No AZT for My Baby, Please
Why Parents With HIV Don't Treat Their Kids
Has the government stepped over the line when it uses armed
guards to force mothers to give their
babies AZT? Some moms think so and are fighting to
keep their kids AZT-free.
By Nicholas Regush ABCNEWS.com
(1999)
VARIOUS medical authorities want to force HIV-positive
mothers to give their babies AZT to reduce the chance of transmission.
Some who don't comply have their children snatched from them or face
threats that they will. You would think that HIV-positive women would
be free to discuss with their doctors and chose "options" for their
children. This appears not to be the case.
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?
Back