Should babies with HIV positive mothers be aborted?

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Essay on AIDs

Aaron C. Borbora 11Y1

Should babies with HIV positive mothers be aborted?

In a world with a growing HIV + population, especially in poorer countries, there are several issues relating to the disease that must be addressed. It is a fact, that in societies were attitudes towards sex is more liberal, like Brazil, India, Africa and even modern Britain, many women who are HIV+ will fall pregnant. There are numerous reasons for this, one being that the dieses has a long incubation period, many months (normaly6) before any symptoms show. This is due to the nature of the disease, where it infects the immune system, via thyroxin antibody cells. During the incubation period, before any symptoms show or a test can be made the woman may become pregnant, unaware that she has aids. The virus will them move into the baby by the placenta in the blood, effecting its own thyroxin cells.

HIV is present in the vaginal fluids, semen, blood and breast milk of infected people. HIV can be passed from one person to another when infected vaginal fluid, semen, blood or breast milk gets into another person's body. An infected woman can also pass the virus on to her baby in the womb or during birth. Most people who are infected with HIV became infected by having sexual intercourse without a condom with someone who has HIV. Some people have become infected by injecting drugs using needles and syringes that have been used by someone with HIV. Some people have been infected through blood transfusions with blood containing HIV. In some countries blood used for transfusions may still contain HIV. But in the UK, all donated blood has been tested for HIV since 1985. Presuming that she knew she was pregnant there would be a moral dilemma, not just for the mother but for the Doctors as well.

Once this has occurred, there is a big problem. Assuming, that before the birth the woman noticed symptoms, went to a Doctor and had an AIDS diagnosis made. In fact, it must be considered is whether the mother having the test while pregnant will be a satisfactory thing to do. If a pregnant woman has a positive test result there are now drugs that can reduce the risk of her passing HIV on to her baby in the womb or at birth. Delivery by elective Caesarean Section also reduces the risk of a baby becoming infected.It is usually best for babies to be breast-fed. However, if a mother has HIV, beast-feeding will increase the risk of her baby becoming infected. So in the UK, a mother with HIV should not breast-feed as bottle-feeding is a safe alternative.If a pregnant woman has a negative test result this can be very reassuring.

There are some disadvantages: Some pregnant women feel that they could not cope with finding out that they have HIV and that they may have put their baby at risk.

The actual likelihood of passing it one is considerable, one in six babies born to an infected mother will have the disease. The next step, would be with the mothers consent to try to organise a test for the baby, this often proves difficult. This is because the test is for HIV antibodies and all babies born to mothers with HIV are born with HIV antibodies. Babies who are not ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

There are some disadvantages: Some pregnant women feel that they could not cope with finding out that they have HIV and that they may have put their baby at risk.

The actual likelihood of passing it one is considerable, one in six babies born to an infected mother will have the disease. The next step, would be with the mothers consent to try to organise a test for the baby, this often proves difficult. This is because the test is for HIV antibodies and all babies born to mothers with HIV are born with HIV antibodies. Babies who are not infected lose their antibodies by the time they are about 18 months old. However most babies can be diagnosed as either infected or uninfected by the time they are 3 months old by using a different test, called a PCR test. The PCR test is more sensitive than the HIV test, and is not used in the standard HIV testing of adults. The PCR test looks for the presence of HIV itself, not antibodies. This test, however is not satisfactory for considering whether a baby should be aborted. It needs to be done post-natal and is consequently of little real use.

A decision has to be taken before the deadline for abortion is up. Most abortions are performed in the first trimester (the first three months of pregnancy). Fewer than 9 percent of abortions take place in the second trimester — (14 to24 weeks of pregnancy). After 24 weeks, abortions are rare and done for serious health reasons, such as that the mother may die in childbirth or, .

When the baby is born, it will all ready have full scale AIDS, with an anticipated life span of only a few months, and will be, most likely in pain and very unwell.

Given these facts, it must be considered is weather having an abortion would be the right thing to do. This poses problems for the doctor, who's duties are complex in these matters, as well as the mother, especially if she has religious believes against abortion. For this example we will use a Roman Catholic mother.

The Doctor is in a complex situation, under the Hippocratic oath he is bound to:

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment. I consider (fir the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel: and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I w ill not cut persons labouring under the stone, hut will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, 1 will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the .seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear. in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!

The areas of highlighted text, are the areas of problems for the Doctors. They have a duty of care both to the mother and to the baby. Some Doctors will not perform abortions themselves, on ethical grounds, and also religious grounds. Catholic Doctors will for example not perform an abortion, nor will they recommend one without a heavy conscience. This dilemma. There are two parts of the oath that counter abortion, firstly that they will not do it full stop 'I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion'. And secondly that 'I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel'. However, they also have a duty to care for both the health of the mother and of the baby. For this reason, the section about abortion has been left out from about 1954, when attitudes first loosened.

With regards to the baby, there is only a chance of 1 in 6 that it has the infection, less with treatment. This poses a problem. If the baby was aborted, it would not be known whether it was positive or not. If it were born positive, however the baby would be in discomfort, and would only live for a shot amount of time, perhaps only a few months. The duty of the doctor would be to prevent suffering, and in this case abortion would have been the answer. However, whether to recommend to abortion would be a hard decision, for it could kill a healthy baby, or save a sick one from a terrible short life? What ever way, it must surly be a hard decision. Christianity offers little comfort in this matter. Abortion is condemned out-right by the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’. This is not at all satisfactory in this situation, where it contradicts a principle of medicine that where possible a life must be saved. That would be one of the justifications for an abortion, as well as the fact that it is normal to assume the worst

The mother also has a moral dilemma. She may have a believe against abortion, but she must consider whether the risk of having an infected baby if worth taking, both for her own health and for the baby. Ultimately, she must find the answer in herself, but often, especially where religious grounds are involved, to speak to a minister.

In my opinion, I fell that an abortion should not take place, as the chance of actually the baby having the desise is low. However, where the health of the mother is at question, or the chances are higher, perhaps an abortion would be the best option. Christianity did not envisage situations such as this, and so can be disregarded, to be replaced by the ethical principles of modern medicine, such as making the lift the best and preserving it where possible. However, surly decisions should be left to the parties involved.