)
Does this same philosophy apply to vaccination?
How about circumcision (which was framed for a long time as a public health issue)
What about a heplock during labor and delivery?
Routine pitocin in 3rd stage management?
Routine pitocin in labor?
Routine episiotomy?
Beyond the first two, each of these things is being recommended by the medical establishment for the good of the people who actually need it. How is this different than requiring (often repeated) STD testing? Do I think its a good thing for people to be regularly tested- yes, do I think its a good thing for insurance companies (including government funded programs) to pay for repeated tests in a small window or known-to-be inaccurate tests (like the newborn heel stitck for HIV or PKU[not accurate until a bit older])no.
I am an autonomous person with the right to decide what medical tests and procedures should be done on myself and my minor child(ren) I shouldn’t have to move to be treated as a person.
[Reply]
I was told the same thing at Kaiser Permanente in California. We didn’t want it, I had just been tested for my Green Card, DH was tested a couple of weeks later by the military and does get tested every 6 months. After I became pregnant, DH went off for school in Alabama, by the time he came back I had developed preterm labor so of course I hadn’t have any chance of catching a STD for the lack of activity. Yet, they want to test again, and that is somewhat insulting. It clearly means you must have cheated lady! We didn’t want our newborn to be poked and prodded and submitted to the silly STD testing paid by Tricare later on, hence the taxpayer had to pay for needless STD testing.
I did agree to do STD testing in CO with my second pregnancy as I wanted a waterbirth and I respect the midwife who wants to merely protect herself.
I just wanted to point out that some people have good reason to refuse the HIV test and get upset, like in my position with my first child, where I had been already tested recently, my husband too, yet it was forced on us again.
Btw in every state there is a PKU test opt-out. They just don’t advertise the fact. We opted out in CO of the first test and only did the second at 8 days, as the first one misses a lot of things and I won’t poke my kid twice.
[Reply]
I also have to say that I think it’s beyond selfish to put your baby through a blood draw when you are already going to have one anyway. Quite honestly, there seems to be a lot of woman who are more concerned about their own comfort during pregnancy and labor than their babies well being. Testing, monitoring, and sometimes even c-sections are for your baby’s own good. Not all OBs are the devil out to make you miserable. I’m tired of this trend of going against the dr just for moms own comfort.
[Reply]
Aron Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 11:04 am (Quote)
Just like adults have the right to refuse testing, so do they have the right to refuse it for their children. If I know that I am HIV negative (which I do) I will raise hell before anyone pokes my child without my consent – because I care a heck of a lot more about her than any doctor (or anonymous internet reader) ever could. Anyone who forces my hand on that issue will face legal problems. I will not put my child through unnecessary testing any more than I will consent to it myself just because someone tries to bully me. As someone else said, every state has an opt-out clause, they just don’t like to advertise that.
UNNECESSARY procedures are not for anyone’s good. Not all people who refuse are idiots in denial or just out for a fight to make people like yourself feel self-righteous. I’m tired of this trend of going against a patient’s right to informed consent or refusal for health worker’s convenience.
[Reply]
JLW Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 7:00 pm (Quote)
These things are routine for a reason. The few who like to cause a big fight about it are usually the type who like to be different just for the sake of being different. Having a lab screen your blood (that’s already been drawn) for HIV is not a national incident. It’s something pregnant women do every day. It’s not hurting anything. So to raise such a fuss over something like this just speaks to a certain controlling personality type, not some type of flaw in the medical system.
[Reply]
Kristy Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 7:05 pm (Quote)
“The few who like to cause a big fight about it are usually the type who like to be different just for the sake of being different.”
I just love when people decide for me why I am making the choices I am and how worthy those choices are. I don’t care what the choice is… if it isn’t directly hurting someone else then it is *my* choice what tests and treatments to undergo. When someone else starts deciding which choices are ok to ‘fuss over’ and which are not is when we start losing the right to make any choices for ourselves.
[Reply]
Rebecca Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 1:43 pm (Quote)
What about the costs to our insurance companies or own wallets? These tests aren’t cheap (the places you can go for STD testing cheaply are usually government subsidized)
If you have recent negative tests, its just helping to drive up the costs of healthcare. The offices know that most people (pregnant or not) are going to just go along with whatever tests are ordered, just adding to their bottom line.
If you don’t have recent negative tests, it may be warranted to have the tests done.
[Reply]
Melissa Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 12:08 pm (Quote)
And, if you read my note, I DID end up having my test for just that reason–to save my child the pain of the test. It was the way it was threatened and forced as if I had no rights as a patient and a human being to dare refuse the almighty MDeity.
[Reply]
While I had other qualms with my first OB, I thought she handled this situation well. I declined testing because my husband and I have no risk factors, and she said that the nurses in L&D like to see the negative test, otherwise they have to assume positive and take many more precautions during birth. I thought that reasoning was very logical and consented.
I think this lab tech was way too arrogant in the way s/he informed the mother of what would happen, though. There are more professional ways of explaining things if it really is a legal necessity to test either mom or baby.
[Reply]
Aron Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 11:12 am (Quote)
While I’m glad you had a respectful experience, I would really like to know what special precautions this OB was referring to. “Universal precautions” were instituted specifically in response to unknown HIV status and are mandatory for healthcare interactions with ALL patients. You wear gloves and (if there is a chance of getting splashed) a face shield. The nurses who work on the med-surg floors are just as likely to come into contact with contaminated body fluids as the L&D nurses and they treat everyone as unknown status just like they should.
I think what your OB may have been implying is that even in a “clean” situation your unofficial status would have required them to glove up. As someone who goes through dozens of gloves a day I can tell you it’s hardly the end of the world.
[Reply]
krp_2000 Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 11:23 am (Quote)
I don’t know exactly what she meant. Somehow it seemed logical to me that there might be a slightly more relaxed protocol if the nurses have it on paper that the patient is HIV-. Is it not the case the protocol is more strict for patients who are HIV+ or unknown? I honestly have no idea; it was just an assumption I made.
[Reply]
Rebecca Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 12:08 pm (Quote)
A dear friend of mine is HIV+ Universal precautions are just that, universal. In a medical setting, every person should be treated the same. I do remember a couple of times doctors or nurses emphasizing to someone to use universal precautions with him, but the procedures (come in, wash up, glove up) were no different than when I go in with my (HIV-) mom.
Just how are you going to tell people that a particular patient needs gloves etc. without violating their right to privacy? Especially when we know they don’t read charts.
For what its worth, I think universal precautions are more important for the patient. If I see my doctor or nurse wash up and put on new gloves before examining me or my child, I can feel more confident that they aren’t spreading anything to my family- and I’m more worried about MRSA and other antibiotic resistant bugs than HIV, which isn’t that easy to transmit.
[Reply]
K Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 5:02 pm (Quote)
The presence or absence of an HIV test should have ZERO impact on the care the patient receives! The only thing that might change is whether or not the caregiver would choose to take prophylactic drugs in the event of an exposure (needle stick, splashed in the eyes, etc).
[Reply]
Rebecca Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 1:44 pm (Quote)
You’re absolutely right! Unfortunatly, its not the case. If medical personnel need to be reminded of universal precautions, not only are they treating infectious patients differently, they’re putting themselves and their other patients at risk.
[Reply]
In some states (like mine), the law requires that every birth requires an HIV test, either of the mother or the new baby. So I went ahead and did it at my first pregnancy appointment blood draw so that my baby wouldn’t have to get it done.
[Reply]
I am wondering, to all those who have posted that they refuse The HIV test in the prenatal panel, if you also refuse the syphilis test that it also part of the panel? This too is part of the routine panel. Thankfully it is not too common (though incidence is rising) but if unknown can have a huge impact on baby.
[Reply]
Morgaine had this to say,
Nov 6, 2011 @ 9:15 pm (Quote)
Dear Trisha,
While I agree that we all have the right to move, we do not all have the money. Feel free to buy my house that has been dramatically devalued, pay my moving costs, and also pay for a new house. All in cash, because it is currently a pain in my ass to get a mortgage.
Personally, I got the HIV test. But I get both points of view.
[Reply]
Trisha Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 6:44 pm (Quote)
I never said it was easy or inexpensive to pick up and move, only that you DO have that option. It isn’t my fault you can’t afford a house.
[Reply]
AB Reply:
November 15th, 2011 at 12:34 pm (Quote)
why should anyone have to move or “Just not have kids” because they want to refuse a test or procedure? Last time I checked we were not in prison, why is it ok for the government or a doctor or even a hospital to mandate our health care? Where do we draw the line. Is it ok for them to say we must have a c-section in every instance regardless of the situation? I am guessing you wouldnt agree there…
[Reply]
Cara had this to say,
Nov 6, 2011 @ 10:25 pm (Quote)
Its called “informed consent” for a reason. If, after receiving all the information, the patient declines the procedure, the provider should not attempt to shame or force the patient into it. In this case all the phlebotomist had to do was say, “According to state law we are required to screen you, and if you decline, we are required to screen the baby at birth. I suggest you discuss this further with your care provider.”
[Reply]
Oh for pete’s sake.
People with HIV usually “know” they don’t have it for a while after infection. You could have gotten it at birth and be a carrier for all they know. Yet at the same time it’s really, really bad for you to have an HIV positive baby and not know about it… And unlike most tests, the HIV test is a cheek swab. It’s nothing. The baby won’t even notice. They’ll sometimes test the blood they drew anyway for the other tests but if you refused that they’ll swab the baby’s cheek and that’s it.
Or, you know, you could just get the $20 cheek swab yourself. Really it doesn’t matter. But the hospital does have a vested interest in knowing if the baby is HIV positive and most importantly, they CANNOT TELL the difference between a loving, drug-free mother with a loving, faithful, drug-free spouse who are HIV negative and the same couple where one had a dentist with poor autoclaving techniques.
[Reply]
Rebecca Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 1:47 pm (Quote)
By your arguement every person should be tested for HIV (and other infectious diseases) at every doctor’s visit– or at least at every hospital stay. How often is often enough? Should you be tested at every prenatal? Only once a month? I was tested before my pregnancy, twice during pregnancy, and once in the hospital after giving birth. Where do we draw the line?
[Reply]
I don’t know what the incidence of false positives in HIV testing are, but I do know that it isn’t 100%, and I also know from personal experience, that testing for other STDs is disturbingly high. I tested positive at my prenatal and my doctor’s office wanted me treated immediately. My husband went to his doctor who didn’t want to treat him without testing. His test was negative. We’ve been together (and faithful) almost 8 years. At my next appointment my doc admitted a false positive was the only good explanation. That’s the kind of thing that can destroy a marriage.
[Reply]
Joy had this to say,
Nov 10, 2011 @ 7:01 pm (Quote)
I think it’s a good option but I too felt insulted when I had to get tested again at the hospital. And Dreamy, there are people in relationships where you can trust your husband 100%. For our second child we chose out of hospital, weren’t tested for HIV at the birth and I trust my husband so much so that we declined the eye ointment for our daughter.
[Reply]
If their has ever been a needle in your arm, if you have had unprotected sex with someone who has ever had sex with someone else EVER (protected or not) then you are at risk just take the damn test you idiots.
[Reply]
Lisa Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 9:06 am (Quote)
So since I don’t fall under any of the criteria in your comment, I don’t have to take the test. Thanks for confirming that. 
[Reply]
Serene Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 5:45 pm (Quote)
I have needles frequently, my husband and I have both had one other VIRGINAL partner ONCE before each other. No risk here though… Know why? Because I dont engage in “risky” behaviour. I refused the HIV, Syphilis and Hep b+c testing, as well as the GBS testing. When you get right down to it, its MY choice to refuse, MY choice to accept any consequences and MY choice to live my life the way I do. There is no reason to threaten to punish my child unnecessarily because I refuse to sit in the box with everyone else and get an HIV screen!
[Reply]
#1 I find the name calling repulsive and childish. “Idiots”?? I’m sure I can find at least one of your parenting decisions unfavorable for my family.. can I call you an idiot? You wouldn’t appreciate that.
#2 I find it repulsive that ANYTHING is a “requirement”. It should be the decision of the person giving the blood.
#3 It is most definitely “just” a $20 test for most people. As people above said, it can be $150 or more!
#4 Do what they order you to do, if you don’t like it move and “It’s not my fault you can’t afford a house”?? REALLY???
It is INCREDIBLY sad that something can’t be discussed without getting flat out BITCHY! Just because someone doesn’t agree with your reasonings/beliefs does NOT mean that you get to treat them like second class citizens. I am MOST DEFINITELY SURE that YOU have SOMETHING in YOUR life that *I* don’t agree with! Do I get to treat you like a dead mouse in the yard for making YOUR decision that YOU felt was best for YOU but that I think was not in the best interest of you or your child? I think not! You would be incredibly pissed if you were treated the way you treated the women above! But ya know what? Maybe that is why you act the way you do.. maybe someone did treat you badly so you feel the need for YOUR sh!t to roll downhill… please find a better way to diffuse!!
Now.. if you are tested at week 8-10 in your pregnancy for HIV what is to ensure that you are still HIV negative at the time of the birth of your baby? Ya know, since we are all needle shooting sluts whose husbands screw around on us on a regular basis and all…
[Reply]
Add Your Comment.
Previous Post
« “I Don’t Do Twins Vaginally…” Next Post
“…You Have Red Hair and Red Heads Bleed *A Lot*.” »
« “I Don’t Do Twins Vaginally…” Next Post
“…You Have Red Hair and Red Heads Bleed *A Lot*.” »
Uh, NO. No you won’t. If I KNOW I don’t have it, then my baby won’t have it either.
[Reply]