The response against HIV/AIDS

The response against HIV/AIDS

The response against HIV/AIDS is a mixture of both public health, politics, and policy. Historically, improvements in public health have used combined perspectives of political leadership and medical approaches. Since the late 19th C and 20th C, policymakers responded to calls on intervening against HIV/AIDS. The global response to HIV/AIDS has taken a political dimension with politicians politicizing the whole process. One primary reason is the prejudice around the ways HIV transmits in from one person to another. Other social, economic injustices fuel the HIV epidemic, which leads to increased fault lines. Elements of social and economic equality relate to the high cases of HIV among the affected population (Piot, Russell, and Larson). All these factors are political and contribute to expanding a weak political system at both national and community levels.

The rapid spread of HIV indicates that AIDs is a huge threat to most developing countries. These countries are mainly in South Asia and Africa. The social dimension of this epidemic lies in the fact that it threatens the governance resources. The prevalence rates of HIV /Aids in these have gone beyond the comparable levels. The levels far belong to what these governments can control. As a result, the United Nations have sponsored numerous researches that compare Aids to the plagues in the history of humanity. The nature of HIV transmission through sexual intercourse and other intimate personal connection raises questions about the political, policy, and public health initiatives. All these efforts balance between cultural and religious norms. For example, AIDs poses a significant challenge to the existing gender relations, social, and economic stability of the developing societies (Piot, Russelland Larson, 2007). The unprecedented degree of political involvement in responding to the HIV scourge stars with the United Nations initiatives through community-based programs. The activities impact on both the creation of new forms of multilateral cooperation and the concept of global citizenship.

The dominant social dimension that explains the response to HIV/AIDS focuses on the psychological elements (Altman 1999). The individual risk behaviors determine the mechanism that agencies and governments use in initiating programs to address the epidemic. Although stakeholders have focused on the social and economic context of HIV/AIDS in developing countries, the programs also include behavior change. As a result, the approach addresses those already infected and forgets about reducing future infections.

The spread and prevalence of HIV/AIDs have continued to exert devastating impacts on the lives of people, irrespective of the efforts from political players. Aldashevy and Baland (2015) indicate that prevention policies across African countries are unrelated to the prevalence of HIV/AIDs. Although these politics have succeeded in some areas, they prove to be unstable and unreliable. From the political, economic model, governments should determine the dynamics of the epidemic to come up with prevention policies. From the video case, prevention policies affect the perception and behavior of the population in fighting the epidemic. Political decisions influence behaviors change programs. In turn, this reduces the rate of infection and other risk factors among sexually active agents (Aldashevy and Baland, 2015).

In 2000, the United Nations issued a decree on addressing the stigmatization of people living with HIV/AIDS. According to Piot, Russell, and Larson (2007), AIDS has been a highly political subject. The nature of HIV transmission and the stigma associated with injection, sexual intercourse, and sexual behavior of the victims have shaped the political and social policy among stakeholders. Initial progress in responding ting to HIV/AIDS started in early 1980 in western and European countries. The efforts gave birth to community mobilization, activism from a non-governmental organization, and government action. For example, the AIDS Support Organizations in Africa began in Uganda in 1987, indicating a critical case of community-based action to support those that were already affected by HIV. In South Africa, stakeholders came up with the Treatment Action Campaign that dwelled on the use of community guided political and legal action (Piot, Russell, and Larson, 2007). The objective of this b agency was to ensure that the infected people had an awareness of HIV transmission, embraced behavior change, and consumed advice. The video illustrates the motivation of some political leaders in taking action in response to HIV/AIDS.

The psychological perspective of HIV/AIDS explains the factors that affect the mental wellbeing of the HIV infected person. With the government and other stakeholders providing appropriate resources for care and support, the response has taken the social, economic, and political dimensions. However, the increased community-based initiatives and other multi-stakeholder involvement in addressing efforts to reduce the scourge, infections, and enhance behavior change, there are high cases of stigma and discrimination. Psychological perspectives conceptualize HIV/AIDS as a developing disease that relies upon the individual relationship with nature. Evidence revealed that several people infected with HIV/AIDS tend to have various personality disorders. As a result, they are at a higher risk of HIV exposure as opposed to those diagnosed with clinical symptoms. There is a need to show the ability to engage in safe sexual practices and continuously change one’s behavior.