Throughout the film it became very apparent that both the media and government
officials pointed fingers towards male homosexuals and intravenous drug users as high risk
populations (PBS, 2006). They also targeted poor people as at risk populations. The blinders
being used by the media and government failed to identify many other groups as high risk
individuals such as those living in Africa, where the pandemic originated from chimpanzees
(PBS, 2006). They also never allude to the fact that the entire population is at risk of becoming
part of the pandemic.
The people that became labeled, homosexual males and intravenous drug users, were
viewed as dangerous to all that came in contact with them (PBS, 2006). Several children that
contracted the virus, through blood transfusions, were kicked out of schools and their families
were threatened. The general population was scared of them and thought they were going to
spread the disease through general contact, like shaking hands. Ones described by the
HIV/AIDS label were feared and thought to be at fault of the growing epidemic (PBS, 2006).
Another factor contributing to the poor view of those infected in the early years, was that many
were homosexual. Homosexuality was a new concept in the early 1980s that was faced with
extreme stigma and unknown (PBS, 2006). I feel that there would have been a different response
if homosexuality was as openly accepted then, as it is now.
The labels and unknowns of HIV/AIDS during the 1980s led to blame of the high risk
and vulnerable populations (PBS, 2006). Individuals did not want to be held responsible for
something “that only happened in the homosexual community.” The stigma and moral dilemmas
associated with the disease, led to controversy on who should be responsible to pay for the
research and treatment. Individual’s opinions were highly influenced by government officials
like Senator Jesse Helms who discouraged federal funding for AIDS education, and President
Ronald Reagan who did not support the facts; the disease could not be spread through casual
contact (PBS, 2006). Countries like China chose to turn a cheek and pretend it was not
happening, until the SARS outbreak, 20 years after light was being shed on the growing AIDS
epidemic (PBS, 2006).
From a public health perspective, the approach was hindered by lack of funding and
support. Scientists had the facts, but were unable to deliver them without official support.
Several organizations tried to provide education on the topic and safe sex practices, but were met
by resistance (PBS, 2006). For example, Uganda had a highly effective prevention plan, ABC,
but the United States government thought abstinence only education should be the focus (PBS,
2006). This is after condom education had been extremely effective. This is something that I
see currently in practice. I am the school nurse for four schools, until this past year I was only
able to educate on abstinence only prevention. Even though statistics show that high school
students are sexually active and contracting STIs, school officials chose to turn their heads. I
feel this is something that has been filtered down from federal officials. It seems that if they turn
their heads, the problem no longer exists.
Throughout the film national security was often the reason for action, not
humanitarianism (PBS, 2006). I feel this process towards action was often based on the fear and
unknown of the disease; although from a public health perspective, this is unacceptable. As
public health professionals, the goal is for the greater good and health of others. This way of
action could have led to a quicker response; and national security would not have had to be the
bait. Others like Franklin Graham, were using the pandemic as a way to spread Christianity
through missionary work (PBS, 2006). Although he had the right mind set, to help others for the
greater good, he also had a separate agenda to spread his religion. I do feel many public health
officials, including CDC and WHO representatives, had the right humanitarian mind set; they
were hindered by powerful governmental funding and officials though (PBS, 2006).
Both the political and social environment hindered the efforts of the emerging pandemic.
No one wanted to take responsibility and all sought to blame others. If it would have been
addressed in a humanitarian manor, a quicker response would have been possible. It was not
only the United States government, but also Russian, African, and Chinese governments that
took an initial stance of turning a cheek (PBS, 2006). For years, the African president did not
believe HIV led to AIDS, but that poverty led to AIDS. This led to many prevention programs
being met with resistance. The social environment was also on edge, as homosexuality was not
widely accepted (PBS, 2006). Of the 40,000 newly diagnose cases of AIDS each year in the
United States, 80% are found in minority groups (PBS, 2006). This is another aspect of social
injustice and what populations have more social power.
Reference
Public Broadcasting Service. [PBS]. (2006, May 30). Frontline: The age of AIDS [Video file].
Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/view/