Monday 1 December 2008

Individuals infect and get infected by HIV, not communities . . .

Today is Aids Day, everywhere in the world. Professor Malegapuru Makgoba is upbeat about the whole affair, where South Africa is concerned that is. He insists that this is no flash in the pan excitement either – No! his excitement is here to stay. In his own vernacular words he says “once you have woken up the chickens, you can’t put them back to sleep” (my translation).This is with reference to the change of government approach to HIV/AIDS since the appointment of Ms Hogan, the new minister of health – who in a few fundamental ways is not like Ms Tshabalala-Msimang, the previous minister of health.

The government of Thabo Mbeki, according to Professor Makgoba made it impossible to tackle the pandemic and apparently medics were not even free to say HIV causes AIDS. Some powerful fella that Thabo was, I’d say. He seems to have been one oppressive leader indeed. So oppressive scientists did not feel free to express the outcomes of what must have been their scientific results and conclusions – as opposed to Google search results. This is where I would like to leave it insofar as government and HIV/AIDS is concerned. My celebration or commemoration of this day is about the people, especially the individual.

Lucky Mazibuko is among many things a HIV positive and positive living columnist who writes for the Sowetan newspaper. One has to give it to that bustling metropolis, Soweto. Its own newspaper, radio station, television, shopping mall, marathon and soon will have its own street racing just like Monaco. I can imagine the miniature yachts during the race week – floating merrily on the lake near Rockville . . .

Lucky was recently on radio defending one of his articles on the subject of HIV/AIDS – at least that is what it sounded like to me. He apparently wrote something to the effect that we have beaten the “government must do something about aids” drum for long and loudly enough and that we must now switch to another drum. That way I presume the rhythm section will sound better. Lucky argued, correctly in my view; that individuals ought to take responsibility for their personal health. The counter argument went along the lines that the circumstances for personal choice are simply not conducive for others. I agree with that too. The proponent of the counter argument illustrated her point with reference to young girls who are forced into all manner of situations by their fathers, uncles and other family and familiar men. These children cannot find avenue to express their choices; in fact it is argued, they do not have a choice at all. So against their will and better judgement they get infected.

So, in our classic South African “either/or” approach, we should forget about this personal responsibility and choice nonsense until we have fixed the ills of our society that denies the majority of our people the choice to be healthy, celibate, promiscuous, responsible and so on and so forth.

It sounded to me like any mention of personal responsibility for one’s health, presupposes that the government will be excused from doing what it should in relation to the pandemic specifically and about other health matters generally. The personal choice and responsibility approach, one caller argued, will be supported by the capitalists and their surrogates who in his view have no respect for issues of the collective. I could not follow the rest of the caller’s views but I remember thinking how riveting it would be to have a beer with him while discussing the ills of our society.

Lucky, wherever you may be, in me you have at least one supporter. To the rest of our fellow sex loving South Africans (as if this is read by anyone other my wife dearest and her sister and one other friend) – it is really up to you. Whether HIV causes AIDS may be an interesting debate to engage in. You may even have objective scientific basis to demonstrate your view. You do have to concede though that there is overwhelming evidence that indicate that if you engage in sexual intercourse without a condom, you are likely to infect or become infected with the HI virus. What the virus gets up once you are infected, is in my view moot. There are a whole lot of other good reasons why one should practice safe sex – this is however not a post on morality, which turns out to be yet another personal and individual choice. There is a call for government to intervene here too.

In fairness to the counter argument, I must state a further illustration of theirs in support of the assertion that government should do more. It was pointed out that the smoking rate among South Africans has declined because of the laws prohibiting smoking in public places and around small children and at work, etc. As I listened to this, I tried very hard not to walk away in a huff. Now that I have calmed down, may I impress upon the proponent of the counter argument that we already have laws that prohibit sexual intercourse with a person who does not want to engage in sexual intercourse. This is the whole dreaded consent issue of which the least said the better. Furthermore, a tour of our public places, especially restaurant will show that the anti-smoking laws are hardly observed nor enforced. This is apart from the small technicality that we don’t generally get down on it in public.

This Aids day and the days coming each individual should please make a choice to lessen the opportunity to infect or be infected and most importantly, to help others make that choice.

Otherwise, you better be lucky.

1 comment:

  1. Hey, I'm so glad I found your blog - its great.

    Again, totally agree with you.

    Although I think this either/or thing isn't just a South African thing. I think its just a classic trick for people to justify their behaviour.

    I recently had a discussion with a man about his views of divorce. He want on about women's rights and women being beaten by their husbands. So the option of divorce is important then, he says. To protect women.
    Then the conversation continues and it turns out he is divorced. As far as I can understand, because he was not "sexually satisfied" by his wife.
    Gah.
    So he somehow justified his divorcing his wife by the fact tghat other men beat their wives? Hmmm...

    (Sorry, that probabyt didn't make sense - the either or was responsability to and commitment to your spouse, versus the option of getting out of a legitimately
    abusive situation).

    But on topic - one thing that makes me happy is that fact that the "HIV free generation - it begins with you" campaign seems to be doing well. Because I think the "It begins with you" message is brilliant. A lot more about personal responsibility than Love Life, for example. And it is a private initiative - not government. :)

    ReplyDelete