1.What is the difference in how people described by those labels are viewed? How do those labels affect
others' responsibility (as individuals and from a public health perspective)
to help? How do you think your faith may influence how you label individuals?
In the beginning, individuals affected by HIV and AIDS were gay, and at that time gay individuals were
outcasts and often thought of as deserving of the disease. Later, when individuals getting HIV and AIDS
from transfusions were labeled as risks to the general population since there was so much fear of
contracting the disease, no cure, and no education for the general public to explain how to protect
yourself (The Age of AIDS, 2006).
Since the gay community was not well received and for many decades considered outcasts or worse, there
was little responsibility the community felt they were responsible to give to individuals they felt deserved
the disease they had encountered. The people who were at high risk were gay men, IV drug users and
those who had received blood transfusions, actions that people felt was justified for them to be punished
by disease. Though the last in that group were not intentionally placing themselves at risk, the community
were afraid of them, and from that fear came a lack of willingness to help.
Though there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, it is clear from the video that the actions
of those infected by HIV and AIDS were the main focus of the disease and not the disease itself for a long
time, several decades in fact. Had people had the ability to focus solely on the disease and how to prevent
it, never mind how the disease was contracted, we would be a lot farther along in the treatment than we
currently are (The Age of AIDS, 2006).
2. So much of what has been done over the past 30 + years regarding the AIDS pandemic is cast in
terms of our duty as moral, ethical, faithful beings, and whether we have fulfilled that duty or failed at
it. Running through this film is the story (repeated in many countries as the virus spreads) of
responses being dictated and moved by considerations not of humanitarian concern but of national or
regional security. Consider the validity of each way of looking at the pandemic. Consider how each
perspective contradicts the other.
In the movie it depicts over and over again that the AIDS pandemic was anything but an individual concern.
It wasn’t until there was an overwhelming outreaching of the infected community that the governments
intervened, and truly it was only when they were forced to. The truly sad part of that repeating scenario
is that the number of infected individual had to soar in order for there to be a large enough population to
be heard. It goes to show that across the world the governments are reactive instead of proactive. It also
showed that in areas where religion was removed from government, there was more action that was
taken to help the general public as well as the infected population. The example of this was in areas of
Africa where they instituted an ABC campaign, abstinence, be faithful and condoms. This campaign would
not have worked in the USA since it is not advocated to promote condom usage, even if is to promote
safety, others feel it promotes sex (The Age of AIDS, 2006).
3. Consider and respond to what it says about leadership and political arrangement that security often is
a more compelling motivation to work toward a solution to AIDS than humanitarian concern, and what
this means for public health. Does your faith play a role in your response? If so, how?
I believe that all individuals, no matter race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation should have the education
to make their own decisions, and have the capability to be able to protect themselves from illness and
disease. In addition, I feel that by limiting the spread of infected people you are creating a stronger and
healthier community and reducing the strain that ill individuals put on a community. I also feel that the
cost of being well should not be as high as it is. I think that with all the government wastes money on,
they could intervene and make treatments more affordable to the individual. My faith is not impacted by
someone’s sexual orientation. My faith is based on whether or not they are a good person. Would they
be willing to help others? Are they an active member of their community? Do they want to see the health
and well-being of those around them improve? Those are what concerns me, not who they love or where
they come from (The Age of AIDS, 2006).
4. Consider and comment on the political and social environment during this time both nationally and
globally and how that impacted the perception and effort to address this emerging disease. Discuss
key individuals' contributions to the AIDS epidemic in the field of epidemiology.
I think there are several people who held a pivotal role in the perception and effort to understand and
fight AIDs. Those people are Dr. Jim Curran, Noerine Kaleeba, President Bill Clinton, and rock star Bono.
Though other were extremely important, I feel that these people in particular provided a turning point in
how the disease was viewed and treated (The Age of AIDS, 2006).
Dr. Jim Curran, who was the head of the CDC’s sexually transmitted disease division in the early 80’s when
AIDS first was linked to sexual encounters. He helped to fight the community’s initial response to the AIDS
epidemic, primarily the view of gay individuals (The Age of AIDS, 2006).
Noerine Kabeela was a women of Uganda whose husband was infected from a blood transfusion and was
all but denied care while he was in England studying for a master’s degree. She was able to bring him
home to die. She felt that even the health care staff was afraid of the disease and uneducated in how to
treat patients infected with AIDS. After his death she campaigned around Uganda to help educate people
about the disease and educated them on how to protect themselves. She launched AIDS support
Organization (TASO) which has spread to other countries as well. She has even talked with President Bush
regarding the AIDS epidemic (The Age of AIDS, 2006).
President Bill Clinton was import in the fight against AIDS because of the first time there was support
within the US government to help with policy and able to influence the cost of treatment. He also help
the position of AIDS infection change from a death sentence in the eye of the infected, which meant more
people were willing to get tested and take better precautions to prevent disease (The Age of AIDS, 2006).
Lastly, Bono was a huge driving force in the fight against AIDS in the US and later in the world. He was able
to change the mind of Senator Jesse Helms from being out right averse to helping gay individuals, who he
felt were immoral on all accounts and deserved the disease as punishment, to agreeing to and truly
wanting to help his fellow man fight this terrible and horrific disease. From his influence of Senator Helms,
President Bush was able to finance the President’s Emergency Program fo AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This ideas
was a huge step in the right direction of helping those truly dying of disease, though it fell flat of their
original goal (The Age of AIDS, 2006).
References
The Age of AIDS. (2006, May 30). Retrieved from Frontline :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/view/