|
The latest information I know of (this year) suggested that if the
mother's viral load is low- can't remember how low- it is safer to have a
vaginal birth but if the load is high an lscs is safer or if going for
vaginal birth to avoid rupturing membranes. If membranes are ruptured for
more than ?2hr the risk is the same no matter what the mode of birth. I
guess as far as feeding goes if you don't have access to clean water and
enough money to buy sufficient formula to adequately bottle feed the baby
it would be safer to breast feed- the baby might get HIV from breast milk
but sub-standard bottle feeds would kill more quickly and add nothing to
the baby's quality of life.
Monica
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry & Megan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
ozmidwifery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent:
Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:10 PM
Subject: [ozmidwifery] HIV and
birth
> Did anyone else watch SBS, Cutting Edge, last night?
It was on two women
who
> were HIV positive and pregnant.
Followed them through to post birth. It
was
> said that there is
less risk of transfer of the virus if baby is born by
> caesarean.
They also said it was safer if baby was bottle fed, which makes
>
sense if the mothers milk will pass on the virus. Can anyone enlighten
me
on
> why this is the case?
> Fortunately both babies
were born HIV negative and there mothers were
> continuing to be
drug free.
> Statistics at the end were that 25% of pregnant women
in Sth Africa are
HIV
> positive, and most cannot receive
medication due to governments continuing
> disbelief that the
disease exists.
>
> Megan
>
> --
> This
mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
> Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au>
to subscribe or unsubscribe.
>
--
This mailing list is
sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au>
to subscribe or unsubscribe.
. |
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved -
Click
Here
