Discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS

Stigma is often enforced by discrimination, callous actions, and bigotry.

HIV/AIDS stigma is divided into the following three categories:

• Instrumental AIDS stigma—a reflection of the fear and apprehension that are likely to be associated with any deadly and transmissible illness.[4]
• Symbolic AIDS stigma—the use of HIV/AIDS to express attitudes toward the social groups or lifestyles perceived to be associated with the disease.[4]
• Courtesy AIDS stigma—stigmatization of people connected to the issue of HIV/AIDS or HIV- positive people.^[4]

HIV-related stigma is very common worldwide.[5] People who are infected with HIV often experience systemic discrimination and ostracism within their communities.[6] In both high-income and low-income nations, persons living with HIV are routinely discriminated against at work, school, and healthcare facilities.[7] Research shows that a lack of general knowledge about HIV/AIDS and false beliefs create an environment where HIV-related stigma can grow and lead to a series of negative consequences for the PLHIV.[8]

Today, there continues to be significant misconceptions about HIV within the United States. A 2009 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that many Americans still lack basic knowledge about HIV.[9] According to the survey, a third of Americans erroneously believe that HIV could be transmitted through sharing a drink or touching a toilet used by an HIV-positive individual.[9] Furthermore, the study reported that 42 percent of Americans would be uncomfortable with having an HIV-positive roommate, 23 percent would be uncomfortable with an HIV-positive coworker, 50 percent would be uncomfortable with an HIV-positive person preparing their food, and 35 percent would be uncomfortable with their child having an HIV-positive teacher.[9] Many of the respondents who were able to correctly answer questions about HIV transmission still reported similar biased views against HIV-positive individuals; in fact, 85 percent of these respondents reported that they would feel uncomfortable working with an HIV-positive coworker.[9]

These discriminatory views of HIV-positive patients also persist within the medical field. A 2006 study of health professionals in Los Angeles County found that 56 percent of nursing facilities, 47 percent of obstetricians, and 26 percent of plastic surgeons had unlawfully refused to treat an HIV-positive patient, citing concerns of HIV transmission.[10] Overall, this societal stigma and discrimination has exacerbated distrust towards healthcare workers within the HIV-positive population.[10] The health care community therefore has an ethical duty to dispel stereotypes and misconceptions about HIV.[11]

Between 1970 and 1980, more than 20,000 HIV infections were attributed to contaminated blood transfusions.[12] The lack of sensitive blood screening methods for HIV detection prompted the enactment of lifetime bans on blood donations from men who have sex with men (MSM), sex workers, and intravenous drug users, as these population groups were viewed to be at high risk of contracting HIV.[12] At the time, this policy was viewed by health professionals as an emergency measure to prevent the contamination of the general blood supply. Multilateral institutions such as the World Health Organization actively promoted the enactment of lifetime bans in efforts to mitigate transfusion-related HIV infections.[12] This ban was adopted by the United States, as well as several European countries in the 1980s.[12]

The blood donation ban on MSM and transgender women, in particular, has provoked substantial criticism. Members of the LGBTQ+ community view these laws as discriminatory and homophobic.[13] A significant criticism of the blood donation restrictions is that healthcare workers treat the LGBTQ+ community as a homogenous population that engages in similar sexual practices and behaviors.[13] However, like any other population, MSM vary greatly in the number of sexual partners they have and in their engagement in high-risk sexual behaviors.[13] Overall, the donation ban on MSM and transgender women has further exacerbated growing distrust of the medical system within the LGBTQ+ community, especially given the history of homophobia within the medical profession.[12] As a result of these policies, LGBTQ+ individuals have felt substantial pressure to conceal their sexual orientation from medical providers and healthcare personnel.[12]

Blood banks today utilize advanced serological testing technologies with close to 100% sensitivity and specificity.[12] Currently, the risk of HIV-contaminated blood infection is 1 per 8-to-12 million donations, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of modern HIV screening technologies.[12] Despite these significant laboratory advances, the lifetime blood donation ban on MSM remains in several Western countries.[12] Today, medical organizations such as the American Red Cross and World Health Organization are highly critical of these lifetime bans on men who have sex with men, as the epidemiology of HIV has changed drastically in the last 40 years.[14] In 2015, a mere 27% of novel HIV infections originated from the MSM population.[12] In response to this epidemiological data, public health experts, medical personnel, and blood-banking organizations have called upon country governments to reform these outdated MSM blood donation policies.[14]

Mounting public pressure has prompted countries such as the United States and United Kingdom to reform their MSM blood donation restrictions.[14] In 2015, the United States substituted its lifetime ban for a 12-month deferral since last MSM sexual contact, although indefinite lifetime bans remain in place for sex workers and IV drug users.[15] Despite these small steps in the right direction, the American Red Cross has recommended that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) further revise its policy by adopting a 3-month deferral period for MSM, as this is the current standard in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom.[16] Overall, it is estimated that completely lifting the MSM blood donation ban could increase the total blood supply in the United States by 2-4%, which could help save millions of lives.[17] Given the blood supply shortage during the COVID-19 pandemic, blood donation restrictions have recently become the subject of further criticism.[18]

Discriminatory practices within the medical field have greatly impacted the health outcomes of HIV-positive individuals.[19] In both low-income and high-income nations, there have been several reported cases of medical providers administering low-quality care or denying care altogether to patients with HIV.[19] In a 2013 study conducted in Thailand, 40.9 percent of health workers reported worrying about touching the clothing and personal belongings of patients with HIV, despite possessing the knowledge that HIV does not spread through such items.[19] In a 2008 study of 90 countries, one in four persons living with HIV reported experiencing some form of discrimination in health-care settings.[19] Furthermore, one in five individuals with HIV reported having been denied medical care.[19] Even more concerning is the impact HIV-related discrimination has had on HIV-positive women. According to the 2008 study, one in three women living with HIV have reported instances of discrimination related to their sexual and reproductive health within a health-care setting.[19]

Another common form of discrimination within healthcare settings is the disclosure of a patient's HIV status without the patient's explicit permission.[19] Within many countries, an HIV-positive status can result in social exclusion, loss of social support, and decreased chances of getting married.[20] Therefore, concerns about potential breaches of confidentiality by health workers pose significant barriers to care for HIV-positive individuals. In a comprehensive study of 31 countries, one in five persons living with HIV reported instances of a health provider disclosing their HIV-positive status without consent.[19]

These discriminatory practices within the medical field have resulted in the delayed initiation of HIV treatment among HIV-positive individuals.[20] In New York City, men who have sex with men, transgender women, and persons of color living with HIV have all reported that stigma among medical providers was a major deterrent from entering or staying in HIV care.[19] A 2011 community-based study found that the most widely reported barrier to care amongst HIV-positive individuals is fear of stigma within healthcare settings.[20] HIV-positive individuals who have experienced significant HIV-related stigma are 2.4 times less likely to present for HIV care.[19] Currently, as many as 20–40 percent of Americans who are HIV-positive do not begin a care regimen within the first six months of diagnosis.[21] Overall, this perpetuation of HIV stigma has been detrimental to the health outcomes of HIV-positive individuals, as patients who begin treatment late in the progression of HIV have a 1.94 times greater risk of mortality in comparison to those who start treatment at the onset of diagnosis.[22] Therefore, delayed HIV treatment due to fears of discrimination can have fatal consequences.[22]

Discrimination that is violent or threatening violence stops a lot of individuals from getting tested for HIV, which does not aid in curing the virus.Violence is an important factor against the treatment of people afflicted with AIDS. A study done on PLHIV in South Africa shows that out of a study population of 500, 16.1% of participants reported being physically assaulted, with 57.7% of those resulting from one's intimate partners such as husbands and wives. The available data show high rates of participants socially isolating themselves from both friends and family, in addition to avoiding the seeking of treatment at hospitals or clinics due to increasing internalized fears.[23] Any violence against HIV infected individuals or people who are perceived to be infected with HIV can severely shut down the advancement of treatment in response to the progression of the disease.

Persons living with HIV have developed self-depreciating mindsets and coping skills to deal with the social repercussions of an HIV-positive diagnosis. Research done in South Africa has found that the high levels of stigma experienced by HIV-positive individuals has a severe psychological impact. Internalized stigma and discrimination run rampant throughout the PLHIV community, as many PLHIV in South Africa blamed themselves for their current situation.[24] The psychological support for PLHIV in certain countries around the world is quite scarce.

The U.S. HIV epidemic has drastically evolved over the course of the last 30 years and has been rampantly widespread in socially marginalized and underrepresented communities. Statistics show that most HIV infections afflict sexual minorities and communities of color. For example, in 2009, African Americans accounted for 44% of all new HIV infections while making up only 14% of the U.S. population.[25] Similarly, 78% of HIV infections in Georgia occur among African Americans, while African Americans comprise only 30% of the overall population.[25] Hall et al. (2008) found distinct incidence rates of HIV infection among African Americans (83/100,000 population) and Latinos (29/100,000), specifically when compared to whites (11/100,000).[25]

The single group that is consistently at the greatest risk for HIV infection happens to form the intersection of sexual orientation and racial background; MSM (men who have sex with men) are the most HIV affected Americans, and African American MSM are at an HIV risk that is six times greater than that of white MSM.[25] Aside from race and sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, education and employment are all equally important factors that studies link to HIV infection. The CDC reports that HIV rates are highest among groups who are at or below the poverty level; they also found that individuals who are unemployed and/or have less than a high school education are more prone to HIV infection.[25]

In order to help HIV infected persons receive care, the first vital step revolves around HIV testing and early diagnosis. Delayed testing is highly detrimental and leads to an increased risk of HIV transmission. Currently, there are many issues associated with HIV diagnosis and lack of available testing for minorities. A study of 16 US cities found that African Americans are more likely to be tested much later for HIV infection, which places this group at a stark disadvantage for gaining access to proper treatment.[26] This is problematic because HIV is only half of the story: a prolonged HIV infection can quickly become an AIDS diagnosis, and this can be prevented with early and frequent testing. Approximately 35%-45% of those diagnosed with HIV are believed to also have AIDS at the time of testing.[26] About half of the people diagnosed with HIV do not receive care in any given year, which poses a risk that they are endangering others while they are not given treatment.[26] Various studies suggest that groups with lower socioeconomic status and lower education level are associated with poorer medication adherence.[27] However, those with HIV who are more privileged and more educated have easy access to quality health insurance and the best medical care.

• Criminalization of HIV transmission
• HIV exceptionalism