Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

to think I should have been informed they were testing me for HIV?

103 replies

islandbaby · 17/11/2010 20:51

Because I´ve been living abroad for the first 7.5 months of my pregnancy, the local midwife wanted me to see a nurse and to have my bloods tested again a few weeks ago, as all my previous results are in spanish.

When I went to see a different midwife for a routine pregnancy check up a few days ago, she said she'd fetch my blood results and informed me that everything was looking good, iron levels ok etc and that I had tested negative for HIV.

I was, honestly, shocked. I had no idea they were testing me for HIV. I thought you had to give consent, and that you would be given the results with counselling if needed? What if I had been casually informed by the midwife that I had tested positive for HIV?

The midwife who gave me my results seemed concerned that I hadn't known I was being tested, and I wonder if it's something I should bring up with the nurse who took my blood?

opinions?

OP posts:

kitbit · 18/11/2010 23:04

Spanish pregnancy her too, and also tested for HIV. worst bit was that I picked up my results from the clinic and had to take them myself to the doc, so if I had been positive and not known this is how I would have found out. nice.
Spoke to the doc about that and got a spanish shrug. And they wonder why people mistrust the medical profressioin over there

kitbit · 18/11/2010 23:05

FFS bloody smartphone tiny far king keyboard sorry

SkyBluePearl · 18/11/2010 23:05

Both pregnancies i've been asked if i concent to a hiv blood test. I've always agreed as i wanted the midwives to know that I'm not. I would want them to know if i was hiv though so they can be extra careful.

kitbit · 18/11/2010 23:05

at auto correct giving 'far king'

pinkteddy · 18/11/2010 23:12

I find it quite bizarre that if you went to a sexual health clinic and asked for a hiv test you would be given pre test counselling whereas antenatal clinics think its fine to give you a test without even getting your consent! I think you should complain.

eviscerateyourmemory · 18/11/2010 23:12

In my area they use the prevalence of HIV in antenatal samples as a way of estimating the prevalence of HIV in the general community.

To me that seemed like a reason to have the HIV test done, though I was certain that it would be negative.

MillyMollyMardy · 18/11/2010 23:16

I've been tested in both my pregnancies and for the last one there was a list of blood tests in my maternity notes and a form to sign listing what would be tested and asking me to score any I did not consent to.
The testing is for the sake of the baby so that should the mother be HIV positive measures can be taken to help to minimse transmission.
I'm just wondering if the reason the OP wasn't aware the test was being done was because she entered the system late so bypassed the initial check box booking in bit? It is unreasoanble for the Op not to have verbal consent but she could have asked what tests were run and it's also all listed in the NHS pregnancy book which she should have received.

higgle · 19/11/2010 11:47

Some people have lifestyles or have had medical treatments that may have led to them having HIV, I had not. In fact I had not set foot in a hospital in my life for any treatment whatsoever after my own birth. My husband has had lots of minor operations for sinusitis, bad knee etc etc. - lots of blood involved there, and has not been asked to undergo these tests, so why should I have been when I knew my baby was safe?

The insult is tht there is an assumption that pregnant women are easy game for anything that is linked to gathering statistical information.

Incidentaly, I was not asked to have the tests first time around when DS1 was born in a private hospital. When DS2was born at home I declined and was treated no differently by the ocmmunity midwives ( who had known me socially for many years in any event)

Serendippy · 19/11/2010 11:57

higgle if your husband has had operations involving blood and you have then ever had unprotected sex, there is still a risk.

OP YANBU to think you should have been informed that you were being tested for HIV but I do think that if the results had been positive, you would have been dealt with in a very different way.

I am surprised that anyone would choose not to be tested, the results are not for them, they are for the health of the baby.

higgle · 19/11/2010 15:32

Serendippy - what nonsense - DH did not have blood, just bled down his nose after surgery. I just think that those of us at low or zero risk should not have to put up with this nonsense to contribute to stztistics for those who obviously are. Fairly clearly accepted no risk with me as midwives and other clinicians quite happy to get plastered in my blood!

redflag · 19/11/2010 15:40

They always test you for HIV and other sti's and diseases. Its all in your notes, i think you are being over sensitive, they HAVE to know if you have HIV to protect themselves the baby and you.

BagofHolly · 19/11/2010 22:57

I have my notes here in front of me and have never been tested for any sti's and would be furious if I had, without my consent.

gasman · 20/11/2010 01:20

Did you not have syphillis serology?

Sometimes a 4 letter acronym which is currently escaping me is used?

All of these tests are standard booking blood for pregnancy. All are done because knowing about them can improve pregnancy outcomes.

It is poor practice to test someone for things that they don't know however HIV has remained something of a lone condition where people still undergo full pre test counselling and there is the expectation of a much fuller consent procedure.

There is a feeling that this is perhaps unnecessary in an age where HIV has a much better clinical outcome and no longer represents the death sentence it did in the early 80s. In some ways by continuing to give 'the test' such status we as a society are only perpetuating the stigma that hangs around the illness.

so yes - you should have know what you were being tested for -but I would not have expected the person taking consent to say much more than "we are taking your booking bloods for conditions that can affect your pregnancy - one of the things we test for is HIV". If you wanted more you could ask. Many patients don't want much information (as someone who peddles information to patients regularly my perception is that the vast majority of patients don't want to know all that I want to tell them. However there are a number - perhaps all MNers who want to know a whole lot more!)

In response to a previous poster I would consent a patient with vaginal symptoms (if I still saw and assessed such patients) for 'swabs for infection'. I would not necessarily specify which infections unless they asked me.

cumfy · 20/11/2010 07:17

tiny far king keyboard :o:o

Perhaps your far king smartphone has a thesaurus of euphemisms. Please keep us informed.

misdee · 20/11/2010 08:17

i think its def in the standard tests now.

i have been tested in the last 2 pregnancies, subconscienely no idea why i agreed to the 2nd one, but there is always that blood risk with dh so i guess thats why. [shrugs]

dh has been tested repeatadly as well when he was ill. the first time they did it the nurse was really apolgetic. he said 'do it, it'll need to be done for transplant assessment anyway.'

Quattrocento · 20/11/2010 08:25

This is something that I find very dubious about NHS healthcare, and it's something you don't (or I haven't) encountered in private healthcare. The NHS seem to think it is fine not to tell you what they are doing.

Absolutely the same thing happened to me, 10/12 years ago and I was immediately concerned because at that time having an HIV test (in the minds of life insurance companies) made you a greater insurance risk and your life insurance premiums went up if you had taken an HIV test.

So had I been asked by the NHS if they could test me for HIV I would have said no. Because they didn't tell me, they took away my right to consent. Terrible way to run a medical healthcare system IMO

frakkinup · 20/11/2010 11:09

Those of you who refuse tests for HIV have you ever worked in a setting where you have no idea whether patients might be HIV+ or not? It's fucking scary when there are sharps or lots of blood involved. I got a needlestick injury a few years ago and was given prophylactic treatment as a standard precaution even though they were low risk. Thankfully the patient and I both tested negative for bloodborne diseases then and subsequently but IMO anyone seeking medical treatment where there is a risk of transmission should be tested.

Please, even if you think you're minimal risk, there are now no adverse effects to having the test done.

Would you be happy to be tested for hepatitis? Why is HIV different?

narkypuffin · 20/11/2010 13:00

It's different because some idiots people still view HIV as 'dirty' in some way - a consequence of a 'high risk' lifestyle. Why else would people be "offended" to be offered a test?

A family friend died of liver cancer. A consequence of being given hep infected blood years ago- actually during the birth of her son. She never knew she was hep positive until the cancer was found.

Do all of you trust every person your DP/DH has ever slept with?

sleepingsowell · 20/11/2010 13:32

The tests you are going to have done are in your notes/on the sheet you hand in. Don't see how you could not have known unless you turned up for a blood test without having bothered even looking what you were going to be tested for.
I wouldn't ever have my blood tested without asking/knowing what was being tested for; we are adults, there is some onus on us not just the health people - imho.

gallicgirl · 20/11/2010 13:55

I was asked consent for the HIV test but it was something along the lines of "we'll test for HIV, if that's ok?" so barely informed consent. I think I have always had to ask what they want to test for and got some quite vague replies and never any explanation of why the test is necessary unless I've asked.
I suspect midwives are so pressed for time, they almost assume patients will go along with whatever the norm is.

expatinscotland · 20/11/2010 14:00

I don't mind what they test me for. Can't afford life insurance so have never had it.

I'm sure they tested me for all sorts. If I'd had HIV I'd want to know.

Or HepC.

I was tested for these privately when I had an ERPC. But in that case they asked for consent. I told them to go for it.

lanismum · 20/11/2010 15:17

I have had 4 hiv tests in under 6 years (for pregnancy) I was never asked for consent? The first one I was glad I had as I have worked as a phlebotomist in a hiv clinic in the past, and even though I was pretty certain I was ok, I would want to know if pregnant, the next 3 I did mention I wasnt at risk and that I didnt really need testing (I was thinking of the cost!) but was just told everybody has to have them, I didnt bother debating it with the midwife, if they are happy to pay and are taking blood for other things anyway, why not?

Deux · 20/11/2010 15:38

Agree with Edam about the importance of informed consent.

FWIW I decline the HIV part as I had it as part of my work up at the fertility clinic.

I never checked but I just had a feeling that it would be done anyway.

Deux · 20/11/2010 15:39

Sorry, declined.

megapixels · 20/11/2010 15:47

When did it become standard in the UK? I had my baby in the UK and came here when I was 5 months pregnant in 2006 but there was no HIV test. There were bloods taken for other tests though.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Swipe left for the next trending thread