Time to address stigma faced by PLHIV from PLHIV!

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum Members,

We have been pooling resources and efforts to diminish stigma and

discrimination faced by People Living with HIV (PLHIV).

All these efforts are designed to address the stigma and discrimination faced

from general population. This general population range from health care

providers to very common man. As a result of continuous efforts, the signals

received show that there is a reduction in the cases where PLHIV are stigmatized

or discriminated.

But now, it is high time to think about the stigma and discrimination faced by

PLHIV from PLHIV! If we are not addressing this issue, it will badly affect the

quality of the ongoing programmes.

So far we have been trying to understand the types of stigma faced by PLHIV from

general population. Let us try to understand what all types of stigma PLHIV has

to face from PLHIV.

Let me share some instances, which threw light to generate such a

viewpoint. I have been working in HIV sector for the last 4+ years.

Had the opportunity to associate with Kerala SACS, NACO, states like Bihar,

Jharkand, Maharashtra, Chhatisgarh, UP and AP.

While mentioning the instances, I would like to refrain from detailing the

incidents in length and mentioning the names of the States, networks or people

involved.

1) In a national workshop to develop strategy for GIPA, the forum was

utilized largely by two leaders of different networks, to settle their personal

viewpoints, making representatives from other state mere spectators.

In the same workshop, a male community member from one state

shouted at a female community member from the same state, both from

different networks. The male community member, while shouting, was pointing out

the inexperience of the other network in the field of HIV. The shouting,

indeed, was not in tune with the decorum of the forum.

2) A Coordinator (female) of one of the Drop in Centre (DiC) for PLHIV

complained about the harassment she had to face from her male counterpart.

Both are PLHIV, and the male counselor after heated arguments, took a chair and

tried to beat the Coordinator. This happened in a low prevalent state.

3) In another incident the community members of the DiC reflected that

the coordinator (male) and counselor (female) are trying to divide the

members in their favour. The members who were not interested in this

“politics” started to disassociate from the activities of the network and the

DiC.

4) In a third district, one community member started buying second line

medicines for another four members, taking more money from them. This member

also manhandled the male counselor of the Drop in centre a couple of times.

5) In one district the president of the district network miss-used the

office of the DiC, and was caught red handed by the members and they came with a

complaint against him.

6) One SASC appointed the GIPA coordinator, after reserving the post for an HIV

positive person. The officer who joined the office had to face unprofessional

approaches from the community members, from the very next day of joining. Most

of the comments were traces of difficulty to recognize a member among them who

achieved such a position.

7) Another network still continues teasing the GIPA coordinator over

phone. They wanted to clarify what GIPA is! They also want the GIPA

coordinator to take steps in their favour or quit the post.

I don’t want to shift the focus by explaining what remedial measures the

concerned SACS or the respective networks took. But would like to filter out

the elements of stigma from these incidents

1) If such incidents had happened from general population, these would

have been big issues of stigma and discrimination. It might have followed with

experience sharing, arguments etc

2) In all the incidents the affected ones are PLHIV. They had to suffer

mentally or physically and these incidents have directly or indirectly

threatened their existence as a human being. Only difference is that stigma and

discrimination came from PLHIV.

Why these incidents?

1) While HIV prevention programmes tried to make general population

understand the real scenario and thereby worked to reduce the stigma and

discrimination, there were fewer efforts to diminish the stigma and reduction

between PLHIV.

2) More projects and more funding have resulted in creation of more

networks. The networks largely involved in criticizing each other. More

networks means more leaders.

3) It has to be verified whether the empowered community members stood

for positions, thereby preventing the empowerment of those left behind.

What will be the result?

1) Grass root level members will turn reluctant to associate with the

activities of the network. This will result in the service uptake even in ART.

The mental strength of PLHIV will be reduced. Positive living will not happen.

This will adversely effect the ongoing HIV prevention programmes

2) The networks will lose foot in long run.

3) The society will come to know that PLHIV are discriminated even by

their community. This will result in more discrimination from the general

population

4) The capacity of networks will diminish. They will not be entrusted to

implement various projects

5) More networks will float, without much aims and objectives

Suggestions

1) Programme designers should work to understand the stigma and

discrimination issues between PLHIV and try to address these issues.

2) Networks, if stood for a common cause, would have resulted in positive

results.

3) Networks should take initiative to increase the morale of their

members and make them understand each and every individual’s role, and

compliment each other.

--

S.Ajai Kumar

Kerala

e-mail: <ajai.ksacs@...>