What To Say ....

Ever so often there will be remarks concerning AIDS made by members of the public which need to be addressed and corrected. We suggest how you can respond to unfair comments made about persons with HIV/ AIDS (PWAs). This article first appeared in the The ACT, issue 24, and is written by Roger Winder.

When They Say ...

"People who are HIV-positive because they had casual or commercial sex have only themselves to blame and do not deserve any help or sympathy."

"People who become HIV-positive because of sex with unfaithful spouses, mother-to-child transmission, receiving contaminated blood products or work-related accidents are 'innocent victims' and should be helped."

Condemning is much easier than putting in the effort to understand and to give support. It doesn't take much to adopt a high moral position, establish culpability for the infection and to use it to condemn. On the other hand, trying to understand what people are going through and to go even further by offering support is undeniably the more arduous path.

Being humane and compassionate rather than judgmental reflects better on you. It does require considerable effort to control natural curiosity about how someone was infected and to overcome the tendency to judge others for their suffering. However, being able to do so surely reflects much better on the ability of the community to be understanding, humane and compassionate.

Religious organisations choose not to condemn. Many religious organisations have managed to avoid falling into the trap of merely judging people and have instead chosen to offer support, without questioning whether the support is justified. Perhaps we can follow their example as well as the exemplary attitudes of people like the late Mother Teresa and Princess Diana in showing we can care for our fellow human beings.

Being HIV-positive is 'punishment' enough. Even if you feel people should face retribution for their errors of judgement, bearing the tremendous social, psychological, physiological, and financial strains of living with HIV should be punishment enough.

HIV-positive and HIV-negative people are more similar than different. Most HIV-people lead lives surprisingly similar to others. Their lives are no more filled with debauchery than most other people. On the ther hand, most HIV-positive people are not perfect, but neither are most people without HIV. Everyone has moments of weakness, some more than others, but some are more inclined to throw the first stone.

Giving support, rather than condemning, encourages more responsible behaviour. Giving support to HIV-positive people, instead of withholding it, not only helps them cope with living with HIV, it also encourages more responsible behaviour. The stigma that condemnation reinforces will drive those at risk underground, discourage them from getting tested and thereafter taking precautions to avoid infecting others.

We don't judge people with other lifestyle-related conditions. Establishing blame for someone's suffering is fraught with loopholes. Should people with other conditions also commonly linked to a perceived lack of self-control (such as lung cancer and smoking, heart disease and 'unhealthy' diets, liver conditions and alcohol consumption) be similarly condemned and refused any support? Do we adjust the amount of sympathy we give someone depending on whether s/he is a first- or second-hand smoker with cancer?

There are very few irresponsible HIV-positive people. The number of people who know that they are HIV-positive and who knowingly put others at risk is practically insignificant. Most go great, sometimes unnecessary, lengths to avoid transmission to others. The actions of the practically negligible minority should not influence responses to the vast majority of HIV-positive people.