Weekly News Review 21st - 27th January

Our review of the top news for the week

Article

A 25-year old is currently giving evidence in the continuing trial of an Angolan 'witchdoctor' who is accused of infecting multiple people with HIV and raping them. The unnamed woman is just one of the people accusing Bonifatius Mbwale of rape and infecting them with HIV.

What worries me about this article is the way the press was very quick to jump on the HIV bandwagon and center the entire article mainly around this one point, rather than the fact that the witchdoctor was primarily facing this trial for raping numerous women.

This course of action now seems to be the normal with the press as they appear to see HIV the real threat in these types of articles, not what the accused is standing trial for in the first place.

We all know how damaging stigma can be to this community and focusing on the HIV aspect of any story rather than what someone is actually accused of is not going to help in any way.

Martyn

A new health bill that has just been passed in Botswana is counterproductive and a violation of human rights for people living with HIV according to the Director of BONELA, Uyapo Ndad.

Mr Ndad believes the new health bill will deter people from finding out their HIV status and it places the responsibility of the fight against HIV/AIDS on those who are HIV positive.

The bill authorities doctors to perform mandatory HIV tests on their patients and if they refuse, as is their right under the law, they can be dragged to court for not agreeing.

Whilst mandatory testing seems like a good idea so one knows their HIV status, should a government be allowed to force this upon its citizens if the law of the land says they do not have to agree with this? Seeing as this bill appears to have only been passed so the government can use the data for statistical purposes rather than getting its populace onto ARVs, i have to agree with Mr Ndad on this.

Should mandatory testing be put into effect worldwide? Personally i think it should if, and only if, the reason for doing this is to move people onto life saving drugs and to lessen their possibility of passing on the disease to others. If the reason for mandatory testing is only for statistical analysis then there is no way this should happen. People with HIV are not a statistic, they are real people with real feelings.

Martyn

It’s hard to ascertain from this article what the true intent of this bill is. Is it to assure that Botswana knows the HIV positive status of its citizens in order to delegate funds and provide services? Or is it a sort of punitive measure against people with HIV?

Uyapo Ndadi is the Executive Director of Botswana Network on Ethics, Law and HIV/AIDS (BONELA) He states that this bill would violate people’s rights by mandatory testing. I certainly do not think that people should be brought into court if they refuse to be tested but I do think mandatory testing in order to offer treatment COULD be a good thing.

"Worst still, this bill, if it is passed into law, will turn people away from accessing health facilities. People are better off not knowing their HIV status if knowledge of it will mean loss of privacy and dignity if you are HIV positive," stated Ndadi. This quote concerns me. Saying knowledge of HIV status will cause a loss of privacy and dignity actually has little to do with this bill as if it’s the knowledge of knowing your HIV positive will equate to a loss of rights, then really, it would be the same whether you tested voluntarily or were forced to?

I do however strongly disagree with a clause in the bill that empowers doctors to test clients for HIV before surgical or dental procedures. If universal practices are adhered to, which they absolutely must be, the persons HIV status holds no relevance in dental or medical procedures.

In Ndadi’s argument he says this bill would violate international guidelines on HIV/AIDS and human rights that states public health, criminal and anti-discrimination legislation should prohibit mandatory HIV testing of targeted groups, including vulnerable groups. I don’t really see how mandatory testing of everyone would oppose this right. Testing specific groups, yes. Testing everyone, no. Again, I’m going off of the article, not the bill, which I have not read so some of my points may be wrong or mute.

Jeannie

This is a hugely important study that received little attention. Part of the reason is that the number of kids studied was very small but I think another reason is that this data may reveal a highly troubling conclusion that reflects where we are and how little our HIV education efforts have amounted to.

The kids in this study were born with HIV. If perinatally infected HIV+ kids are not using condoms, how pertinent is safe sex to HIV negative teens, who in their lives, HIV is a distant concept that hasn’t thus far invaded their world.
Out of the 330 kids looked at 92% reported having sexual experience. Of these 92 teens, 68% reported having not used protection. Yes, these are small numbers. None the less 68% is very high and those are the ones who admitted to unprotect sex. It stands to reason that they would not differ from adults in self reporting and more have had unprotected sex then those willing to admit to it.

So these kids know all about HIV and still decided to risk their partner becoming infected as well as their own health in contracting another sexually transmitted disease. We could contribute raging hormones and the fear of their partners telling others they are HIV positive which in a school environment would be devastating if they aren’t prepared and willing to deal with the consequences. Or do we conclude that if these kids, having likely received more counseling than your average teen, still had unprotected sex, that the education and awareness of HIV has little consequence in the decision making process of whether to have safe sex, for a high percentage of people. If this is the case, what now?

It’s also important to note that the perinatally infected kids had high rates of HIV drug resistance. Yet another case for the need for new novel treatment for HIV. 

Jeannie

Community Healthcare Network surveyed 725 gay men who utilize hook-up aps like Grindr, Scruff, Manhunt and Growlr. The finds were disconcerting. Forty-seven percent of those surveyed reporting not using protection although they were aware of the risks and afraid of becoming infected/re-infected.

As in the article above “Unprotected Sex, High Viral Loads in HIV+ Youth When They Start Sex” this survey furthers the question of how much of an impact is HIV and safe sex education having.

Of the 47% not practicing safe sex, 84.6% claimed that with condoms “it does not feel the same,” while 73.8% cited “impulsive sexual behaviors” as the reason for not using condoms.

This is a big issue that needs to be analyzed and discussed much more than it is. Perhaps a bigger investment into the research and development of a new thinner type of condom would be wise. 

Jeannie

A Bournemouth hospital is forced to apologize after one of their staff asked "unnecessary and obtrusive" questions to his patients during treatment.

Knowing how 'backwards' the UK is when it comes to the subject of HIV this just deepens the problems that appear to be happening there.

What was the hospital employee thinking when he asked patients how they contracted the disease? Why would he even feel the question was necessary in the first place?

What is even more worrying is that this is not the first time such an incidence has happened at this hospital, a year ago the exact same thing happened and the hospital assured the public that it would not happen again. However it seems as though this is one of two things.. 1. The hospital is asking its staff to ask these questions for some reason or another, or 2. The hospital has no control over its staff and needs to sort this out.

We shall wait and see if their Chief Executive's words are once again a hollow statement and the hospital finally stops asking HIV patients intrusive questions.

Martyn

Now this is a really weird news story in a few ways. For some reason the Health Minister elt the necessity to come forward to the press and make a statement that two 'underage boys' who were in Cyprus over the previous summer had HIV without the authorities having known this.

Why on earth would a statement to this effect have to be made in the first place? Are things so bad in this country that even having two children visit the country is cause for alarm?

Cyprus currently has one of the lowest prevalences of HIV and whilst we applaud the country for its measures to keep it this way we do stand concerned when such statements are made just because two boys were in the country who had HIV.

After reading this news release over and over again I am still sitting here scratching my head as to why this even needed to be reported on in the first place.

Martyn

If you want to help people with HIV and don’t know how, here is an awesome opportunity. This article discusses 2 studies whose data should be, in my opinion, shouted from the roof tops. Spread and share it as much as you can. Without going into all the specific data that you can read in the article, starting HIV treatment within four months of infection showed a substantial benefit in CD4 counts. This equates to a stronger immune system and possibly far fewer health problems for a person with HIV.

Of course, not everyone knows right away that they have contracted HIV. However in many cases, an act of unprotected sex, particularly with someone we know or quickly discover is HIV positive, it is vital to be tested right at the 3 month mark when antibodies will show, determining a positive result.

This message needs to get out there, especially to those in high risk situations – if you think you may have contracted HIV, test at 3 months. Do not wait. And seek treatment immediately. If you call for a first appointment with an HIV doctor and are given a date past your four month mark, do not accept it. Explain the situation and research if necessary and the importance of an immediate appointment. If you are still not given one, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. Your future health could dramatically be affected by your decisions and actions within the first four months. It could be the difference between a life of health issues and good health. Tell every newly infected and at risk person (kind of everyone) you know about this data.

Jeannie