Download this publication - AIDS Data Hub

children, those infected through blood donation or through work-related hazards; in otherwords, those who cannot be held responsible, i.e., blamed, for their exposure to HIV.Infected wives also appear to have easier access, and are perceived as such by othergroups, to financial aid. There is more public sympathy for these groups of PLHIV. Bethat as it may, stigmatization persists even for them – infected children may not beallowed to play with other children, wives may be blamed for their husband’s drugaddiction or their sexual infidelities, people may refuse to eat the food they cook orprepare, or sit beside them in the mosque, an infected wife may opt to move to anotherlocation with her children where no one knows of her HIV situation. These are the actualexperiences of the study participants; similar to others documented in other Asiancountries (APN+ 2004).From the community FGD, many participants verbalised the need to be sympathetic andto not discriminate PLHIV. However, at the same time, they also expressed caution ifthey had a neighbour who is positive, and if their children were to play with or be inschool with HIV-positive children. In other words, they were not cognizant that suchactions were stigmatizing. One participant admitted that the fear of contagion, fromcasual contact or from food that a PLHIV prepares, remains despite the informationdisseminated about ways of transmission. This fear of contagion persists even amongsome healthcare workers as this study shows. Again, the basis seems to be disbelief orlack of confidence in what is taught about HIV transmission.In fact, there were numerous cases of institutionalised stigmatization and discrimination,including using medical files of a different colour for HIV patients and segregation ofHIV-infected prison inmates, which identify them to others without their consent.Although routine testing of prison inmates and drug rehabilitation residents is notmandatory, there is no precedence of anyone refusing or allowed to refuse testing. Prisoninmates also say they received no pre- or post-test counselling. Some of the women sexworkers who had been in prison, said that their food trays were labelled with the words‘HIV”. While the segregation may have protected them in some way from otherprisoners, the greater problem they felt was that it led to more people outside prisonfinding out about their HIV status from fellow inmates, with negative consequences. Theabsence of counselling and active follow-up also means that HIV-infected releasedinmates are left to cope on their own, some with fatalism and apathy. Those who returnto drug use are not likely to change their behaviour.HIV POLICIES, PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION AND PLHIV PARTICIPATIONComparatively, women infected by their partners were the least aware of public policiesand programmes related to HIV/AIDS that could provide resources and support to HIVinfected persons in the country. However, a majority of respondents were insteadaggrieved by the stereotypical and fear-arousing HIV/AIDS awareness campaignsmounted by the Government. They lamented that such campaigns instilled fear in thesociety that HIV kills as well as blamed HIV-infected persons’ behaviour, deemedimmoral or deviant, for contracting the disease, namely, the constant association of HIVwith drug users and sex workers in particular. Instead, many of them expressed theGovernment should educate the public about HIV and AIDS in a factual manner withoutmoralizing people’s behaviours so that society can understand their challenges forpositive living. Specifically, several of the study participants pointed out the need toportray HIV-infected persons as trying to continue day to day living, going to work,134