Re: 50% lesser people with HIV government says. Whowill benefit from re-estimates [Part 2]

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum and Mr Rao,

I have been following this discussion by the forum, following the Honorable

Minister of Health's press release about the Government of India's new

assessment of the HIV scenario in India, with apprehension, trepidation, dismay

and several other words that convey similar emotional responses.

Clear reason tells me that:

1. A national Non Governmental caucus of opinion on the burden of the HIV

epidemic in India cannot be completely wrong.

2. An analysis of 100,000 households constituting less than 2% of the previous

estimate of the national HIV burden (5.2 million) and 0.01% of the national

population is an inadequate sample.

3. The loosely structured significantly divergent nature of family groups in the

many states of India (and I have been around and lived in many of them in urban

and rural areas) do not give a clear idea of a standard sample in the limited

states covered by a concept of 'High prevalence'.

4. The huge amount of effort required to advocate a sense of the dire need to

'mainstream' HIV considerations will now undergo a reverse process and decline,

especially in the long felt absence of adequate legislation.

5. Tremendous demotivation at all levels- afflicted and affected, field

operating agencies, support systems, are all possible eventual scenarios.

The list is endless and I am dismayed at the total lack of transparency of the

national agencies and government. There was no open discussion forum on the

assessment of the current estimates and the proposals to make them nationally

and internationall presented, keeping in view the possible fallout (or was this

even considered?).Especially keeping in view the 'knee jerk response' nature of

our national media.

Surely Mr Rao as one of the most effective and appreciated erstwhile DGs-NACO

could have used his good offices (since he is in the TRG of and Director-UNAIDS

Asia Pacific) to bring all this into the open. Has the government even presented

a Poilcy paper on this? Where is it?

As for the expected efficacy of the ART centre copositioning and providing acces

for the needy, I can tell you about a large registry of patients who refuse to

make the efforts (often as much as three hours each way with inadequate

transportation) and drop out of the programme, facing death at home rather than

dying enroute.

The SACS organistaions ned to work much more on this aspect. Field organisations

not listed by SACS get no hearing at all in their efforts to provide the

so-called 'Public Private Partnerships'. Nice slogan, no result!

The questions are endless.

Apprehensively yours,

Dr Shashi Menon.

Director, Kripa Foundation.

e-mail: <msmenon@...>