Hiv Testing in Newborns Essay

In 1989, a public hospital in Charleston, South Carolina began implementing a policy to randomly test women for drugs who came for prenatal care or delivery without their informed consent. If the women tested positive, they were arrested and not given the opportunity to seek drug treatment. In 1990, the policy was modified to allow the women to avoid being arrested if they entered into a drug treatment program, attended all their counseling appointments, and passed all their subsequent drug tests. Ten women tested positive for cocaine were arrested and responded by suing the hospital and the state. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the women because the tests were administered without their consent.

The National Institutes of Health funded research conducted in at least seven states was unethical and morally irresponsible. While some research advocates point to the fact foster care children received access to cutting edge antiretroviral drugs they would otherwise not receive because of their socioeconomic backgrounds, this cannot excuse the lack of advocacy and protection these children and adolescents were not provided. Research for the greater good cannot disregard ethics and violate already vulnerable children, such as those that find themselves without parents and in the foster care system. Therefore, the government funded clinical trials these foster care children were subjected to violated their rights. Advocates were not needed

The problems at hand that the SIMARRA Act bill is proposing to address, involves child welfare issues, women’s health concerns, and a lack of protection and healthcare needs for these women and their unborn children within the criminal justice system. According to the bill, it has been propositioned to enhance the welfare and public health for incarcerated pregnant women and mothers by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal prison system, by establishing a pilot program of critical-stage, developmental nurseries in Federal prisons for children born to inmates, with risk needs assessments, and risk and recidivism reduction (H.R.5130, 2016). The bill is intended to focus and alleviate the lack thereof adequate care, stress, and hazardous health practices that incarcerated mothers are experiencing with their infant babies, while also monitoring the health of these women. Both the mothers and infants are affected in these situations because the health of the mother has substantial

In 2014, after seeing a significant increase in babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), Tennessee began criminally charging pregnant women who use drugs (Sakuma, 2014). Supporters of the new legislation refer to it as a “velvet hammer” used to convince the pregnant drug users into going into treatment, or doing jail time. However, critics are concerned that this legislation will be just another barrier for a group of women who are already at risk, (Sakuma, 2014).

Since the 1980’s, debate about how society should deal with the problem of criminalizing pregnant women who abuse drugs or alcohol has become a nationwide issue. Many states argue that the primary concern is making sure women have healthy pregnancies and healthy children. However, policies that threaten women with criminal prosecution and the potential loss of parental rights drive women away from pregnancy-related care. Constitutionally, enacting states to create these laws is unsound and places women in situations of risk. Less than a week ago a bill was sent to the governor of Tennessee after being approved by both the house and the senate, that would allow for women to be prosecuted if she takes an illegal drugs while pregnant. Although this bill is made to seem like it is promoting healthy pregnancies, many groups are urging the governor to veto it.

While legislators believe that this policy will effectively sort out the “worst of the worst” (Gonzales & DuBois, 2014), this reporter doubts the efficiency and utility of the policy. If the aim is to force mothers into treatment, then perhaps sending them to jail is not the most effective method. Those defending the law have sent mixed messages around how it should be carried out, some describing the law as a “velvet hammer” while others employ it as a strong-arm tactic used to bust women who use narcotics (Beyerstein, 2014; Goldensohn & Levy, 2014). This, in addition to the previous legislation protecting mothers, makes it uncertain how a woman will be received when she reveals her substance use. Likewise, the chances of getting arrested

Many critics oppose the law, saying that it only encourages desperate acts of abandonment. They think that the relative ease with which some states allow for dropping off unwanted babies may offer another way out for young parents who might otherwise decide to keep an out-of-wedlock child. They also argue that this law undercuts decades of progress, both socially and legally, in the area of child identity rights. Which are the rights of any child to know who they are and where they came from. There is also concern about the child lacking a family health history and father's rights

Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S 67 is a case that began Oct 4, 2000 and was decided March 21, 2001. This case involved the constitutionality of drug testing pregnant women. The case began when “a state hospital’s performance of a diagnostic test to obtain evidence of a patient’s criminal conduct for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patient has not consented to the procedure” (FERGUSON v. CHARLESTON 2001). This lead to the reviewing of MUSC policies, which lead to discovery of POLICY M–7, which involves the “Management of Drug Abuse during Pregnancy.” This policy made it possible for law enforcement to become involved if a pregnant mother tested positive for cocaine. As a result, these drug testing lead to discussion

Testing irreversibly robs children of the right to choose whether to get tested as adults, when they can better understand the implications of test results (Davis ____). Thus it constitutes a violation of a “right in trust,” (a right such as the right to reproduce or vote that the child cannot use yet, but must be protected so that the right may be exercised later) and removes the child’s ability to choose, as his or her parents did, to be tested later on in life for reproductive, marriage, or medical reasons.

This issue has plagued state lawmakers since the late 1980’s and many remain at odds over how to approach the problem. Some states have attempted to criminalize prenatal drug use or treat it as grounds for terminating parental rights, while others have placed a priority on making drug treatment more readily available to pregnant women. The issue shows the difficulty policymakers face in attempting to balance the autonomy and bodily integrity of pregnant women with society’s interest in ensuring the birth of healthy children. For advocated of women’s reproductive rights, it raises the question of whether the state can ever be justified in regulating a pregnant woman’s behavior in the interest of protecting her fetus and whether such policies potentially undermine the legality of

In August 2009, the VA policy for HIV testing was revised from “risk-based” testing to routine HIV of all Veterans regardless of risk factors. Written informed consent was no longer needed, but verbal consent was still required. Initially, this change in policy was not well received. Already overburdened primary care physicians were complaining about workload issues and assumed that routine testing would result in minimal yield. There were many misconceptions that even educated health care providers believed. My job was to implement this new policy change and my vision was to increase (at least double) the number of Veterans with a documented HIV test. As the agency lead for HIV programs, this was a major challenge because the

HIV is the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS. A member of a group of viruses called retroviruses, HIV infects human cells and uses the energy and nutrients provided by those cells to grow and reproduce. AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is a disease in which the body's immune system breaks down and is unable to fight off certain infections, known as "opportunistic infections," and other illnesses that take advantage of a weakened immune system. When a person is infected with HIV, the virus enters the body and lives and multiplies primarily in the white blood cells. These are the immune cells that normally protect us from disease.

The first cases of AIDS that were reported in the United States began in the early 1980s. Today, more than 1.1 million people are living with HIV. In response to this HIV epidemic, at least 35 states have implemented HIV-specific criminal laws that penalize HIV-positive people for exposing others to the virus. These laws impose criminal penalties to HIV positive people that knowingly and potentially expose others to the virus. The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act, also known as the CARE Act, provides states with funds for AIDS treatment and care. In 1990, the CARE Act required every state to certify that its “criminal laws were adequate to prosecute any HIV-infected individual who knowingly exposed another person to HIV.” Criminal laws regarding potential HIV exposure vary largely from state to state. Some federal legislation addresses the criminal penalties for intentional exposure such as through blood donation. CDC and Department of Justice researches found that, “ by 2011, a total of 67 laws explicitly focused on persons living with HIV had been enacted in 33 states… In 24 states, laws require persons who are aware that they have HIV disclose their status to sexual partners and 14 states require disclosure to needle-sharing partners.” The criminal laws vary as to what behaviors are criminalized or result in additional penalties. The criminal statutes regarding intentional exposure to AIDS for Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama ,Georgia, and

HIV, or the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, is a virus which damages and kills cells of the immune system. It attacks the T-cells, key cells of the immune system, and uses them to make copies of itself. After being infected with the virus it progressively interferes and eventually destroys the immune system's ability to fight the anti-genes. HIV may develop into the syndrome AIDS, the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. HIV is an STD - a sexually transmitted disease - and therefore most commonly it is spread through sexual contact, and the virus mainly enters the body through the penis, mouth, lining of the vagina or vulva during sexual activity. HIV can also be spread through sharing syringes or needles with someone who is infected with the

Normally with in a year or two the serve stages of HIV set in. At this point in