Log In | Register
Approximately 400,000 infants still get HIV/AIDS from their mothers each year despite the availability of drugs that can block "nearly all" mother-to-child transmission, researchers reported Tuesday.
Almost All Mother-To-Infant HIV Spread Could Be Prevented
Seeded on Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:52 PM EDT
Article Source: USA Today- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (17)
Giving mothers and newborns potent anti-HIV drugs has all but eliminated mother-to-infant HIV transmission in the USA and developed countries. The World Health Organization also says that HIV-infected women can safely breastfeed without transmitting HIV to their newborns as long as they or their infants take antiviral medication.
"Virtual elimination of mother to child transmission of HIV by 2015 is possible,"
- 4 votes
#1 - Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:55 PM EDT
I imagine that this problem actually could be overcome by a foundation/person such as Bill Gates. It has a definite size and solution.
- 5 votes
Antivirals are expensive...... Gotta' get insurance coverage for these women and their babies; or get the drug companies holding the patents to beg, borrow or steal a heart (and conscience to go along with it would be nice).
Dark cloud of negativity aside, science is SO cool!
- 3 votes
#2 - Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:06 PM EDTThis is really good news. It looks as though the human race will not be annihilated after all, not by this virus any way.
- 4 votes
#3 - Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:08 PM EDTOk - I know this isn't very PC, but wouldn't being HIV positive be a good reason to decide not to have kids?
- 1 vote
#4 - Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:39 AM EDTSunny, many women that have HIV don't have any symptoms. In fact, many only find out during their pregancy that they are positive.
- 2 votes
women also can become infected any number of ways after they become pregnant.
- 2 votes
Good point, and it certainly explains why there are babies born with AIDS. But I find it strange I have never heard anyone talking about sterilization as a way to prevent HIV transmission. I was just bringing it up. (although I know someone is going to find this offensive).
- 1 vote
If we started sterilizing people for the diseases, viruses, and disorders they could potentially pass on to their children, then no one would be breeding. because, sunnybunny, it would most defiantly not stop at AIDS.
And scientific breakthroughs like this are great examples of why it is so inhumane to consider things like forced sterilization which cannot be undone.
- 2 votes
I'm not talking about forced sterilization (or any other sort of forced treatment for that matter) I'm saying it would be a sensible recomendation in many cases where it is a bad idea to have babies.
Why does everyone on these boards think of sterilization as something that gets done to someone rather than something someone decides to do? That is sick.
Also a point, that if you have a serious incurable illness, not only carrying a child, but caring for one could also be problematic.
- 1 vote
The problem with "sterilization" for the most part is trying to get themedical community to do it even with the woman begging them to. They are all for abortion ( for one reason or another), but not sterilization.
- 2 votes
Wish I knew, but it happened to me 30 years ago..maybe docs are a little more symapthetic now.
BTW...I have 3 lovely adult boys and too many grandchildren. This does not mean I don't love each and everyone of them. I do. I would have just rather it had been someone else instead. I was not prepared to give the rest of my life to others and still don't like it. I wanted a better education...maybe a PhD or two or even three. But it was not possible with raising three boys, working, keeping house and dealing with a selfish, self-centered, egotistical male for all those years.
- 1 vote
Given a choice, definitely. A lot of the neonatal spread is happening in parts of the world where women do not have that choice. Superstition and ignorance only exacerbate the problem.
In more developed countries, ignorance, hunger and violence are the "usual suspects".
No easy answers, but this could be part of the solution.
- 2 votes
#5 - Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:17 PM EDTNot a scientist by any means so to some this may be a dumb question. Would this not mean the same drug could be taken by adults as a preventative drug?
- 2 votes
#6 - Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:52 AM EDTI am a little suspect of our health care system. I mean we all know that if there were cures for certain things or even increased preventative medicines out there, then the need for health care as a treatment (where the real money is) would go down. The AIDS department of the health care system would not longer be doing years of treatment, but just a preventative medicine that I am sure would pull in less revenue. But if they make this product available to potential mothers, they are more likely to still attempt to have children, when otherwise they would not. So now, more mothers in delivery rooms, therefore more income. Not make it available for prevention means more people in the hospital for treatment...all more money for health care. Just a thought.
- 3 votes
#7 - Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:56 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
