This is not a simple case, I do not know this woman nor do I truly know what happened in this case, only what I read in the news.  But I believe that this woman, this mother, did what she believed to be in the best interest of her child.  Maybe she is an unfit mother, I do not know, but without any evidence I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Every one of us has the right to make our own medical choices, no matter the evidence that our choices are wrong; and each of us who are blessed with being parents have the duty to make medical decisions for our child, in concert with any other guardians/parents that child may have.  This responsibility should not and must not be left up to doctors, social workers, or policy makers.  Only in cases where a patient is not mentally competent and there is no other next of kin, power of attorney for health matters, or living will should the courts be allowed to make those decisions for us.  In cases where there is no living will, no appointed decision maker, no clear idea of what the person wants and there is a disagreement between kin should the courts step in and even then only to decide with whom the power to make the decision resides, and not the decision itself.

Another truth that should be self-evident is that you can NOT be forced to undergo any medical procedure or treatment for the benefit of another (or others).  This has been ignored from time to time and still is.  It is always wrong.  There is little difference between forcing someone to give blood to save someone else, forcing a mother to have a c-section for the benefit of her baby, and forcing someone to donate an organ(one you can live without) so a stranger can live.

Ostensibly, this article says this woman was convicted of refusing to take antiretroviral therapy and refusing to undergo a c-section.  This is not the case.  She could not be and was not convicted for anything that happened prenatally.  I do not know what happened between her first pregnancy and her second pregnancy that caused her to change her mind and not take the antiretroviral therapy.  I do not know if she was aware that she would now be "allowed" to delivery vaginally if she took antiretroviral therapy during her entire pregnancy and her viral load was below a certain level (1,000 copies per millilitre) and she agreed that her baby would receive antiretroviral therapy during his first 72 hours.  I do not know why she went off the antiretroviral therapy even though it had reduced her vital load to zero.

I do not know, because thank God, I have never had to look into HIV drugs and therapies.  I have never had to balance the risks of passing HIV to my baby with the risks of taking the drugs (both to myself and the baby).  There really isn't, to the best of my knowledge, very much in the way of long term study on the effects of these drugs on the developing brain.  I do know that these drugs can have devastating side effects in adults.  However, she had the absolute right to make a (hopefully informed) decision.  She also had the right to decide not to have her son treated or tested.

You may not agree with her choices, I am sure no-one not even she would have chosen this outcome.  To be without her children (the article says they were taken but CAS will not confirm whether they have them so may have them back) and her son with HIV.  But I will defend until my last breath my choice to have informed consent OR refusal for both myself and my minor children.  Do not judge this woman at least until you have heard her side of the story.  You do not know what it is like to walk in her shoes and why she made the decision she did.  Judge not lest ye be judged.