First of all sorry this is late. I was sick on Wednesday, so I am tentative to try and post something about the articles because I am unaware where the discussion went. Nevertheless, I thought that some very interesting points were exposed in Monday's discussions. Having been interested in societal standards and beliefs, I am curious to explore the social understanding of HIV. We talked briefly on how we have come to understand the AIDS epidemic. Africa was thrown into discussion, so was Pedro from the Real World. Each of these cases have had their own dramatic audience. So I kind of a rambling statement, I am trying to say that AIDS is very well known and found throughout the world. This of course is also the irony associated with AIDS. The first real knowledge about AIDS was established now about twenty-five years ago in the early eighties. At this time of American medical advancement, we thought that the cure would be found in five to ten years, but ten to fifteen years ago we were not close to having an answer. Opptimism still was present, so the world figured on only another ten years before a cure was found. Well guess what? That time is now and there is still no answer, only anecdotal drugs that are extremely caustic on the system are available. This brings me to my question.
A couple of years ago I was watching a Bill Maher show and one of his guests was Alec Baldwin. Baldwin said something that was disheartingly true, "If you could contract AIDS by gripping a golf club, we would have a cure tomorrow." So when considering a disease that for all intents and purposes is spread by a select number, who don't practice safe sex and who participate in intraveneous drug use, what should the course of action be? How can the American public be goaded into supporting a cause that most people are unfamiliar with the reality of? Cancer programs lack funding and yet everyone knows someone, who has been affected by cancer. AIDS is not so visible. What needs to happen for the world to take AIDS seriously and make it a front page issue? I know this is an open ended question, but just answer it with what steps you think should taken next to aid the AIDS epidemic.
16 comments:
The nobly ambitious goal of ending the worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic will require tactful and efficient efforts. I believe that the most critical step to be taken is to change the methods that are currently used in efforts to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. The United States is a moderately conservative country and as a result much taboo surrounds sexuality in our culture. We need to change this mindset, and acknowledge the fact that people have had and will continue to have promiscuous sexual relations. Instead of strictly promoting abstinence and sweeping talk of safe sex methods under the rug, federal health agencies need to focus on providing cheap contraceptives and free information about HIV/AIDS.
Worldwide, notably in Sub-Saharan Africa, where nearly 70% of all of HIV/AIDS cases are, the same technique needs to be used to eliminate some of the taboo surrounding sexuality. Sex is an unspeakable topic in many Sub-Saharan African countries. There are deeply rooted cultural conventions related to male dominance, large families, and discussing infidelity that inhibit efforts to halt the spread. At a basic cultural and societal level, people need to be educated about how HIV/AIDS is transmitted and how to prevent its spread. Also, further efforts need to be made empower women and reduce societal rejection of AIDS victims.
Simply handing out condoms and tacking up posters is not enough, we need to change the way that the entire world thinks about sex.
We need to put a face to the AIDS epidemic. When someone says “cancer” we see movie stars, news anchors, friends and family; it’s very apparent and extremely encompassing. Cynical, yes, but I feel that at least once in each of our lifetimes we will all have to spend our time against the ropes with this disease. AIDS however, doesn’t lend itself to clouding our consciousnesses since America represents such a middle to upper-class social bloc. I don’t know anyone with this virus, in fact, to my knowledge I have never been in the same room with someone diagnosed with AIDS; I am removed from this epidemic within my social, relational, and academic circles, and I believe that most of America lives a similar existence. We care about cancer because our moms need mastectomies, our grandpas undergo its infection of the prostate, and our friends are diagnosed with leukemia. But although most citizens of America are not able to wrap their minds around the US AIDS epidemic, maybe the ridiculous percentage of African victims will serve to better put a face to the destruction that is this virus.
Also, although as of yet no cure has been uncovered, it is so important that governments are able to provide affordable medical assistance for those with HIV/AIDS. We may not have found the answer, and it may not come for decades, or even centuries, but quality of life can be improved for all the millions of AIDS victims around the world if only the treatments were made more accessible everywhere.
I agree with Jon in that the greatest irony about HIV/AIDS is the seemingly ubiquitous awareness and presence. But despite its prevalent nature, most people still find it absurdly easy to detach themselves from this issue. I think this is largely due to the social stigma of HIV/AIDS as a "dirty" illness, an illness associated with contamination, the poor, the uneducated, the developing world -- in other words, not "us". Our moral relationship with HIV/AIDS is defined in terms of "self" and "other". And HIV/AIDS must only fall into the realm of "other".
The first step in addressing HIV/AIDS as a serious issue again will be shaking this mentality. We need to bring this issue closer to home. This does not necessarily mean a fervent push for a cure, but it does mean that we need to do the best we can to care for those that are currently suffering from HIV/AIDS (and we, in our societal conscience, know that what we are doing now is not enough). While this is and will remain a bold venture, I believe it is possible, and ultimately, absolutely necessary.
From what I have read of our posts, all of us seem to agree that, for several reasons, AIDS has remained a silent disease, drawing a meager outcry in comparison to illnesses such as cancer. This same cry of distress has not begun because AIDS does not affect most Americans – it exists within different cultures, on different continents. This virus is foreign both for this reason and because it has generally spread through different classes and social groups than our own. Each of us has said that, somehow, this silent must be broken; AIDS awareness must spread vaster than the disease itself and people must be taught to care. I tend to agree with what everyone else has written but I have one elaboration, a focus the AIDS awareness effort could utilize: children.
The UN currently estimates that there are 14 million AIDS orphans and that by 2010 there will be 25 million. This is certainly a disconcerting statistic but one that could provide a brilliantly effective tear-jerking reaction from those uncaring millions we have been discussing. How do you make a typical American care about someone with AIDS – someone who may be seen as a drug user or promiscuous? You might not be able to do that. You can, however, make that same American care about the children of AIDS sufferers. Children are pure, innocent and free from blame. We have discussed the adverse affects of the AIDS stigma but, in this case, the worse the stigma the better the results. If we are right in our speculations that people see AIDS as a dirty illness then these same people will jump at the idea of saving children from such a fate. These children have effectively become martyrs, dieing for a cause that has been unjustly pressed upon them. How could a person not care enough to stop that?
Though the two issues are far from identical, I’d like to open with a comparison between HIV/AIDS and another, somewhat similar, issue: HPV—also known as the Human Papillomavirus. Though HPV is a sexually transmitted illness, there is no stigma attached to the infection or those infected; there is no association of guilt or uncleanliness with its carriers, and women who choose to get the vaccine are applauded. Moreover, there is (for the most part) no fear of HPV in American society even though approximately 20 million people have the virus. Through heavy television advertisements and aggressive, preventative care by health professionals, the American community has been effectively educated about HPV and the fear associated with the illness has been minimized.
In some ways, I feel as though the United States still has not been effectively educated regarding the facts, of HIV/AIDS as it was regarding HPV. Though a significant number of American families have access to health care and watch TV regularly, many are still unsure of exactly what the AIDS pandemic entails. As with HPV, I believe that radical education regarding HIV/AIDS—how it is transmitted, who it affects, its significance and importance in the world, etc.—would be an effective way of mobilizing the American public. In fact, if respected, knowledgeable adults (such as physicians and other health care providers) dispelled the unfounded myths and rumors that surround HIV/AIDS, I think it would have a powerful effect on American youth specifically. The generation of rising teenagers in our society is a captive audience still malleable and willing to learn; if we can show them the importance of HIV/AIDS, they are a group that will eventually move toward activism.
John's right. AIDS has become a disease that is "known" in the sense that it has recognition power. However, I believe that very few people actually understand what the disease means, what it represents, and how it can be passed on. There is a strong fear associated with the unknown. I believe that the only way to make AIDS a front page issue is to educate the population about the disease. By taking away the fear factor, we would be better able to tackle the disease from its facts rather than fighting with its fallacies and rumors. Our time would be much better spent fighting for a cure. What the population doesn't realize, is that AIDS isn't a disease that only happens to "them" and will never happen to me. AIDS can happen to anyone if they aren't informed. Also, I agree with Erin. To get the information out there, the US is going to have to stop being so hush-hush about anything having to do with sex. Its a reality of life and the longer we try to avoid the issue and the longer it remains taboo, the longer it is going to take to find a cure. The unfortunate reality seems to be that since AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease, it has a terrible connotation and much like lung cancer or another disease that could be prevented, society seems to judge those who have it as having asked for it through their improper actions.
Therefore, I think that if we are going to find a cure, our society is going to have to rid itself of the taboo nature of sex, make a huge effort to educate the population about AIDS itself as a disease, and create an understanding of the reality of AIDS. It isn't just a problem in Africa and the Gay community. It is an issue that affects all of us and the sooner we can accept that reality, the sooner we will focus more time and energy into finding a cure.
The key to increasing support for AIDS research is providing education to the general public. My classmates have stated many of the important parts of that education. Putting a face to the disease and making it clear not only how much of the world, but also who in the world is affected, are vital elements. The illustration of the damage AIDS does to families and children can only help the cause as well. This education will give people the opportunity to get involved, and will also give them reason to do so.
But beyond this, I believe the other important thing is to be tolerant of the differences of opinion surrounding AIDS. Sure, we want everyone in the world to care about the disease and its victims and to be actively involved in seeking a cure. But this scenario may not be reasonable at this point in time. Forcing people to care about the affects of the virus will be of little help. Manufactured concern for others is not deep enough to lead to results, whereas genuine concern where there is passion involved, will contribute to a greater chance of improvement. And, it is a possibility that in-your-face AIDS statistics and calls to action will bring divisiveness between “us” and “them” in the reverse from the way the concept is considered now.
So it is the job of those who actively petition for AIDS awareness and research to find the delicate balance between these two tasks. The world must be educated and won over, sometimes one person at a time. But this conversion must happen in a non-alienating way. People should be allowed to see the impact and join the cause if and when they feel emotionally attached. This balance will lead to the best type of increase in AIDS support, even though it may not be the fastest.
i think i'm going to have to agree with sarah on this one. the reason that aids remains such a scary and under-discussed disease is because it has no face - it just doesn't happen to anyone we know. and until people, especially the american people, realize that it is a disease that is still very prevalent in this society and not just in third world countries (which i think is a huge stigma of aids), nothing is really going to be done to find a cure for aids. but what would this face of aids be? although this is not a disease that is exclusive to the gay community and to intravenous drug users, that is obviously how it is seen. and i fear that regardless of what face aids would be given, it would be difficult to completely remove those stigmas from the disease. the individual, especially the american individual, is usually convinced that his/her assumptions and views on the world are the only correct ones, and certain stigmas and stereotypes are going to be incredibly difficult if not impossible to eradicate. but, like sarah, i really do think that the best hope for finding a cure for aids is to give a new face, make it a disease that your next-door neighbor could have and not just some distant impoverished third world country dweller.
When it all comes down to it, HIV/AIDS will have to take the same rocky course that Cancer had to take in order to reach the mass public. Education, by the right people, is most important in stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS. Education not just about the prevention, but the actual disease itself and what it does exactly. Many people live under a veil of lies about HIV/AIDS. It not only affects the advancement in the field of study for a cure, but it also affects those who already have it.
Preventitive education is an important component of the general HIV/AIDS education, but it is not the only important one. If we treat it solely as a disease that we run from or try to quarantine, then we do more harm than good. We have to also think of the people who are currently living with it. We have to come to terms that people CAN LIVE with it. Education of the mind and heart is also a key component.
Although I have not seen this episode of the Bill Maher show, it really has struck a cord with me. It reminds me of where we place our values in life, and what ranks higher than others.
I wholeheartedly agree with Erin's comments. People cannot be forced into action against a disease. Our HIV/AIDS awareness must continue as a grass roots campaign of sorts. The entertainment industry has certainly brought HIV/AIDS into the spotlight. Literature we have read in class, works such as RENT and Angels in America, and Hollywood spokesmen (Jon's example of Alec Baldwin's comments is extremely relevant) have all fulfilled their roles but the general populous can easily ignore that with which they are not routinely associated. People need to feel that HIV/AIDS is prominent in all of our lives. We have overwhelmingly agreed that it is the causation that forces AIDS to be swept under the rug. It is on a case by case basis that we are able to overcome the stigma associated with causation. It is up to the disease patients themselves to step out in their communities and raise awareness. Only then can we transform apathy about HIV/AIDS into sympathy and ultimately find the cure.
I have to say that I have a bit more optimistic of an outlook on this issue than does Jon. True, no cure has yet been found for AIDS, nor can there be expected to be a cure in the near future. However, AIDS prevention efforts, AIDS awareness, and education about the virus among the general public have been both prevalent and successful over the decades. To say that AIDS is getting less attention than any other disease is a fallacy; AIDS is given more media attention per year than any other single disease (with the exception of Breast Cancer). Granted, most of our concern about AIDS in the present day is focused overseas, yet more people know about and understand AIDS than ever before. AIDS education is even a required part of the curriculum in most school districts around the country. AIDS awareness is at an all-time high.
That being said, it is important to note that AIDS is still a problem in America as well as the rest of the world. I honestly cannot say what progress scientists are making on finding a cure for AIDS. However, I do know that continued AIDS education and increased availability of cheap contraceptives are the best ways society can combat AIDS until a cure is found.
For some reason, Sarai Glass has been unable to post, so here's what she sent in to me to post for her:
What a true statement made by Alec Baldwin. "If you could contract AIDS by gripping a golf club, we'd have a cure tomorrow." The cure to AIDS is not just black and white however. It should be a concern that the common ways that AIDS is contracted is through unsafe sex and intervenes drug use. However, these are not the only way AIDS can be contracted. Children are born with it, and people who have jobs working with the general public like police officers, or nurses, can contract it as well. I can understand why researchers have been hesitant to find a cure because of the more common ways AIDS is contracted. Why should they try to find a cure for a virus that is contracted by those who willfully made poor decisions? People are constantly trying to find a cure for cancer, but look at how it is contracted- usually not by poor choices. A 35-year cigarette smoker getting cancer, is the result of a poor lifestyle decision, and in that case, researchers would be less hesitant to find a cure. But in general, cancer strikes anyone at anytime of their life, regardless of what kind of lifestyles they have chosen to lead. Even though the ways AIDS is generally contracted are not lifestyles I would choose to live, saying that I would not want those who have made these mistakes to live, is far from true. These victims deserve a chance at life just as much as a cancer patient does, even though contracting the virus may have been completely preventable. In addition to this, not all victims of AIDS chose to partake in anyof these completely preventable circumstances and contracted the virus anyway. We have to consider them as well. We cannot discriminate in the sense of not finding a cure to a life-threatening virus, merely based on how it is commonly contracted.
After reading everyone who has posted so far, a few things come to mind. First, Frazer, I agree with you in a way, but I don't necessarily disagree with Jon.
Let me explain--I think part of what we face now when trying to understand ways to prevent HIV infections is that for about 15 years, AIDS was incredibly visible in U.S. culture, even if that visibility was at the expense of marginalized groups and communities like gay and bisexual men or intravenous drug users. We have made monumental strides in treating the disease, and finding a cure or vaccine has proven extremely challenging, but not for want of effort. (Of course, as with any issue, we could probably put more funding into research.)
For me, I think the problem is less that we don't have a face for AIDS, or that people don't have access to people living with HIV. I think part of the problem is that we've simply got accustomed to having the disease around, perhaps too accustomed. And given that drug treatments have become more successful, we don't experience HIV/AIDS as a crisis anymore. I mean this a collective, or in larger social way, despite the very real tragedies that continue to occur when individuals die because the medications don't work or they don't have access to them.
In some ways, I think we have to learn how to be vigilante about this disease as it progresses through new generations without exhausting ourselves by the vigilance. (You could say this happened to many AIDS activists and the larger US culture in the mid-1990s.) Educating younger people as they grow up is key. Integrating awareness of AIDS into our lives is key, but not in such a way that we lose sight of the disease's dangers.
Second: I want to pay attention to a particular word that some of us have used: promiscuous. This can be very fraught with significance when discussing a sexually transmitted disease. How do we define promiscuity? And how do we understand this term in relation to the fact that you don't have to be promiscuous to be infected with HIV? Just a few questions to think about and mull over.
Oh dear…I seem to be a bit late posting. This is a great discussion we’ve got here. There have been several comments to the effect that abandoning cultural taboos surrounding sex is part of the solution. I feel this idea is based on the unfair assumption that people who condemn homosexuality and drug use will also condemn homosexuals and drug users. People who are not willing to renounce traditional, conservative views about sex (I place myself in this category) will not necessarily be unwilling to take up the cause of finding a cure for AIDS. Ultimately, we’re talking about people, individuals dying of a disease, and I think most people have the compassion to eventually recognize this fact, in spite of any initial revulsion they might feel with regard to how the disease is contracted and who “typically” contracts it. So what needs to happen to further assist those affected by aids? My inclination is to want to stop treating this as a sexually transmitted disease or as a disease that carries special connotations, at least on a conversational, social level, and instead treat it simply as a disease that kills individuals. One obvious flaw to this thinking is the need to understand how the disease is contracted in order to prevent it. Maybe the simple fact that we are talking about AIDS, here and now, is the solution. Maybe this is what needs to happen in our society in future. Even if we can’t reach an agreement about how to approach the physical, social, and emotional problems surrounding AIDS, this kind of debate about the issue is just what is needed to keep it in the public view.
I agree, in order to make a dent in the AIDS crisis there must be a shift i the way people view sexuality and sex. There must be much more of an open forum to discuss the issue in public and in through the media. We must not skirt from the reality of the situation, that HIV is spread by people participating in promiscuous sex and intravenous drug use and that it inflicts an unglamorous death on its victims. Once this is accomplished we can begin to accept the virus as a simple micro-organism that can be defeated.
More dauntingly, there must be a shift in the way that religious people view the disease. As a child, growing up in a conservative and religious environment, I often encountered people of the opinion that HIV was a disease people deserved to die from. This view is all too common among those without any direct connection to the disease and greatly hampers its acceptance and prevention/treatment. When a disease is looked upon as evidence of sin, many are not willing to help. Not a very christian attitude if you ask me.
Its interesting that Tanner brings in the issue of religion to this argument. He is, of course, right when he says, "Not a very christian attitude if you ask me." I agree that this is not what Jesus taught–the man spent his last three years healing lepers and curing the blind. But I do believe that it is a very religious attitude. In almost any religion, judgment is a part of the culture. You see it in Judaism, in Christianity, in Islam, in Hindu. Each of these create for there followers a strong desire to judge those around, to decide whether or not you are better than them. Now this is a result from the religious culture they create, that you must somehow earn your way to heaven by acting rightly. About the only religion that doesn't support this is Buddhism.
I myself am catholic, and can see the judgmental atmosphere that it creates by creating a hierarchy of right and wrong. With Buddhism, this hierarchy seems to be down played. There is a parable where an old Chinese man goes through this series of events where one good event is followed by a bad one which is in turn followed by a good one. This continues for a while, and the entire time, a friend of the man keeps asking him, "Isn't that great?" or "Isn't that horrible?" Each time the man responds, "I don't know if it for the best or for the worst."
What I am trying to get at is similar to what Tanner said, that we need to become more comfortable with discussing these issues. This whole moral, judging sense that our culture has keeps us from understanding the real problem here: this is just like any other disease that kills people, and it needs to be stopped.
Post a Comment