HSE seeks order to treat baby with anti-HIV drugs
The woman’s counsel argued yesterday the drugs have side effects which in some cases have led to deaths. The HSE says the antiretroviral (ARV) prophylaxis medication, if administered from birth for a four-week period, will reduce the risk of transmission. However, the woman, who the court heard had accessed information about HIV and the drugs on the internet, has expressed concern the drugs pose risks to the child.
Her counsel Fergal Kavanagh SC said these were “black-label, highly toxic” drugs which had side effects in some cases and had led to some deaths, and their risks had to be “properly weighed”. There was no conflict between the interests of the mother and child and, if it was determined it was in the child’s interests to be treated with the drugs, the mother would be happy with that, he said.
Felix McEnroy SC, for the HSE, said the case should be “reduced to common sense”. The HSE says its evidence is that ARV drugs reduce the risk of transmission of the HIV virus to a child to 0.01% and, while the drugs can have side effects, such risks are more than counter-balanced by the benefits of preventing HIV transmission.
The HSE wants the court order because it is concerned the woman was “in denial” of her diagnosis as HIV positive and the implications of that for her child. The woman had not adhered consistently to the medical advice concerning her treatment, including that she should have an elective Caesarean section (ECS) this weekend, it said.
A further order restraining the woman breast-feeding the child, also with a view to reducing the risk of transmission of HIV, was initially sought by the HSE, but the court was told the woman would give an undertaking not to breast-feed.
The woman, aged in her 20s, is 38 weeks’ pregnant, and her due date for delivery is December 2 at a Dublin maternity hospital. The court heard she has another child who was recently tested for HIV and found not to have the virus.
She is estranged from the father of that child, against whom she has made several allegations, and that man was represented in court yesterday by Micheal P O’Higgins SC.
Mr O’Higgins said his client had secured an order in Britain to have his child made a ward of court in an effort to have the child tested for HIV. Counsel also said the woman had left Britain for her home in Ireland when the wardship order was made so as “to frustrate” that order. A HIV test was later carried out on the child, counsel added.
The doctors involved in the woman’s care and treatment claim it is in the best interests of her unborn child to be delivered by ECS on Monday next rather than wait for either a natural birth or emergency CS. The international opinion is that elective CS carries less risks and leads to best outcomes for babies with HIV positive mothers, a doctor told the court. Monday was already a “compromise” date and, “on balance, this baby can’t wait,” she added.
The woman has said she will not agree to an ECS on Monday but will have an ECS on Friday next. She wants the court in the interim to determine whether it is in the best interests of her child to have the ARV drugs administered.
Mr Justice George Birmingham adjourned to today further hearing of the HSE’s application so the woman’s lawyers have an opportunity to call evidence related to the safety of the drugs.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
