HIV positive and having babies?

[Mickey]

Didn't get to see the entire segment, but on 20/20 there was a woman who found out she was HIV positive. She decided not to take any kind of medication for it. She did research and decided that being HIV positive does not necessarily mean you will end up with AIDS and she wrote a book about this and her influence is growing.

American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmfAR) co-founder Dr. Mathilde Krim fears Maggiore is doing incalculable harm in the fight against AIDS. "The problem here is that she's spreading the delusion to others without any doubt that she may be wrong," Krim says. "This is terrible. This is what makes me angry."

She met a guy and he chose to marry her and they have unprotected sex and he has never been tested. She ends up pregnant and is told that there is a 25% chance that her baby will be born HIV positive, but she doesn't care and decides to have the baby. However, she can't find a doctor or hospital that will touch her, so she hires a midwife and has the baby at home.

The child is 3 years old now and has never been tested. She also made the radical decision to breastfeed even though experts say HIV can be transmitted through breast milk. Neighbors called child protective services on her for child endangerment. They investigated, but didn't take her child. She's now 5 months pregnant again. She doesn't want her children and husband to be tested so that they don't have to deal with the stigma of being HIV positive.

Connie Chung asked her if she's not concerned that she might be wrong and be literally causing people who believe what she's written to lose their lives. She said, "All I'm asking is for people to think about these issues. I'm providing information that people can use to make informed choices about their life and their health."

Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

Here's the full story:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_010823_AIDS.html

[Jeff]

Me thinks from your comments that she is making choices, but they sure don't sound like informed ones.

The question that comes to my mind is:

Can someone who is HIV positive be solely a carrier? What a risk to her family if that is the case. They could contract HIV from her and then develop AIDS or other complications while she is raking in money from her book.

But....

Next question would be:

Could a mutated strain that one of the babies potentially could be carrying turn around and infect the mother through breastfeeding? As this version replicates, would she be immune to the effects of it?

Think I will go read the story now.

[Amy2]

Mick, I saw the segment on 20/20 too. For me there were two separate issues. One, the issue of her personal choices regarding pregnancy, nursing, testing of her family, and the issue of her speaking publicly about HIV/AIDS in general.

On the first issue, I think that she and her husband have a right to live as they choose. My understanding is that it is much more difficult for a man to contract HIV from a woman than the other way around, so perhaps this is what this guy is thinking. Or maybe he is thinking that he loves her, and if she goes, he'll go or whatever. As to the kids, well, it appears that they are a happy, loving family, so if the kid lives 20 years, or 80, or 2...well, there are no gaurantees in life anyway, right? I mean, what if you had CF? That is a genetic disease that could be passed to your kids. Should you not have kids if you have that risk? And who decides? As to her breast feeding, I think, though I'm not positive, that there isn't a guarantee that she will definitely pass on HIV through breast milk. It's a percentage, though a small one, and if she truly believes as she says she does that she is "safe" then who decides to tell her she can't nurse? Now, all that said, would I personally make those choices? I don't know.

The second issue is much harder for me, because she is truly endangering lives not directly connected to her own. Young people think they will live forever, and educating them about STD's, pregnancy, whatever is SO DIFFICULT. She is passing misinformation, giving them permission to act unsafely. Okay, perhaps one or two of them won't contract HIV, but how many hundreds will? I think that if she wants to live her own somewhat deluded, eyes closed existence then that's her perogative, but spreading her word to others? It seems really irresponsible to me.

Amy

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Amy


On the first issue, I think that she and her husband have a right to live as they choose. My understanding is that it is much more difficult for a man to contract HIV from a woman than the other way around, so perhaps this is what this guy is thinking. Or maybe he is thinking that he loves her, and if she goes, he'll go or whatever. As to the kids, well, it appears that they are a happy, loving family, so if the kid lives 20 years, or 80, or 2...well, there are no gaurantees in life anyway, right? I mean, what if you had CF? That is a genetic disease that could be passed to your kids. Should you not have kids if you have that risk? And who decides? As to her breast feeding, I think, though I'm not positive, that there isn't a guarantee that she will definitely pass on HIV through breast milk. It's a percentage, though a small one, and if she truly believes as she says she does that she is "safe" then who decides to tell her she can't nurse? Now, all that said, would I personally make those choices? I don't know.

Amy

1) I see a genetic predisposition and a communicable disease on two different levels.

2) I think that she doesn't have her child screened and given meds is kinda like not getting your child vaccinated for polio. The fact that she is then breastfeeding the baby is like taking the child that hasn't been vaccinated for polio to a country where the disease is rampant.

3) I agree that the likelihood of HIV being passed through breastmilk is slim, but I would argue that it could easily pass through blood to blood transmission. Nipples get cracked and a baby's oral region gets irritated from time-to-time. I don't remember the specifics, but an outbreak (5-10 years ago) in Russia found that babies' mothers who breastfed their infants were contracting HIV. I don't recall the percentages, but it was high. Come to find out, the affected mothers had babies who were getting blood transfusions or other procedures that subjected them to dirty needles (a common practice in their hospitals at that time). They in turn over time infected the mother. Mom then potentially infects Dad and the cycle continues.

[Lynda/WA]

Wow, this is really interesting! I have to confess that before I read the article, the Q&A session, and some of her website, I thought she was an irresponsible idiot. Now I have mixed feelings. There does seem to be an overabudance of info against her. BUT she did bring up some really interesting points. She seems to have done extensive research. Beyond extensive in fact. I sounded to me like they really don't even know what HIV positive or AIDS means. And that the government has limited research in such a way that they may actually be hindering finding the truth. I think I'm going to need to read up more on this.

I was bothered with her getting pregnant before reading this. Now I can see where she is coming from. Not sure I agree with her about HIV+ not meaning getting AIDS. But I can see how she feels.

BTW, I'm with Amy in comparing getting pregnant while HIV positive to getting pregnant knowing you have the same chance of genetically passing on a deadly disease.

[Mickey]

I had mixed feelings about it at first and I haven't read the q & a session or the link you did, Lynda, so I might need to revise my reply, but this is how I feel about it right now:

If she wants to refuse medical treatment, I have no problem with that.

If her husband wants to have unprotected sex with her and not be tested, again, I don't have a problem with that. If he has unprotected sex outside his marriage and doesn't inform that person of the risks they'd be taking, that's another story. If he goes and donates blood or does other things that would risk infecting others, that's another story. He needs to assume he is HIV positive in his daily decision-making process, as should she.

When kids come into the picture, I struggle with that. I'd feel the same way if she were knowingly taking the chance (and at 25%, that's a pretty high chance) of passing on a terminal, genetic disease/disorder. The fact that it's a contagious disease she could be passing on and not having her child tested for is a huge problem for me. If she doesn't want to have the child tested, she needs to assume her child is HIV positive, imo. And if my child were going to be exposed to a child that has a very good chance of being HIV positive, I would DEFINITELY want to know about it--I want to make the decision of whether or not I want to expose my child to that situation.

I'm all for the "to each his own" and "whatever floats your boat" and "it's your right" approach if there's no chance of it affecting other people's lives.

[Brichard]

I don't have an issue with the Adults. I think they are making bad decisions, but they are theirs to make and hey... we all make some pretty bad decisions.

But... I have a real problem with not taking any precautions in trying to prevent AIDS or provide treatment to a child that has no choice. If you want to have the baby (And I wouldn't based on the odds) then that is one thing. But it is completely irresponsible not to test the child. The child has a right to know and so do the other people that interact with the child... including health care workers.

I must confess I've not read the articles, but I do know that Full Blown Aids causes a great deal of suffering. My mother had the displeasure of watching somebody die from AIDS complications and it was extremely sad.

I just really feel like this lady is in big time denial... which is her business... but innocent children should not be wrapped up into this world IMO.