Recently, I noticed this display while walking in downtown Lusaka. I had heard of such fallacious fabrications in the past, but reading this banner and the collection of “news” articles on either side of it dumbfounded me all the same.This view is not widely shared in Zambia. Yet it helps to explain the sheer complexity of combating HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.
Last I heard, Zambia has a 15 percent adult prevalence rate, which is actually lower than previous figures. The country is ranked 165 out of 177 in terms of the UN Human Development Index.
With increasingly cheap and available anti-retroviral drugs, many have become optimistic for the future. But the other day, a doctor told me that free anti-retrovirals have been a mixed blessing for Zambia. Now that it’s possible for people with HIV/AIDS to lead productive lives for several years, the fear of contracting the virus is less potent than it once was. In this logic, while addressing the suffering of HIV/AIDS patients, free anti-retrovirals ignore or even compound the social causes of the epidemic – gender violence, promiscuity, cultural norms, and so on.
I don’t purport to offer any solutions. I simply wanted to shed light on the multifaceted nature of the issue, as I’ve experienced it in Lusaka. My own work – disarmament issues, including landmines and other small arms – is more clear-cut, in my mind, allowing for a more well-defined outlook and restful conscience. I admire those who grapple with HIV/AIDS in all its complexity and contradictions.
2 comments:
My housemate, who works in an HIV/AIDS clinic, pointed out another devastating fact: ARVs prolong the lives of people with the virus, which means that many more years for the given person to spread the virus.
My friend Alex had the decency to ask my permission before posting the following, for fear of starting a "public cyber fight," as he put it. His comments are not only appropriate, but indispensable. If you have any interest in the issues raised in this post, read the following:
"Sorry, couldn't help but pick up on this comment. I find it a little outrageous actually.
Your houemate's point is a useful consideration when designing the Information and Education component of an ARV programme, but sounds like this point taken to its practical extreme - i.e. cutting off ARVs - means we might as well round up all HIV+ people and leave them to die in a quaranteened camp. Its like saying we should promote poor nutrition to people who are HIV+ so they die sooner. In fact, why don't we just round 'em up and shoot em all whilst we're at it. That'd solve the epidemic.
Without ARVs the viral load of someone who is HIV+ is higher, therefore they are more likely to infect if they have condom-free sex. With ARVs the person lives longer, but will be able to keep low levels of the infection in their blood for most of their life. Not to mention the positive impact ARVs could have on the chances of co-infection. Basically, your housemate is callous with the morals and wrong on the disease control.
There have been real changes in sexual behaviour in Zambia during the same time that ARVs have been available. Any ARV programme worth its donations will counsel the client on safe sex. As you say, the roots are in sexual behaviour. This is key, but can't be the exclusive concern of policy makers and NGOs working to mitigate and/ or prevent HIV. "
Alex will begin his own blog, lusakacalling.blogspot.com, shortly. Should be good.
Post a Comment