It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should a doctor sterilize an unmarred teenage who is living successfully with HIV on the birth of he

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Should a doctor sterilize an unmarred teenage how is living successfully with HIV on the birth of her first child?

I ask because that is the case here in Thailand that happened to someone I know. She went in to hospital in Rayong and gave birth at which time the doctor cut her tubes without discussion of consent.

Now personally I know this girl and know she would have become pregnant again leaving the child to be cared for by a charitable institution as she has done with this first bourn.

However should the doctor be allowed to sterilize with out consent or even discussion?

edit on 3-5-2012 by MAC269 because: spelling




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
What I think about that particular thing, it's a tough call. I think that a less radical thing that ripping her tubes out might be nice since women, you know, really depend on estrogen for a lot of their health.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


Dear AnIntellectualRedneck

So would you not conceder this a human rights violation by the doctor?

Despite that fact that he may indeed be doing the right thing by society.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


Hmm...that is a really hard call. Unless I'm mistaken, there's a law in Canada against deliberately transmitting a sexual disease to one's partner. Imho, knowingly transmitting HIV to another person it's akin to murder.

But...still the Doctor doesn't have the right to take these matters into his own hands. So imho, the Doctor seriously breached medical ethics by sterilizing the teenager.

But on the other hand this teenager shouldn't be knowingly passing on HIV to newborn babies.

Rather than sterilizing the teenager, I almost think legal action should have been taken against her. Perhaps the girl would benefit from psychiatric treatment at the very least.

You have to be seriously messed up to knowingly pass on a fatal illness to a baby.
edit on 3-5-2012 by OwenandNoelle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


I consider it a human rights violation, but the overall picture is too close a call. Like I said, a less extreme thing might be a better option.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OwenandNoelle
 


Dear OwenandNoelle

Thanks for your post.

However I am afraid you have the wrong end of the stick here old chap.

It is now only a 1% chance of the mother passing on HIV to the new born in what hey call a downward transmition when they are successfully living with HIV.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


Dear AnIntellectualRedneck

Thanks for your input, certainly a close call but doctors dispite what they think should not act as god.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 

This is so sad. How caring of you to take an interest where there has been an obvious injustice. I am not a lawyer nor am I familiar with the laws and customs of your country. Where I live, there is a defined age of majority, so if she were living here, her parents would give the consent, unless she were a ward of the state. However, at the very least, out of human decency, no decision ought to be taken without discussion and consultation with the person involved, even if she's a minor. According to their medical ethics, doctors are not supposed to play god.

A few years ago in the West, people of lower intelligence were automatically sterilized until our society rebelled, so archaic laws have been known to exist. Your friend had a lot to deal with. How is she doing? It could not have been easy for her to give up her child, even if she thought it was best for the baby. Please hug her warmly for me and tell her I will keep her in my thoughts and prayers, and send good vibes her way.

I'm sorry I can't help you, but maybe if you call someone from a human rights organization, or your local university they can lead you in the right direction and explain to you what the laws are where you live, and maybe counsel you what is the best thing to do if you want to object to the treatment she has received. Don't give up looking for answers though. Your interest may contribute to bringing about important social change. Thank you for posting.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
The problem with this arguement is that they discover a cure between now and when they decide to concieve. How do you know there won't be a cure between now and then?

Also, it's possible the child will live a better live than another child born to a non-HIV mother.

Some children are born into a world of hell, and poverty. While others are born to abusive parents....
edit on 3-5-2012 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


Hi Mac269


I had no idea that the odds of transmitting the disease (with proper medication) were so small. I'm happy to be corrected, because I actually thought that if someone had HIV and became pregnant that it was almost a sure bet that the child would contract the disease as well. I really need to read more on the advances in HIV treatment.

So with that in mind, I actually side more with the teenager. (Even though I very strongly disagree with her choices, I guess they're her choices to make)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by aboutface
 


Dear aboutface

Ok a bit more explanation is needed here.

I am English but I live in Thailand and volunteer every day at an Orphanage for children living with HIV/AIDS. I have done this for now over 6 years.

This girl is 19 and not a friend but one of the children that was saved by this Catholic organization.

She returned to the center after she had chosen to leave 4 months pregnant not knowing who the father is or at least that is what she said.

Since the birth and sterilization she has left the center again bring yet a further burden on the center and its supporters.

Without this sterilization she would doubtless do the same thing again. My opinion of her is she is taking the piss, the orphanage saved her life and now she intends to do what she likes regardless of obligation.

However law what ever it may be here don’t excuse the doctors action in my opinion.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OwenandNoelle
 


Dear OwenandNoelle

I actually do not know if she is even pissed with what has happened but I felt it was a worthwhile discussion for here on ATS, too shown people around the world what happens over here with seemingly no recourse certainly for the poor.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Certainly not.

With modern medicines the risk of the baby contracting HIV is less than 2 percent.
Even with a single dose the risk can be astoundingly reduced, and formula milk can replace breast-milk to further reduce any risk of subsequent mother-to-child transmission.
www.avert.org...

As with all treatments (including herbal and natural supplements) it is not entirely risk-free, but the risk is minimal.

In SA we have a large HIV-positive population, and many things have been done recently to normalize life.
We've had successful organ transplants between HIV-positive patients (where previously being HIV-positive removed one automatically from donor or receiver lists).
There is also a medical process called "sperm-washing", where an HIV-positive man can safely impregnate his HIV-negative partner.
The number of HIV-positive children and children with AIDS has dropped remarkably.

I think that doctor made a moral decision about your friend that was based on stigma and discrimination, rather than current medical facts and options that even poor countries can use to allow HIV-positive mothers to give birth.

I'm not sure of the laws in Thailand, but sterilizing somebody without their consent is not justifiable, and it's a violation of human rights. It was also unnecessary. She should pursue her legal options.
edit on 4-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Dear halfoldman

There are No legal options open to someone in her position, ie, no money no honey. That is the way of the law and the poor here



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


my own personal opinion which I express deeply is that everybody, regardless your own personal thoughts, deserves a personal choice regarding what they do or don't do with their own body...

anything else is just pushing your own view of the world onto somebody else...which is inherently the wrong thing to do to anybody...

give them the choice to change their own lives accordingly because it's not your choice to make...

plain and simple



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by here4awhile
 


Dear here4awhile

Yes well the problem with that is she has produced 1 child and walked away. Leavening everybody else to care for that child.

Should the doctor have allowed her to do that again and again and most likely again and again.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
its the mixing of blood during childbirth that infects the baby with mother's HIV

there are cases of the baby being infected before birth, ie if mother continued having intercourse esp with HIV+, the intercourse could rupture tissues and expose the fetus to his or mother's HIV


arent many females in a few countries being sterilized for various reasons, including infectious diseases or mental health?

with severally mentally ill persons, who still have a loved one who impregnates them, its a tough decision as the mental health area might want to prevent repeat of the genetic mental condition in the child, as well as not have the child end up orphaned cuz what if the father leaves the mentally ill mother behind?

one thing i know is theres tons of children being brought into to world nowadays only to be thrown down the incinerator, tied in a garbage back and thrown into trash compactors, tossed out the car on high speed highways, raped, microwaved, sold into sex traficking by the thousands every single day.

did the parents really want the child or is the child just a result of lusty, irresponsible, *unprotected* sex?? whenever theres an unwanted pregnancy theres also the admission of not caring to protect oneself from diseases etc. some teens or adults dont even know who the father is nowadays.


and the population is exploding we're at 7 billion now and based on wastern carbon footprint, there isnt enough space for everyone at this rate though u always have religious "multiply and be merry" claiming the whole world population could survive queezed just into the state of Texas (common claim, but impossible).

anyways so yea theres obviously a violation of freedom to conceive, to take away ability to reproduce 'just because' of HIV i think is less warranted if the teen is mentally fit and learning, improving and preventing transmission via c-section at birth (without cesarian there is an extreme high chance of transmit hiv to baby from mother)... but i think someone more deserving than even a hiv teen to be tube-tied by doctor's decision would be like Octomom who is way past teen and downward spiral, more and more unnatural, superovulation to bring children into the world without means, no job, etc it is negligent intent to abuse multiple children. its irresponsible and too many irresponsible are bringing thousands of kids into this world to suffer so much than enjoy life.

and this mistake tends to be repeated from mother to daughter - irresponsible pregnancies.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I doubt HIV causes AIDS. Instead I have the impression that Peter Duesberg is one of the few in the science studies with the balls to speak the truth on the subject. HIV is just a retrovirus - more like an indication of poor health than an actual cause. AIDS = bull's excrement.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 


Dear Reitze

Do yourself a real big favor, go to your nearest AIDS hospice and ask this question.

It may well save your life.

If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS then what does?

Also ARV’s save the lives of AIDS suffers.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 

House of Numbers was a load of bull (en.wikipedia.org...).

www.houseofnumbers.org...

Considering a tragic and avoidable death that was hardly acknowledged, massive scientific withdrawals, and obvious blunders (like holding clearly positive test results that were claimed to be negative) it was probably the worst thing to happen to AIDS denialism is ages.


edit on 6-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join