By Nicholas Regush
ABCNEWS.com
I confess. I tried but couldn’t shut down my computer when I took some time off from writing this column. The extra leisure allowance that flooded into my life allowed me to do a little snooping into Internet health sites, like drkoop.com, for example.
I had been planning to write about a growing debate over whether newborns of HIV-positive women should be required to take the drug AZT.
What did drkoop.com have to say about this smoking controversy in its section on HIV-positive pregnant women and the chances of passing the illness on to their babies? Nothing, actually. There was also nothing about the growing number of HIV-positive women who’ve decided they don’t want their kids to take AZT.
And therefore there was no mention that various medical authorities throughout this country are trying to force some of these women to give their babies the drug. Some who don’t comply have their children snatched from them or face threats that they will. The drkoop.com site makes it seem as though HIV-positive women can all freely discuss with their doctors “options” for protecting their children against AIDS.
Well, some people don’t see it that way.
Parents’ Rights vs. Medical Dogma
Last week I met with Deane Collie, the director of the Virginia-based International Coalition for Medical Justice, a group that fights for the right to make medical decisions without government interference. They’re helping women go to court to prevent doctors from giving AZT to their children.
The coalition has already heard from about 60 women who don’t believe HIV is the cause of AIDS, and/or that AZT is going to help their youngsters. In fact, some of the women believe AZT will harm their children. Nine legal cases are under way, and Collie believes this is just the tip of the iceberg. She expects an explosion of requests in the near future as state governments act to force families to comply with AIDS treatment dogma.
In Bangor, Maine, Valerie Emerson, an HIV-positive single mother, gave birth to a daughter and son who also turned up positive. Her daughter Tia was given AZT and died around age 4. Emerson believes the drug hastened Tia’s death. For this reason, she stopped the medication for her son, Nikolas. Tipped off by Nikolas’ doctor, the Maine Department of Human Services accused Emerson of neglect and sought custody of her son.
Emerson went to court and won her case, and so far, Nikolas is doing fine without the medication.
Mothers on the Run
In Eugene, Ore., however, Kathleen and David Tyson didn’t fare so well in the judicial system. Kathleen (who is HIV-positive) refused to give AZT to her son, Felix (who is HIV-negative), but was forced to do so for 12 weeks by the state. In this case, armed guards came to the maternity ward threatening to seize Felix if the Tysons didn’t agree to allow AZT treatment. Kathleen had also wanted to breast-feed Felix, but the court ruled against her. (Many scientists believe HIV can be transmitted via breast milk.)
Coalition for Medical Justice Director Collie says that the group is in touch with HIV-positive women who are on the run from the “law,” staying one step ahead of authorities wanting to seize their children.
So is the coalition a kooky organization? Are the Emersons, Tysons and other families refusing AZT treatment irresponsible? Or are the health authorities the ones wearing the dunce caps?
Tune in next week for a look at the intriguing science underlying this issue.
 |
Nicholas Regush produces medical features for ABCNEWS. In his weekly column, published Wednesdays, he looks at medical trouble spots, heralds innovative achievements and analyzes health trends that may greatly influence our lives. His latest book is The Breaking Point: Understanding Your Potential for
Violence. |
Readers React
Opinions on Second Opinion
A thousand thanks for your piece on the force-feeding of AIDS drugs to kids of HIV-positive moms. I managed to avoid the scrutiny of medical authorities two years ago when I gave birth to a beautiful, healthy boy (I’ve been positive at least 10 years), but I still fear losing my son for the choices I’ve made. I run a nonprofit education network that has turned into a sort of “underground railroad” for other HIV-positive mothers who want to have drug-free pregnancies and children. Their stories remind me of how fortunate I have been but also cause me to wonder, considering the current atmosphere, if I will have to go into hiding for my next pregnancy. Thank you for making a neatly hidden horror known to the public. C. Everett Koop, like most AIDS proponents, has his head firmly entrenched in the sand when it comes to this issue.
— Christine
Thank you for your coverage of mothers who do not want to give their babies the dangerous, unproven, toxic and failed chemotherapy drug, AZT. You might consider taking things a step further and interviewing Dr. Mullis and Dr. Resnik regarding the lack of evidence that HIV even exists, and the question, why, after 20 years of research and billions of dollars, is there no nonexperimental treatment, much less cure, for what has been called AIDS.
— Todd
Way to go on the AZT article. So many people thinks AIDS is a GAY-ONLY issue; hopefully, this article will open some minds as to the other VICTIMS. I don’t buy the HIV=AIDS=DEATH hypothesis, either. I’ve been positive for 12 years and I have never taken any of the drugs. I’m perfectly healthy…
— Charlie
I was disappointed to see your teaser at the end of “No AZT for My Baby, Please.” When I read it, I realized that I didn’t learn much of anything from the article. You gave two examples of situations where the question of parents’ rights is addressed, but your only medical expert was a Web site, and its silence added nothing. Next time you submit your column, please submit the whole thing. News is not a soap opera; it has no room for suspense.
— Tony
I have been looking forward to your articles critical of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis and was delighted to see the first one posted today.
I appreciate your courageous stance in attacking a medical money machine that has literally destroyed the careers or reputations of some that have opposed it. Your articles may provoke heated responses now, but I believe time will prove you right.
|
|
