Should she be allowed to breastfeed her baby?

I read an article of a HIV positive woman who gave birth to a baby! Fortunately, the husband and baby were found to be sound but the woman is insisting on the fact that she wants to breastfeed her baby to make him grow stronger.

The government won't allow it because they think that the baby might also be infected and also gave the woman a warning: if she should breastfeed the baby the state will take over the care of the little child.

I think the state made the right decision and that the woman is being irresponsible to ignore the possibility of the child getting infected. What do you think? please express your opinion!

Of course she shouldn't be allowed to do that. The baby can get infected through breastfeeding. If the woman is even considering this, then she isn't capable of raising the child in the first place.

I didn't read this thing.. but from wat i see. She has AIDS. And the answer is NO she shouldn't breastfeed her baby.

then she must be crazy or she dos'nt love the baby....

She should not be allowed to breastfeed the baby since she is HIV positive. I think there should be another options the baby can be feed without breastfeeding the baby.

Is she nuts? Why does she want to transmit her infection to her baby?

She should not be allowed to for the sake of the baby

Pls dont call her names. She probably isnt aware of the consequences.

goodguy:

Please don't call her names. She probably isnt aware of the consequences.

You think so?

The doctors probably explained her in detail what the consequences could be.

helll no

I believe she knows the consequences........ she be small pikin?

I think she shold not breastfeed but if she is really constrained by factors as finance what can she do?

fabian:

I believe she knows the consequences........ she be small pikin?

What if she's illiterate? Not everyone knows about how HIV is transmitted. So many people think it's just when u have a sexual intercourse with an infected person, then u'll get it.

Wee, now she knows huh the stste muct have told her by now the effect of her breast feeding her baby. she can ask someone to be her baby's wet-nurse, that way, the baby will still grow strong as she wants...............

goodguy:

What if she's illiterate? Not everyone knows about how HIV is transmitted. So many people think it's just when u have a sexual intercourse with an infected person, then u'll get it.

Wouldn't the doctor have explained it to her already? If she wants to go against the doctor's advice, she shouldn't have the baby in the first place

How are we so sure she was aware of her STD before she had the baby? Even if she was, how can we be so sure there was a doctor to advise her?

goodguy:

How are we so sure she was aware of her STD before she had the baby? Even if she was, how can we be so sure there was a doctor to advise her?

I guess there would have been. How would it have reached the media otherwise?

probably after the deed had been done.

should we have the power to force someone not to breast feed their child? That should be her husbands job right? Not the government? That opens the door for other things like government control on how you discipline your child, etc. While we may all say it is not right for her to breast feed the child since she has aids, this is a problem that her family should be handling . . how did it become such a huge problem?

I don't know where to start, really, but let's rake this point by point

allonym:

should we have the power to force someone not to breast feed their child? That should be her husbands job right?

Why on earth should that be the husband's job? A marriage is between [b]equal [/b]partners. The husband has no right whatsoever to force his wife into anything. It seems like you are saying that the man is the master in a marriage and that the wife should obey. I hope you're not seriously considering such ignorant, backward thoughts and that it was just slip of the tongue.

allonym:

Not the government?

Yes, the government. This problem not only touches the rights of the woman, but also the rights of the baby and of society at large.
Are you advocating that the woman should have the right to infect her child with HIV, just because she likes to breastfeed it? And by doing so basically destroying the child's future?
And who is going to take care of that baby, what about the medical costs and other costs. HIV patients are a huge drain on the economy; Who's going to pick up the bill. If you want society (government) to provide you with it's services like infrastructure, healthcare, police protection, education, then you should live by it's rules

allonym:

That opens the door for other things like government control on how you discipline your child, etc.

Of course the government has that right. The government is there to protect the rights of all it's citizens, including the child. That's why child abuse and sexual exploitation of children is illegal. You can only discipline the child within the boundaries of the law, e.g. whipping is child abuse and should land you in prison.

allonym:

While we may all say it is not right for her to breast feed the child since she has aids, this is a problem that her family should be handling . . how did it become such a huge problem?

She doesn't have AIDS yet, if I'm not mistaken, only HIV. This problem goes way beyond here family. It's first and foremost about individual rights clashing (the mother against the child) and about the impact on society. the family can only be a mediating factor in these matters.

Hmm, and I suppose if i said it is the duty of the husband to discipline the wife when she goes and spends all their money on $2M shoes, I'm being backward and barbaric - that is just plain not right.

Should the government keep people who have dominant genes for sickle cell anemia or some other inherited disease from marring? I mean, if government must protect children from potential infections from their parents, why not go as far as making it illegal for a couple where both have family history of some disease to marry? Hmm . . . not so sure about that are you?

So, just like you would leave the decision of two people who could produce a child that inherits some horrible disease or mental defect to them, so should the decision on whether or not to breast feed. This is a decision that the two must make. And if the mother is idiot enough to want to breast feed her child, then I feel it is the husbands RESPONSIBILITY to make sure such foolishness does not occur. I don't think there is anything backwards about what I just said. NO slip of tongues or fingers here.

Well, we certainly do disagree

allonym:

Hmm, and I suppose if i said it is the duty of the husband to discipline the wife when she goes and spends all their money on $2M shoes, I'm being backward and barbaric - that is just plain BU**SH**.

No, the husband has no right whatsoever to discipline his wife. She is not his property. He cannot initiate violence against her. Assuming that a man has more rights in a marriage than a woman - especially the right to use violence against her - is, indeed backward, maybe not barbaric, but certainly unacceptable..

allonym:

Should the government keep people who have dominant genes for sickle cell anemia or some other inherited disease from marring? I mean, if government must protect children from potential infections from their parents, why not go as far as making it illegal for a couple where both have family history of some disease to marry? Hmm . . . not so sure about that are you?

Maybe it would be advisable to restrict them from having children. I don't really have a clear cut opinion on this issue and I don't know all the ins and outs. Genes for sickle cell anemia are beneficial though if they are not expressed as they offer some protection against malaria;

allonym:

So, just like you would leave the decision of two people who could produce a child that inherits some horrible disease or mental defect to them, so should the decision on whether or not to breast feed. This is a decision that the two must make. And if the mother is idiot enough to want to breast feed her child, then I feel it is the husbands RESPONSIBILITY to make sure such foolishness does not occur. I don't think there is anything backwards about what I just said. NO slip of tongues or fingers here.

I do not agree at all here. The most important thing here is the interest of the child. they cannot make a decision that puts their child in mortal danger, just as they cannot give their child away for human sacrifice. The same thing here, only the scale is different.

I've never said the husband should beat his wife. I may just be dumb . . but if your husband or wife does something wrong - you would just say nothing? Correcting someone when they do something wrong is called disciplining them even if they are adults. I still don't see what is barbaric about a husband disciplining his wife or vice versa. If my gf wastes all our money on some ridiculous thing, you can be sure after i'm done it will NEVER happen again. All this can be done w/o any hitting of anyone.

I can understand that you may say there is a scale difference between allowing two people with genetic defects to have a child and directly putting a child in danger. In this case, the chances of a child contracting AIDS from an HIV infected mom is about the same as the chance of a child being born with genetic defects from two parents who have it. So, there is no scale difference in this case.

But then again, our argument has been the more general case of (say the mom has AIDS as opposed to just HIV) so i will address that. This approaches the gray area of government control. On one hand, the government has some responsibility to protect its people - on the other hand. . .the goverment is very big and influential compared to the average person. It is my worry that in giving government more power over decisions like this, we invite more problems in the long run. I personally feel that the person's family should be enough to resolve this problem. I don't think government aid is needed past the point of some other family member getting custody of the child through court to keep the mother from continuing in her quest to breastfeed the child. Further, if the mother believes the child should be breastfed, there are alternatives to her being the one doing it. So, I see this as a problem that could be (and should be) fixed in a small community unit that requires minimal intervention by government.

allonym:

I've never said the husband should beat his wife. I may just be dumb . . but if your husband or wife does something wrong - you would just say nothing? Correcting someone when they do something wrong is called disciplining them even if they are adults. I still don't see what is barbaric about a husband disciplining his wife or vice versa. If my girlfriend wastes all our money on some ridiculous thing, you can be sure after i'm done it will NEVER happen again. All this can be done w/o any hitting of anyone.

Sorry here, I thought you meant using physical force. I really don't know how you would do that though, can you be more specific? One thing I wonder : why would she use [i]your [/i]money. Can she not provide for herself?

allonym:

I can understand that you may say there is a scale difference between allowing two people with genetic defects to have a child and directly putting a child in danger. In this case, the chances of a child contracting AIDS from an HIV infected mom is about the same as the chance of a child being born with genetic defects from two parents who have it. So, there is no scale difference in this case.

Is it? Based on what are you concluding this?

allonym:

But then again, our argument has been the more general case of (say the mom has AIDS as opposed to just HIV)

I don't think that makes much difference as far as transmission of the virus in concerned

allonym:
so i will address that. This approaches the gray area of government control. On one hand, the government has some responsibility to protect its people - on the other hand. . .the goverment is very big and influential compared to the average person. It is my worry that in giving government more power over decisions like this, we invite more problems in the long run. I personally feel that the person's family should be enough to resolve this problem. I don't think government aid is needed past the point of some other family member getting custody of the child through court to keep the mother from continuing in her quest to breastfeed the child. Further, if the mother believes the child should be breastfed, there are alternatives to her being the one doing it. So, I see this as a problem that could be (and should be) fixed in a small community unit that requires minimal intervention by government.

The government - at least in a democracy - represents the collective interests of the population and is not the big bully around the corner;
The best solution would obviously be if the woman were to come to her senses herself. The government still has the duty to protect the community interests.

well, in your previous post, you mentioned a scale difference between my example and the actual situation.

Now, I think i mean our (my wife and I) not my money.

allonym:

well, in your previous post, you mentioned a scale difference between my example and the actual situation.

Now, I think i mean our (my wife and I) not my money.

I'm sorry, but I stil don't understand. What exactly would you do in such a case? Can you be specific?

I don't believe in physical or verbal abuse. I can verbally abuse an enemy but not a friend and certainly not my wife. Ok, back to the topic.

Wife - you have wasted our money on something which is ultimately worthless. We have worked for five years to save to buy a house and have a financial backing to start our family and you have wasted all our effort. I now can no longer trust you with money because you have shown yourself to be irresponsible. I am hurt by what you did and am very disappointed with your actions. If you care for me and our dreams, please promise not to do this again.

I don't think that is verbal abuse. If my wife loves me, that may be enough to convict her. If she cares nothing for me, I will soon discover it. No need for verbal or physical abuse to get your point across.

allonym:

Wife - you have wasted our money on something which is ultimately worthless. We have worked for five years to save to buy a house and have a financial backing to start our family and you have wasted all our effort. I now can no longer trust you with money because you have shown yourself to be irresponsible. I am hurt by what you did and am very disappointed with your actions. If you care for me and our dreams, please promise not to do this again.

I don't think that is verbal abuse. If my wife loves me, that may be enough to convict her. If she cares nothing for me, I will soon discover it. No need for verbal or physical abuse to get your point across.

That's very reasonable actually, you discuss the matter and try to reach to a common understanding.

Please do forgive me if this whole thing led me to other conclusions regarding how you would settle the matter as you were talking about

* government control on how you [b]discipline [/b]your child
* it is the duty of the husband to [b]discipline [/b]the wife when she goes and spends all their money

of course you also said (which escaped me, I must admit):
* Correcting someone when they do something wrong is called disciplining them even if they are adults

I did have a different take on what disciplining actually meant. The Oxford English Dictionary describes disciplining as (see: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/discipline?view=uk )
1. train in obedience or self-control by [i]punishment [/i]or [i]imposing [/i]rules
2. [i]punish [/i]or [i]rebuke [/i]formally for an offence
Both definitions imply the use of coercion, something not belonging in a relationship between equal partners. That's why I acted so strongly

they should take the baby away from her for the fact that she even thought of breastfeeding with HIV , of course the lady is crazy

what in the world is she thinking? im very sure she's told at the center she cant breast feed her baby
exept the want to infect the child wt her virus.

gnld products are expensive but reliable. i have products that can keep aid patients strong and healthy till 100 years call eddy 08076743434 for your products to day