n the other various approaches to research.Likewise, the HIV test itself is basically a simple and for the most part accurate means of determining whether a pregnant mother is HIV- positive. The tests were administered to mothers that had already tested positive in order to further ensure the accuracy of the study. In this way, it appears that much time and effort was put forth in order to find conclusive reasoning either proving or disproving the theory that prenatal HIV testing should be mandatory.On the other hand, in order to develop policies that would make prenatal screening mandatory there are two sides to consider; pregnant women who are HIV- positive and pregnant women who do not carry the virus. In this way, the study lacks in including women who must be tested for seemingly no reason. It fails to mention if any undue hardships must be placed upon women who are HIV- negative. 2. Because HIV can be a treatable disease the findings from this study are as most would expect them to be. Early detection leads to an increased likelihood of preventing the viral transmission of the disease. The findings themselves are quite impressive also. If at anytime the spread of a disease can be decreased by nearly 50 % as long as it is detected and treated in a timely fashion, then it is easy to assume that those measures would be widely accepted. However, for some it is an issue of privacy or civil rights. For others they may avoid prenatal care because they fear HIV testing or resent the mandatory policy. These women would lose the opportunity to receive benefit from antiretroviral therapy if they were infected, and, more important, they would lose the benefit of prenatal care regardless of whether they were infected with HIV. Mandatory testing might deter the women who are the most likely to be infected with HIV from receiving prenatal care. Furthermore, because the odds of the baby actually being born with AIDS are sometimes low, ...
