I found this article of interest, because the JW's were mentioned by the Senator from Ireland. I wonder how much of an impact this will have on the blood policy in Ireland, if any at all? The article does not say the woman was a JW or what faith she practiced.
Any medical professional's see any reason for a JW to deny the use of retroviral drugs? I can see a Christian Scientistrefusing the drugs, but I thought they refused all medical treatments and tests? Are there different sects of Christian Scientists, ones who accept some treatment? Antenatal clinic's provide midwives and some testing along with other forms of medical help.
No matter what religion she is I am appalled she would let her infant risk being exposed to The AIDS virus. Possibly letting her baby suffer from such a devastating disease.
I do wonder what problems may be in store for the WTS in Ireland because of this ruling.
Order on HIV mother to affect religious groups
By Padraig O'Morain
Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and others, Senator Mary Henry said last night.
The court heard the woman had refused antenatal treatment to prevent HIV transmission and that she had also said she would not give birth at the Coombe Women's Hospital in Dublin.
Mr Justice Finnegan ordered the woman to accept treatment to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV and directed that, on birth, the baby be made a ward of court. This means the court would direct the baby's medical treatment.
Senator Henry, who is a medical practitioner, said the decision was a landmark one and also problematic. It could have a broader effect on Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses and others who objected to certain conventional treatments. "In general we have relied on doctors being able to persuade a pregnant woman to do what is best for her child. So far as I know we have never failed."
The court heard the woman had tested positive for HIV last March when she was attending an antenatal clinic. She was shocked and angry at the test result but had agreed to attend a support clinic for people suffering with HIV. She had attended that clinic a number of times but declined to have HIV treatment with retroviral drugs. One of the purposes of such drugs was to reduce the risk of transmission of the virus to the child.
The benefits of such treatment were discussed with her on four occasions between March and June 26th but she had emphatically stated she did not wish to receive such treatment. She had also said that God would look after both herself and her baby.
A medical social worker at the Coombe had discussed the situation at length with the woman on June 26th but the woman again indicated she was not willing to commence treatment antenatally. She had said God would heal her and further indicated that if the baby was sick after delivery the doctors could take the baby away, according to an affidavit from Ms Rachael Devlin, childcare manager with the South Western Area Health Board.
The woman had initially said she would not give birth in the Coombe because she did not trust the doctors and had concerns about the hospital. The judge said his grandchild was born in the Coombe recently and that he had no complaints. He told the woman he would have to make much more serious orders affecting her personal bodily integrity if she refused to give birth in a hospital. She then agreed to do so.
The woman, who has five other children, is due to give birth next week.
The Irish Times
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2002/0720/2914615575HM1BABY.html
Retroviral drugs;
Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NRTIs)
Non-nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NNRTIs)
Protease Inhibitors