AIDS, Ethics and Society
AIDS, Ethics and Society
According to Overberg (p 73), HIV and AIDS generate ethical question that extend throughout the lifecycle and around the world. Some of these questions include whether it is the common good of the society for someone to be tested for HIV, and who is to be tested healthcare professionals, those who have high risk behaviors, those who apply for marriage licenses, people convicted of crimes, or every person. The second question is what the societys responsibilities are concerning costs related to HIVAIDS. The third one is whether there is a moral responsibility concerning educational programs in the light of the growing epidemic. Another question is whether programs that promote the use of condoms should be supported. Lastly is the question concerning the bias against people infected with HIV and their families as well as friends in housing, workplace and medical treatment The consistence ethic of life was developed in order to assist in shaping the public policy. Political decisions together with economic structures, as indicated in Overberg (p 73) significantly assist or impede the flourishing of all life.
Initially, as asserted by Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 3), the association between HIVAIDS and human rights was only perceived as one that involved people who were infected with the virus and with AIDS and the prejudice to which they were subjected to. For those who were infected with the virus and those who had AIDS, the concerns included a compulsory test for HIV restriction on international travel discriminating hurdles to employment and housing, access to health care, education, and medical insurance and various issues raised by names exposure, partner warning, and privacy. Cultural context however played a major role in determining how various issues concerning HIVAIDS were responded to. These issues, according to Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 3), are critical and almost twenty years into the epidemic, a solution to them has not been found. The situations have in someway become more complicated due to the fact that old issues emerge in new places and present themselves in fresh and unusual ways. A good example is whereby employment has continued to be restricted to those who have HIVAIDS. Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 3) states that people infected with HIVAIDS even in areas where this situation has improved have a high risk of getting themselves denied workplace health insurance, thereby greatly affecting their health and thus their overall performance in the workplace. New issues with grave human rights implications also exist. These issues are raised for people who are infected with HIV and they include the extensive and growing inequality in access to drugs required for managing HIVAIDS as well as other forms of care.
Situations that occurred in the 1980s were defining moments of the linkage between human rights and HIVAIDS (Gruskin and Tarantola para, 4). By the end of 1980s, as noted by Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 4), the call for human rights as well as for consideration and solidarity with those living with HIVAIDS had been clearly incorporated within the first World Health Organization response to AIDS. Some of the motivating factors for this approach were moral outrage and the recognition that safeguarding of human rights was an essential aspect of a global public health response to the growing epidemic. The outcomes of this call were extensive. Through designing public health strategy in human rights terms, it made it to be deeply rooted in international law. This, as Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 5) states, made governments and international organizations publicly responsible of their deeds towards those who were infected with HIVAIDS. The most significant modern contribution, as acknowledged by Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 5), depends on the recognition of the international law, and its applicability to HIVAIDS and thus on the ultimate accountability as well as responsibility of the nation under international law for issues relating to health.
The main aim of human rights, according to Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 6) is to define the relationship between an individual and the state. International human rights laws clearly state that the state should not do things that violates the rights of a person such as torture, arbitrary imprison, and infringement of a persons privacy. International human rights laws also state that it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that all people have an easy access to all basic requirements such as healthcare, education, shelter and food. These laws also, as illustrated in Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 6), makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the government to provide suitable health care to those who are infected with HIVAIDS. These laws clarify that a person who is infected with HIVAIDS has the right to the maximum attainable standard of health care. HIVAIDS infected people, also have the right to information and association, the right to social security, and the right to the benefits of scientific research (Gruskin and Tarantola, para, 6). They also have the right for the work of public health that is, access to health care prevention programs including voluntary counseling and testing, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases. HIVAIDS infected people also have the right to privacy meaning that they are supposed to be protected from compulsory testing. Their status is also supposed to be kept confidential according to the international human rights laws.
Depending on the nature, the legal and social situation of the epidemic in the nation, some people may be more susceptible to HIVAIDS epidemic and its impact due to their legal status or lack of human rights protection, for example women, minority groups, poor people, children, sex workers, refugees, and prisoners (Gruskin and Tarantola, para, 7). According to the international human rights laws these groups are supposed to have equal access to health care, education, commodities, anti-retroviral treatment and to HIV care (Gruskin and Tarantola, para 7). They should also not be subjected to sexual violence or coercion and should be allowed to take part in the development and the implementation of HIVAIDS policies that directly affect them. The international human rights require that those infected with HIVAIDS be given an opportunity to work, move freely, marry and seek asylum regardless of their medical condition (Gruskin and Tarantola, para 8).
The extensive focus in the 1980s on the human rights of those who were infected with HIVAIDS, helped to increase the understanding of the significance of human rights in determining the susceptibility of people to HIV infection and the likelihood of their getting appropriate care and support in case they were infected (Gruskin and Tarantola, para 10). The association between human rights and HIVAIDS is clearly illustrated by the effect, neglect, denial and violation of human rights on the context of HIVAIDS epidemic, has on those who are HIVAIDS infected according to Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 10). This however, applies in different ways to different groups of people who are either affected by or vulnerable to HIV. If a person is infected with HIVAIDS, the likelihood of hisher rights being violated is very high. These people usually face marginalization as well as discrimination in matters of health education as well as recreational services. The realization of the rights of people who are infected with HIVAIDS in this context would therefore require for equal access to basic amenities in a supportive social environment (Gruskin and Tarantola, para 12).
HIVAIDS adversely affects people incase their close relatives, communities and in a broader sense the structures and services from which they get their daily bread are strained by the effects of the epidemic and due to that fact fail to offer them the support and the services they require. Marginalization in conjunction with stigmatization on the basis of features such as race, behaviors, kinship and migrant status compound the effects of HIVAIDS on peoples lives and these may be taken as risk factors for HIV infection (Gruskin and Tarantola, para 13).
Violation and neglect of the human rights of people suffering from HIVAIDS may include aspects such as denied access to health care, education and recreation services. People living with HIVAIDS may advance towards the realization of their rights as well as of better health in the presence of enabling conditions to eliminate the impacts of individual, communal and programmatic concerns in their lives. In order to achieve this programs and services, there is need to be design and to extend support and services to families and communities that have been affected (Gruskin and Tarantola, para 13).
The lack of power of individuals and communities to reduce and adjust their risk of exposure to HIV infection, and in case one is infected to obtain adequate healthcare and support, according to Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 14), increases susceptibility to HIV. Some people may be more susceptible than others to HIV infection, even in communities where the pandemic has not widely spread. Economic disparity and gender, as an example, may force a woman to engage in unprotected sex with her partner even though she is very sure that he is engaging in sex with other people.
Denying access to preventive education, information and services may increase the vulnerability of adolescent boys and girls to HIV. Sex workers have a higher risk of HIV infection in case they do not have access to services aimed at preventing, diagnosing, and treating HIVAIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Their vulnerability is aggravated by the fear of coming out in the open due to the stigma associated with their occupation. In order to decrease susceptibility, actions must be taken that allow people and communities to make and implement choices in their lives, and as a result effectively adjust the health dangers to which they may be exposed (Gruskin and Tarantola, para 15).
The impact of prejudice, especially in the form of gender based discrimination, racial discrimination, as well as homophobia keep on aggravating the effects of HIVAIDS on the lives of individuals and communities all over the world. It should be noted that realization of human rights is crucial to safeguarding the rights as well as self-respect of those affected and those living with HIVAIDS, and to minimizing the susceptibility of individuals and communities at large (Gruskin and Tarantola, para 16).
Governments have a responsibility for their deeds regarding those living with HIVAIDS. It is important in the wake of current violations that governments realize their responsibilities concerning specific human rights. It is the responsibility of any government to ensure that no human rights are violated and also to make sure that conditions necessary for people to appreciate their rights to the maximum are available. It is important to note that for all human rights, governments have liabilities at three levels they are supposed to respect the right, protect it and fulfill it (Gruskin and Tarantola para, 18). The meaning of respecting the right is that states should never violate human rights. If children are barred from attending school due to the fact that they are infected with HIVAIDS, it is a violation of the right to education. Protecting the right denotes that states have the responsibility of avoiding breach of a right and providing a remedy that people are aware of and can access if their rights are violated. Fulfilling the right signifies the use of all suitable means aimed at ensuring that human rights are fulfilled. In case a state does not offer the necessary HIVAIDS prevention education in a language that is well understood by many through media that is accessible by all in the community, this can be regarded as a violation of the right to education as illustrated by Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 18).
Resources in combination with other hindrances can make it difficult for a government to immediately and effectively execute human rights. Extensive evaluation of governmental responsibility in the observance of human rights notices that, as a matter-of-fact, an assurance to the right to primary education does not just require passing of law. It indeed requires monetary resources, well educated personnel, appropriate infrastructure, and other facilities Gruskin and Tarantola para, 19).
Even with the importance attributed to human rights, there are times when it is considered legal to restrict these rights so as to attain a wider public benefit. One of these public benefits is public health (Gruskin and Tarantola para, 20). However, these restrictions are not supposed to be implemented in a manner such that they violate the rights of a person. Restrictions imposed by public health officials that do not take into consideration other suitable options may violate the principles of both public health and human rights. Some rights, according to Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 22), are however unlimited, meaning that restrictions can never be put on them though they may be justified as essential for the benefit of the public. These include the right to fair trial, right to freedom of expression, and the right to be free from slavery and torture. Although the common good of the public requires that every person be tested for HIV, people can not be forced to undergo these tests.
The consistent ethics of life, which has its roots in social teachings, puts together personal, common good, human decorum and unity. Supervision, based on regulatory rules, of concrete situations as well as careful attention to details may however, result in differences on conclusions as to whether compulsory testing is justified in particular cases (Overberg, p. 74). It is important that governments recognize and respect the three types of HIV testing that exist voluntary, compulsory and routine. In voluntary HIV testing, people choose to undergo the test and looks for an appropriate testing center where they are tested and counseled at the same time. Counseling is aimed at reducing the risk. HIV tests offered to people as part of another health care service, for example while preparing for a child birth are what is referred to as routine testing. Mandatory tests are carried out for example as a requirement for a certain job and when a HIV test is legally required. In such a situation, the HIV test is carried out regardless of an individuals awareness and rarely in such circumstances is there counseling or privacy (Overberg, p 74). There are four points as stressed by Overberg (p, 76) relating to HIV prevention, testing, and financing of HIVAIDS programs. These points states that tough laws do not always do away with discrimination that vital medical-care services should be provided to all before any special financing of HIVAIDS programs is done that though voluntary testing should be rigorously promoted, explicit cultural education can reach more people and achieve better results than routine testing and that the most appropriate way to safeguard patients is to emphasize on universal precautions by health-care providers.
As asserted by Gruskin and Tarantola (para, 23), when a government restricts the enjoyment of a right, it has to take this action only as a last way out and will only be taken as legal if the following criteria is followed. The limitation is executed in line with the law for public good does not lead to discrimination no other less remedy can be used to achieve the same goal and is absolutely essential in a democratic community to achieve the objective. This approach has for long been used by those who monitor human rights as an important strategy for analyzing governments actions. It is currently widely used by people responsible in government for programs and policies related to HIVAIDS.
Conclusion
The history of HIVAIDS is evident from the 1980s. Since then, it has been spreading throughout the world rapidly. Its spread is however shadowed by increasing challenges to human rights, at both global and national levels. Some of the major human rights issues regarding HIVAIDS include discrimination and marginalization. The initial association between HIVAIDS and human rights was only perceived as one that involved people who were infected with HIV and the prejudice to which they were subjected to. This association however formed the base for the development of international human rights laws concerning those living with HIVAIDS. Chances are very high that people who are either affected or infected with HIVAIDS will have their rights violated. The international human rights law comes in handy to protect the rights of those who are living with HIVAIDS. The international human rights laws clearly illustrate the responsibility of the government concerning those who are HIV infected. Nobody is supposed to be discriminated on the basis of hisher HIV status. The government is supposed to make sure that the rights of an individual are respected, protected, and fulfilled. There are times when human rights of an individual are restricted. However, this limitation is supposed to be carried in a manner such that it does not violate the rights of a person.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment