Qrop Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 I'm thinking about trying for a baby with a Thai partner who is living with HIV. She has been on ART for about 3 years. Her viral load is undetectable and her CD4 count is in the normal range. From what I can see online, the risk of mother to child transmission depends on the hospital as well as the viral load. If you look at Thailand as a whole, it rates quite well (risk under 2%) but I'm not sure all hospitals are equal. We are near Chiang Mai. I'm not sure if it's worth considering a hospital somewhere else - I guess it'd be Bangkok - to keep the risk as low as possible. Maybe that's an unanswerable question, but if anyone has any input I'd be glad to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gk10002000 Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 I think it is unfair to expose the newborn to such a risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheryl Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 The hospital has nothing to do with it. They all follow the same very clear protocols -- or at least all government hospitals do. To be absolutely sure I would avoid private ones though most of these will as well. Any difference in transmission rates would be due not to the hospital but to patient factors e.g. compliance and also whether the woman was already on ART or just started shortly before delivery (sometimes the HIV is first discovered only during routine antenatal check). Rates of transmission of HIV from mother to child are so low in Thailand that the country has been accorded "elimination" status by WHO, i.e. it is no longer a significant public health problem and less than 5% of HIV positive woman pass the virus to their child. The likelihood of infection to the baby for a woman on ART with non-detectible viral load is almost nil. In addition, as a precaution the baby will be given 6 weeks of ARV treatment (single drug) immediately after delivery. What you need to do is just support/reinforce her in being scrupulous about complying with her ART throughout pregnancy and with the 6 week ARV for the baby afterwards. And help insure proper use of formula if she opts not to breastfeed (as she may be advised to do) i.e. correct mixing and sterilization to avoud the problems that sometimes come with formula feeding. Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheryl Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 I think it is unfair to expose the newborn to such a risk. Very uninformed post. There isn't "such a risk" for a woman with undetectable VL adhering to ART.Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why Me Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 OP, You're a good guy. I wish everything works out and you're blessed with a beautiful kid. All parents are proud of their children but you'll have a special reason. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhounan Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 Why risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveK Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 Sheryl is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gk10002000 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 On 10/18/2019 at 7:32 PM, Sheryl said: Very uninformed post. There isn't "such a risk" for a woman with undetectable VL adhering to ART. Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app There is no risk to the mother. The risk is to the newborn. And I am very well informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarFlungFalang Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, gk10002000 said: There is no risk to the mother. The risk is to the newborn. And I am very well informed. The risk is way lower than being on or near a road but people subject children to such risks all to often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheryl Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 16 minutes ago, gk10002000 said: There is no risk to the mother. The risk is to the newborn. And I am very well informed. Not if you think there is a risk to the newborn from a mother with non-detectable viral load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarFlungFalang Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 44 minutes ago, gk10002000 said: There is no risk to the mother. The risk is to the newborn. And I am very well informed. Giving birth is not risk free for the mother you should know this by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gk10002000 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 4 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said: Giving birth is not risk free for the mother you should know this by now. Stupid comment from you. I meant risk of HIV to the mother, obviously since she already is infected. Come on, stop being argumentative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gk10002000 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Sheryl said: Not if you think there is a risk to the newborn from a mother with non-detectable viral load. Of course there is a risk to the newborn. "non-detectable" is not absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gk10002000 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 4 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said: The risk is way lower than being on or near a road but people subject children to such risks all to often. Yes, but in this case it is done with much advance planning and selfish purpose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.