Download this publication - AIDS Data Hub

denies them social and economic opportunities through not only negative actions byothers but also via self-imposed isolation and limitation. It discourages PLHIV fromseeking employment because of pre-employment medical disclosure requirements, andalso has the effect of discouraging PLHIV from seeking healthcare and medical treatmentregularly, if at all. This may partly explain why less than half of the estimated 4,000PLHIV who can benefit from HAART take it up.In particular, the majority of DU men in the study reported experiencing some form ofdiscrimination, primarily from healthcare staff or prison staff but also from their ownfamilies/communities. As beholders of two socially undesirable traits, i.e., drugaddiction and HIV, it emerged from the needs assessment survey that 22 of 27 DU menin this study reported facing some form of discrimination. It is unclear how much of isarises from their HIV status or from their drug use. At the family and community level,some of the DU men spoke of the reactions from their families, many of which werenegative, more so in Kota Baru. A few noted that there was more discrimination in KotaBaru compared to Kuala Lumpur. Many in the group agreed on this. They surmised itwas due to the greater ignorance and lack of understanding about the disease in placessuch as Kota Baru. Interestingly, they pointed out that it was the IEC (Information,Education and Communication) campaigns that labelled HIV in tandem with drug use,promiscuous sexual activity and commercial sex. The conservative society in Kota Barumay also play a part in fostering prejudices against socially undesirable behaviours, suchas drug use.A majority of transgender PLHIV also said they faced some form of stigmatization anddiscrimination, including from Government aid agencies. As for drug users, transgenderpeople also face discrimination regardless of their HIV status. As far as drug addictionand HIV is seen as a “two in one package”, transgender persons bear the prejudice ofassociation with commercial sex. The group with the least to narrate such experienceswere refugees and heterosexual men. In large part, this lies in non-disclosure, i.e.,because their HIV status is not known. For refugees in this study, this is contributed bylimited access to the larger society, and also, they have the support of UNHCR.In contrast, participants in Kuching and Kota Kinabalu (comprising infected wives andwomen sex workers) appeared to be accepted by their families and did not experiencemuch stigmatization and discrimination at the family, community or institutional level.If ignorance of HIV were to be blamed, one would expect people in lesser developed EastMalaysia, where it is presumed there is less exposure to IEC campaigns, to suffer thesame consequences. However, this appears not to be the case. It is possible that sincehalf the East Malaysian participants are infected partners (wives), and the families of theothers (sex workers) may not be aware of their commercial sex work, they are viewed as“innocent victims”. Consequently, they receive more sympathy and support compared tothe drug users. To add support to this, they have no complaints about the treatment theyreceive from healthcare staff. Another possible reason is that they tend to live far awayfrom the urban centres where they access HIV-related resources, notably, healthcare,hence, their HIV status remains unknown amongst their community.This classification of HIV-positive persons into groups according to route of transmissionis institutionalised in Malaysia. In effect, this practice identifies whether or not a personwas infected by his/her behaviour or activity. Until recently, HIV drug treatment wassupplied free to certain PLHIV groups, i.e., women infected from their spouse, infected133