42Social discrimination faced by AIDS patients and t.docx

42
Social discrimination faced by AIDS patients and their families
By
Name
Institution
Date
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 3
1.0 Background and Context 3
1.2 Scope and Objectives 7
2.0 Literature review 8
2.1 Introduction 8
2.2 Discrimination in the Family 8
2.3 Discrimination in the Community 13
2.4 Discrimination in School 19
2.5 Discrimination in the Work Place 23
2.6 Discrimination in Hospitals 29
2.7 Extend of discrimination to the family of the infected 33
3.0 Methodology 37

4.0 Results and Discussion 38
5.0 Conclusion and recommendations 41
5.1 Conclusion 41
5.2 Recommendations 41
6.0 References 43
1.0 Introduction
1.0 Background and Context
The HIV and AIDs epidemic dates back to the year 1981. This
dangerous disease got the community into mixed reactions and
since then, the society has developed varied perceptions in
relation to this incurable disease (Pardasani, Moreno, and
Forge, 2010). According to Pardasani, Moreno, and Forge
(2010), society attributed the disease to disenfranchised groups,
and other deviant taboos like prostitution and drug abuse.
However, more than thirty years since the discovery of this
deadly virus the trends and statistics vary on a daily basis.
According to the World health organization (2012), more than
seventy five million across the globe have been confirmed
infected with the disease, and more than thirty six million
people infected have died since the discovery of the epidemic.
Though state and federal governments, with the help of non-
governmental organizations have fought the disease tirelessly,
HIV and AIDS prevalence is steadily increasing and so is the
level of stigma for the people infected with the disease, their
caregivers as well as their families. Currently, more than thirty
five million people are living with the disease, with detailed

statistics revealing that approximately six thousand people are
infected with HIV/AIDs daily, which translates to
approximately two hundred and sixty people per hour (World
health organization, 2012). Notably, the disease has not spared
minors because out of the thirty five million people infected by
the disease by the end of 2012, approximately three million
people were confirmed to be less than fifteen years. Similarly,
out of the two million people who died from the disease in
2012, more than two hundred thousand were below fifteen years
(World health organization, 2012). According to the World
health Organization (2012), HIV/AIDs prevalence varies across
regions with the sub-Saharan Africa housing seventy percent of
the infected people as at December 2012.
To understand the social discrimination faced by individuals
living with HIV and AIDs, it is important to have an overview
of social discrimination. According to Rubin and Hewstone
(2004), discrimination is the differential treatment of a person
based on stereotypes and perceptions concerning his or her
social status, membership to a specific group. Discrimination
faced by AIDs people and their families is an act of prejudice
against those AIDs people and their families and it is within the
purview of the law. In this case, discrimination faced by people
suffering from AIDs comes in different manifestations including
stigmatization, ill attitudes, and other behaviours as may be
defined by the country’s legislations (Ogden and Nyblade,
2005).
Discrimination against people living with AIDS is common
phenomenon across the globe and takes place in various forms
including rejection, ostracism, and violence against AIDS
patients. This violence can be in form of forced HIV testing,
lack of confidentiality protection, and loss of property in case
of the death of a spouse. The overall implication of this stigma
is shyness from seeking treatment, and testing thus worsening
the health status of the HIV infected person (UNAIDS, 2006).
Based on the different manifestations of AIDs, discrimination
can be categorised in three broad classes: instrumental

HIV/AIDS discrimination, symbolic HIV/AIDS discrimination,
and courtesy HIV/AIDS discrimination (Ogden and Nyblade,
2005). Instrumental HIV/AIDS discrimination reflects on the
fear as well as the apprehension that is mostly associated with
chronic and deadly transmissible diseases. The society will
naturally fear any contact with people living with AIDS because
they would perceive them as a potential danger within the
society. Thus, this category of AIDs discrimination is universal
with all chronic and deadly diseases (Ogden and Nyblade, 2005;
Herek and Capitanio, 1999). Precisely, it is the fear of being
infected which keeps away other people away from the victims
and their families hence discrimination.
Symbolic discrimination for AIDS patients focuses on the
attitudes expressed by the society towards the various lifestyles
as well as certain social groups the society perceive to be
associated with HIV/AIDS. Some of these lifestyles and social
groups include homosexuality, promiscuity, prostitution,
bisexuality, and drug abuse (Herek and Capitanio, 1999). The
underlying argument in this case is that people will tend to
discriminate people infected with HIV/AIDS because they also
discriminate people belonging to the above mentioned lifestyles
on the perception that they are more likely to contract the
disease than the rest of the society. AIDs is in most cases
contracted through unprotected sexual intercourse and therefore
those sexual affiliated groups like sex workers, homosexuals,
bisexuals and drug users are perceived by the society as
HIV/AIDS positive (Herek, Capitanio and Widaman, 2002;
Herek and Capitanio, 1999).
Courtesy AIDS discrimination is the stigmatization extended to
persons associated with the whole issues of HIV and AIDS. For
instance, the society will look down upon the family members
of people living positively with HIV and AIDS as well as their
caregivers. The society has a perception that such people would
have a close contact with AIDS patients and therefore they are
as well potentially infected with the deadly disease. With little
knowledge of the possible ways of contracting HIV and AIDS,

the society may tend to think that every person who comes in
contact with infected people automatically becomes a victim.
This discrimination extends to social workers and hospitals
specialising with HIV and AIDS (Herek, Capitanio and
Widaman, 2002).
Research has shown that one of the major factors limiting the
pursuit of treating HIV and AIDS is discrimination and social
violence (Ogden and Nyblade, 2005). Discrimination fuels
structural violence raising the risks of being infected as well as
limited access to treatment. Similarly, the perception that the
disease is incurable has limited the pursuit of medical
specialists to search for right medication. Notably, more than
thirty percent of people living with HIV and AIDS never sought
medical attention within the recommended six months after
infection. In this case, the late treatment allows for the draining
of the CD4 cells below the recommended five hundred cells thus
raising the risk of death (Ogden and Nyblade, 2005; UNAIDS,
2006; Herek and Capitanio, 1999). This can be attributed to the
stigma faced by AIDS patients and their families because they
fear the shame associated with HIV and AIDS by the society.
Discrimination faced by people living positively with HIVand
AIDS is apparent in many settings. For instance, students may
be denied school admission on the basis of the disease, people
infected with HIV and AIDS can be denied housing thus forced
to pay additional rent, and job discrimination whereby people
infected with the disease are denied some employment
opportunities. In other cases, AIDS discrimination manifests
itself in health centres, whereby people diagnosed with the
disease are placed separately from other patients suffering from
conventional and treatable diseases. There is as well limited
access to social services experienced by people infected with
AIDs because in most cases they may be denied access to social
clubs, games and other joint ventures of the society (UNAIDS,
2006; Herek, Capitanio and Widaman, 2002).
Discrimination faced by people living positively with AIDS is
generally a manifestation of policies, believes, laws, and

regulations that single out HIV patients and offer them
differential treatment at school, churches, community activities,
hospitals, and in employment settings. Notably, some countries
have illegalised the transmission of HIV and AIDS thus
segregating AIDS patients. In light of this understanding, it
becomes important to explore the literature behind the social
discrimination faced by people living with HIV and AIDS as
well as the extent of this social discrimination to their families.
1.2 Scope and Objectives
The study focuses on the social discrimination faced by people
infected with HIV and AIDS with a special focus on the specific
settings where discrimination is most apparent. The study will
explore how social discrimination has manifested in various life
settings including in schools, hospitals, workplaces, and in the
society in general. In this case, the study seeks to review the
relevant literature surrounding the HIV and AIDS
discrimination manifested through stigmatisation, and structural
violence against people infected with the disease. The study
will therefore explore a range of apparent settings whereby
social discrimination against people infected with AIDS
evident. The overall objective of the study is to analyse the
presence and nature of social discrimination against Aids
patients and their families. In a bid to attain this overall
objective, the study seeks to meet the following specific
objectives:
· Develop an understanding of the extent of social
discrimination against Aids patients in society
· Understand the nature of the social discrimination
· Identify the areas of life where it is most apparent
· How is the discrimination extended to the families of the
patients
2.0 Literature review

2.1 Introduction
This section will offer a detailed survey of various social
settings where discrimination against people living positively
with HIV and AIDS is evident. To effectively attain its
objective of describing the presence of social discrimination
against AIDS patients and their family members, the study will
divide this section in to six sub-headings with each sub-heading
describing a specific social setting where discrimination against
people is apparent. However, the last sub-heading of this
section addresses the extent of this AIDS discrimination to the
family members of the infected people or their caregivers in
general. The review is not grounded on any testable theory
because it focuses on the empirical literature seeking to justify
the presence of social discrimination, the nature of the
discrimination and the most apparent setting for potential
discrimination. 2.2 Discrimination in the Family
Contracting HIV and AIDS guarantees you a certain level of
segregation even from your close family member. Just for the
obvious reason of avoiding the disease, people will not be
comfortable when interacting with people infected with AIDS
even if the infected people belong to their family (Snyder,
Omoto and Crain, 1999; Ogden and Nyblade, 2005; UNAIDS,
2006). Social discrimination against family members infected
by HIV and AIDS is evident in different settings including food,
clothing, transport, social events, medical care, education, as
well as family property. In some extreme cases, people infected
with HIV and AIDS are forced by their families to leave their
homes to join AIDS care centres as a way of eliminating the
risk of infecting other family members (UNAIDS, 2006). It is
therefore important to understand in detail the various family
settings where social discrimination against people living with
AIDS is apparent.
Based on the little knowledge of the process of contracting HIV,
a section of the society will tend to think that sharing of foods
and drinks with people infected with HIV would potentially
make them vulnerable to similar infection. In this sense, family

members are the first victims of this ill perception, which tends
to ignore the fact that HIV can only be contracted through the
contact of body fluids with an infected person. Some of the
common body fluids capable of contracting HIV include blood,
semen, virginal secretions as well as breast milk (Ogden and
Nyblade, 2005; Herek, Capitanio and Widaman, 2002).
In a bid to avoid the risk of contracting HIV through the sharing
of foods and drinks, other family members separate their
utensils from those used by their fellow members infected with
HIV. In this case, if a family member gets infected with HIV,
the family may decide to allocate him/her a specific plate,
spoon, cup, and any other utensil as they may consider capable
of contracting HIV (Ogden and Nyblade, 2005). This is
discrimination because it amounts to a sense of family exclusion
from the patient’s perspective. With the understanding that
sharing of food and drinks is not one of the methods of
contracting HIV, would feel excluded for no valid reasons and
thus live uncomfortably with fear.
Another aspect of social discrimination against people infected
with HIV and AIDS in the family set up is the segregation of
clothing. Just like in the case of sharing food and drinks,
research has shown that family members infected with HIV will
be forced by their family to use separate beddings and other
common clothing like cold wares (Ogden and Nyblade, 2005).
According to UNAIDS (2006), many families across the world
and more specifically in sub-Saharan Africa would not mix their
clothing with those of persons infected with HIV and AIDS. The
underlying perception in this case is that some of the body fluid
capable of contracting HIV would be found on the patient’s
clothes thus raising the risk of getting infected with this deadly
disease.
In this case, persons infected with HIV will be forced to use
separate wash rooms, separate washing machines and other
washing equipment. This is a clear form of family
discrimination because there is no link between clothing and the
actual process of contracting HIV. The overall impact would be

the patient’s loss of identity in the society because if the family
has already isolated the patient, then this means that the patient
does not belong to any society (Rubin and Hewstone, 2004;
Ogden and Nyblade, 2005).
Many families with private means of transport like personal cars
or private jets would exclude their HIV-infected family
members with the fear that normal bodily contact would
contract HIV leading to AIDS. Based on this wrong perception,
families will tend to exclude their HIV infected members when
travelling for holidays or they may opt using a separate means
of transport in order to avoid any contact with the infected
(Ogden and Nyblade, 2005). In some cases, culture describes
the infected persons in the society as immoral and would result
to a bad omen because the general perception is that they are
cursed. Therefore, for the family to avoid any ill fate while
travelling, they opt to exclude their fellow family members
(Herek, Capitanio and Widaman, 2002; Ogden and Nyblade,
2005).
In some extreme cases of this ill attitude, family member would
not travel with the fellow members infected with HIV for they
fear contracting the deadly virus in case of accidents, whereby
different bloods are capable of coming into contact (Ogden and
Nyblade, 2005). However, this exclusion is unfounded in the
sense that it is not ethical to predict for accidents and even if
people were to predict the future, there are other better
alternatives of dealing with such cases of accidents like the first
aid medication which prevents any infection in case of
accidents.
Another aspect of family discrimination against their fellow
members infected with AIDS is the unwillingness to offer
medical support because of the perception that the disease is
incurable. Many families would not drain their resources
pursuing medication for HIV infected family members because
they are sure patients would not live long (Ogden and Nyblade,
2005). According to UNAIDS (2006), it is possible for people to
live positively with HIV and AIDS if the disease is diagnosed in

the first six months of infection. In this case, the failure of the
family to offer the necessary medical care to their infected
members potentially worsens their health status thus shortening
their life spans. This report argues that the family bares the first
responsibility to provide the relevant medication to persons
infected with HIV before the involvement of the government
and other non-governmental organisations.
This form of family discrimination has largely affected the
pursuit of different stakeholders like state governments and
non-governmental organisations to prevent the spread of HIV
and AIDS. This is because most families are not taking the
initiative of seeking medical care for their fellow members if
they happen to be infected by the deadly virus (Herek,
Capitanio and Widaman, 2002). Notably, persons infected with
HIV and AIDS are also prone to other curable diseases and
therefore it would be unethical to assume that every
complication has resulted from the HIV infection and fail to
seek medical attention. Precisely, most families have failed in
seeking medication for other sicknesses with the general
perception that the person would not respond positively to
medication.
The family of the HIV and AIDS infected people may be
unwilling to support them in their pursuit for education (Ogden
and Nyblade, 2005). This is because just like in the case of
offering medical care, the family may perceive this as a waste
of resources simply because HIV and AIDS victims would not
live long. The right to education is universal and everyone has
the right to receive the necessary education required in day-to-
day decision making. AIDS patients are not exceptional since
research has shown that with the early medication, people can
live positively with AIDS and attain all their goals (UNAIDS,
2006).
It is the role of the family to provide food, clothing, shelter,
medical care, and basic education to its members. In this case, it
would be a discrimination of the highest order to deny any
family member infected with the HIV virus education with the

expectation that the person would not live long to enjoy the
fruits of his/her education. According to UNAIDS (2006), some
of the factors contributing to a positive life with AIDS is good
family care which in this case includes balanced diet, proper
medication, avoiding stress and loneliness, being allowed to
pursue education goals, and the overall inclusion in the family
social and business activities. Therefore, denying any family
member the opportunity to pursue his/her education goals is a
potential source of stress and a feeling of loneliness which
affects the health status of the infected person (Herek and
Capitanio, 1999; Ogden and Nyblade, 2005). It is therefore
evident that most families would discriminate their fellow
members and deny them the universal right of education
assuming that they would not live longer.
Discrimination against persons living with HIV and AIDS has in
the recent past extended to the sharing of family property
(Ogden and Nyblade, 2005; UNAIDS, 2006). Most families
would prefer excluding their fellow family members if they get
infected with HIV and AIDS before the formal sharing of the
family property. The underlying argument is that persons
infected with AIDS do not live long to provide the necessary
management and protection against the property. In other words,
other family members fear that the property would get lost to
the outside world after the death of the HIV infected.
Discriminating the infected people on the basis of their
perceived short live is capable of raising some conflicts when
sharing the family property. This is because the infected
persons are aware of their right to the share of the family
property, which in this case they would argue that they can sell
the property before their perceived death (UNAIDS, 2006).
In general, the family of the HIV/AIDS infected persons play a
crucial role in helping those infected persons live positively
with HIV and AIDS. It is the role of the family to create a sense
of belonging even before the outside world could accept persons
living with HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS, 2006). In other words, the
society will identify persons based on their family background

and therefore denial from the family translates to denial in the
whole society. The health status of the HIV infected persons
depends on many factors, but it is important to note that a
greater percentage of these factors revolve around the family
care. The family has the obligation of pursuing the necessary
supporting medication, providing healthy diet, and according
the necessary social support to avoid stress and depression
(UNAIDS, 2006; Ogden and Nyblade, 2005).
2.3 Discrimination in the Community
Discrimination against persons infected with HIV and AIDS by
the community dates back to its discovery in 1981. The
community held a perception that the disease is associated with
immorality and other undesirable social groups (Human Rights
Watch, 2004). A section of the community perceived the
disease as a curse and therefore they would be keen to associate
with persons infected with HIV and AIDS (Pardasani, Moreno
and Forge, 2010). However, even after more than thirty years of
public awareness and education about the disease,
discrimination against people infected and living with HIV and
AIDS is rapidly growing (Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath, Kanu and
Jolly, 2005; IPPF, 2009). Discrimination against persons living
with HIV and AIDS is evident in different contexts of
community interactions including human rights discrimination,
discrimination in criminal prosecutions, discrimination in police
investigations, discrimination against the disability law, and
other legal issues (IPPF, 2009; Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath, Kanu
and Jolly, 2005; ATLIS, 2010; Herek and Capitanio, 1999).
Persons infected with HIV and AIDS to a considerable extent
are denied some of their human rights by the community based
on the perception that they are immoral and do not fit in any
specific community. It is the right of every member of the
community to be accorded the necessary respect by the
community in which he/she lives regardless of his/her health
status (ATLIS, 2010). It is also the right of every member of the
society to be involved all formal and informal activities of the

community based on his/her willingness to participate but not
depending on the overall community perception on his health
status (IPPF, 2009; Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath, Kanu and Jolly,
2005). However, the society has turned to deny persons infected
with HIV and AIDS some of their basic human rights like the
right of inclusion in the activities of the community.
Research has shown that persons infected with HIV and AIDs
are not considered by the community as agents of change
because the community perceives them as immoral and in some
extreme cases, the community perceives them as cursed. In this
case, the community would not consider persons infected with
HIV and AIDS in any decision making leading to the overall
development of the community (Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath,
Kanu and Jolly, 2005). This is a kind of discrimination founded
on wrong perceptions because people are only not capable of
participating in community decision making if they have
unsound mind. In the case of HIV and AIDS infection, there is
no clear link between the capacity to decision making and the
disease.
On a different score, the most communities violate the right of
persons infected with HIV and AIDS of subscribing to any
social group which they deem comfortable. Notably, some
communities have developed a sense of hatred against persons
living with HIV and AIDS just because they belong to certain
social groups perceived by the community as immoral. Most
countries have legalized some of these social groups perceived
as immoral by the community like gays, lesbians and prostitutes
(UNAIDS, 2006; Ogden and Nyblade, 2005). With such
legalization, communities denying their fellow members the
freedom of joining such social groups in the specific countries
will be violating the patients’ human rights.
In more than one occasion, research has shown that most
communities will deny HIV and AIDS victims the opportunity
to marry and own family (IPPF, 2009; Ogden and Nyblade,
2005). In this case, the community would argue that persons
infected with have no bright future and are not capable of rising

healthy children. However, this is a discrimination against these
persons infected with HIV and AIDS since based on the existing
knowledge about this disease; it is possible for persons living
with HIV and AIDS to raise children who are free from the
disease. In this sense, initial care in the process of breastfeeding
can protect children from getting the disease if raised by
infected parents (UNAIDS, 2006; Ogden and Nyblade, 2005).
Discrimination in criminal prosecutions for persons infected
with HIV and AIDS is evident in many countries like the United
Kingdom. The community accuses those persons infected with
HIV and AIDs for the rapid growth of the disease in the
community (IPPF, 2009; Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath, Kanu and
Jolly, 2005). In this argument, the community holds a
perspective that those already infected with HIV and AIDS are
on a mission to spread the disease and therefore they recklessly
seek sexual favors from other members of the community in a
bid to infect them. Without considering the fact that there is a
consensus between partners before any sexual intercourse, the
community in this case tends to accuse the infected person
forgetting that the other partner hold an obligation to protect
him/her self from infection (UNAIDS, 2006).
According to UNAIDS (2006), discrimination in prosecuting
those persons infected with HIV and AIDs is one of the major
barriers towards the pursuit of eliminating the disease in the
community. This is because of the fear of being prosecuted by
the laws set by the community; many infected members of the
community opt to hide their HIV status thus raising the risk of
spreading the HIV virus. In some cases, some communities
forcefully send infected members to jail as a way of separating
them from the other persons perceived to be clean. The overall
effect is unnecessary torture for reasons the community cannot
prove valid (IPPF, 2009; Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath, Kanu and
Jolly, 2005). Notably, this discrimination is as well against the
human rights because every person, whether infected or not has
a right to interact with the community without the fear of being
prosecuted for their health status.

As noted previously, some countries have criminalised the
transmission of HIV and AIDS thus resulting to forceful police
investigations of persons perceived by the community as
members of suspected groups like prostitutes, gays, bisexuals,
lesbians, and drug users. In this case, discrimination in police
investigations is evident because in most cases, police will only
suspect members of these social groups without a tangible
evidence and force them to undergo testing without seeking
their consent first (Ogden and Nyblade, 2005). Notably, most of
these people may not even be HIV positive, but owing to their
perceived membership a social group associated with the spread
of HIV and AIDS, the community discriminates them.
Just like any other form of discrimination against persons living
with HIV and AIDS, discrimination in police investigation has
forced many persons infected with this disease to hide their
health status increasing the rate of HIV and AIDS spreading.
Discrimination in police investigations also is against the law of
human rights because the police should first seek the consent of
the suspected persons before pursuing their investigations or
forcing the person to undergo HIV and AIDS testing (UNAIDS,
2006). In this case, the criminalization of HIV transmission has
caused the discrimination to spill over to these groups the
communities perceive to be associated with the spread of HIV
and AIDS. On a similar score, the criminalization of HIV and
AIDS transmission is a form of discrimination, which is capable
of forcing most persons to shy away from HIV testing and early
treatment therefore worsening their health status.
Many laws on disability in different countries protect people
living with disabilities as well as people living with HIV and
AIDS. In this sense, such laws place people living with HIV and
AIDS in the category of people living with disabilities
(UNAIDS, 2006). However, the many communities have ignored
such laws and have continued to discriminate people living with
HIV and AIDS. As per the existing laws on disability, disabled
people deserve preferential treatment and so people infected
with HIV and AIDS (Ogden and Nyblade, 2005). As a way of

according the necessary consolation to those infected with HIV
and AIDS, the community must consider the option of
preferential treatment whereby such people are given the first
priorities in schools, colleges, hospitals as well as in
employment opportunities. However, the opposite is happening
in most of the communities because instead of giving HIV
victims the necessary preferential treatment in the community’s
services like schools, hospitals and in employment, they
discriminate them (Ogden and Nyblade, 2005; Ehiri, Anyanwu,
Donath, Kanu and Jolly, 2005).
On a different score, people infected with HIV and AIDS are
not protected against crimes of humanity because most
communities perceive them as inhuman (Herek, Capitanio and
Widaman, 2002). As mentioned earlier, most of the
communities will view HIV and AIDS victims as immoral and
to some extent cursed and therefore they do not consider
protecting them from crimes of humanity as the people living
with disabilities. In this case, face various crimes like rape,
brutal killing, and forced displacement without anyone
protecting them.
In relation to the occupational health policies developed by
different communities, discrimination against people infected
with HIV and AIDS is evident. Most of the training materials
offered in schools, colleges and other HIV related seminar have
misleading information in most cases in relation to the
transmission of HIV virus. While many training manuals would
caution readers on the ways of transmitting the disease, it is
evident that most of them are factually inaccurate thus
discriminating those infected with HIV and AIDS (Herek and
Capitanio, 1999). Some of the false training about the
transmission of HIV and AIDS include transmission through
sharing of plates, cups, toilet seats, washrooms, kissing,
hugging and spitting. However, based on the facts about HIV
and AIDS transmission, it is evident that these facts are just
created by the community to discriminate against those who are
infected by HIV and AIDS (Herek and Capitanio, 1999).

Another common form of discrimination against persons living
with HIV and AIDS is whereby the community denies persons
infected with HIV and AIDS the right to adopt children as a way
of extending charity to the less fortunate in the society (Ehiri,
Anyanwu, Donath, Kanu and Jolly, 2005; ATLIS 2010). Some
of the communities will not allow persons infected with HIV
and AIDS to take care of orphans with the perception that they
may infect those children. However, this is against the law of
human rights for both the affected child who would have
benefited from the infected well wisher and for the infected
person who willing to help but has been stopped by the
community.
Discrimination against persons living with HIV and AIDS is
also evident in the rental homes whereby landlord would evict
tenants infected with HIV and AIDS or in some cases force
them to pay more for no justified reasons (ATLIS, 2010). In
some communities, tenants will be forced to undergo HIV
testing before signing a rental contract. This is a clear
indication that the community does not consider the HIV
positive people fit to live with other people within the same
apartments for they fear that by contact, the infected persons
may infect other tenants. This kind of discrimination has forced
many HIV and AIDS patients to remain silent about their status
in fear of being evicted from their rental homes. It is therefore a
major barrier towards realizing a AIDS free community (Ogden
and Nyblade, 2005).
2.4 Discrimination in School
Discrimination against persons infected with HIV and AIDS is
also apparent in schools and colleges. In the recent past, schools
and colleges have admitted students based on the HIV status
among other considerations like color, religion and race (Ehiri,
Anyanwu, Donath, Kanu and Jolly, 2005). Discrimination
against persons living with HIV and AIDS in schools is a
common phenomenon and it is manifested in different
circumstances. Some of these circumstances include

discrimination in admission, students denied to pursue specific
courses, students denied accommodation, and students isolated
in separate class rooms. In some extreme circumstances, schools
teach false information about HIV and AIDS transmission,
while some school will make public to other students about the
HIV status of the student without seeking his/her consent first
(Goldin, 1994; ATLIS, 2010; Ogden and Nyblade, 2005).
Many high schools, colleges and universities across the globe
use different criteria of admitting students in their respective
institutions. While some of these institutions will only consider
admissions on merit, or simply based on the previous grades, a
section of institutions will consider other factors not related to
academics like religion, color, social status, race and ethnicity,
as well as the HIV status (Somerville and Orkin, 1989; Herek,
Capitanio and Widaman, 2002). Admission to learning
institution should be purely on merit defined by the previous
grades attained in the previous level of study. In this case, any
other consideration would amount to discrimination. In this
sense admission based on the applicant’s HIV status is therefore
not exceptional and it amount to discrimination.
According to IPPF (2009), most learning institutions in the
United Kingdom deny applicants diagnosed with HIV and AIDs
a chance to study in those institutions despite good grades and
their willingness to pursue education. The major driving forces
of this move are mainly the school parents, teachers and the
management. Focusing on the parents, it is possible that some
parents would not wish their children to study or even hang
around with others who are suspected to be HIV positive
(ATLIS, 2010; UNAIDS, 2006). This is based on the common
perception that HIV and AIDs is possibly transmissible through
the day-to-day normal contact with those who are infected. In
this case, parents would wish to guard their children against
those who are infected through eliminating the HIV positive
students.
The management and teachers on the other hand may not be
willing to deal with HIV positive students for fear of getting

bad reputation, therefore loosing market (Ogden and Nyblade,
2005). As outlined earlier, most parents would not be
comfortable with their children being put to study with other
students infected with HIV. In a bid to protect their reputation
and retain other students in their institutions, the school
management together with the teachers opt to decline the
applicants diagnosed with HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS, 2006).
This is discrimination because it goes against the law of human
rights. Every person is entitled to receive education based on
his/her merit and the accompanying willingness to pursue
education. It possible to control infection in schools without
eliminating students diagnosed with HIV and AIDS. Based on
the understanding of the facts about HIV transmission, it is
evident that students can study with others who are HIV
positive without contracting the disease (Herek, Capitanio and
Widaman, 2002).
While some learning institutions will admit students diagnosed
with HIV and AIDS, discrimination against those students will
be evident inside the learning environment. According to
UNAIDS (2006), many colleges and universities will limit the
number of courses available for students admitted while HIV
positive. In their argument, some carriers would not allow HIV
positive persons and therefore it would be of no reason to
pursue a course you would not get employed. For instance,
many colleges and universities in sub-Saharan Africa and in the
western countries will deny HIV positive students to pursue
medical related courses because based on the argument that
such courses are related to human health and therefore they
must be handled by healthy persons as well (UNAIDS, 2006;
Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath, Kanu and Jolly, 2005).
Although this kind of discrimination is aimed at preventing the
students from infecting other people when they get employed in
hospitals, it has failed considerably because many students
decide to hide their HIV status and still pursue such courses.
This has an effect on the health status of the infected and also it
increases the risk of spreading the disease. This limitation on

the choice of diploma or degree courses in colleges and
universities denies the students their freedom of choice, which
is against the law of human rights.
For those learning institutions offering accommodation services
to students, discrimination against students infected by HIV and
AIDS is evident. In this case, the institutions’ management
boards would not be willing to accommodate HIV positive
students with the others for fear of transmitting the disease
(Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath, Kanu and Jolly, 2005; ATLIS, 2010;
UNAIDS, 2006). Therefore, out of this isolation, HIV positive
students are forced to seek accommodation outside the college
or university premises, which may be quite expensive.
Similarly, this isolation denies the HIV positive students the
necessary socialisation associated with school life. It therefore
becomes important to note that this kind of discrimination
affects the overall performance of the student, reducing the
chances of getting employed.
In cases whereby some institutions have agreed to offer
accommodation within the institution’s premises, HIV positive
students are isolated from other students and are forced to live
in specific hostels for purposes of monitoring their movements
(UNAIDS, 2006). Based on the perception that HIV and AIDS is
associated with immoral social groups, institutional
managements are keen to limit the contact of HIV positive
students with the other for they fear that HIV positive students
will teach the others such immorality (Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath,
Kanu and Jolly, 2005; ATLIS, 2010; UNAIDS, 2006). This
isolation amounts to some kind of discrimination because not all
HIV positive persons are immoral and also it is not ethical to
generalise on the issue of this disease because it may not be the
fault of the patient.
On a different score, some schools will have separate
classrooms for students who have tested HIV positive even
though the school curriculum is universal (UNAIDS, 2006).
Even though in most cases school managements would argue
that they need to offer them special treatment, this is mainly a

way of discriminating the infected students. In their argument,
HIV positive students are just like the disabled students and
therefore they need to be separated from the others for smooth
learning. In real sense, such students feel isolated because based
on factual analysis, HIV and aids is not a disability and such
students can mix with others in same class rooms (Herek,
Capitanio and Widaman, 2002). This separation of classrooms
amounts to certain level of discrimination because in most cases
students will not realise the preferential treatment the
management would claim.
Discrimination against students infected with HIV and AIDS
becomes evident in schools when the school management boards
decide to make public the HIV status of students without the
consent of the students (Herek and Capitanio, 1999). In this
case, students feel isolated because in most cases, such
announcements are made to caution other students about the
dangers of associating with their counterparts who are HIV
positive. Notably, revealing the HIV status of persons living
with HIV and AIDS is a major source of stigma because they
fear being isolated by the society. Similarly, students are not
exceptional and therefore they would feel stigmatised and
therefore discriminated when their HIV statuses are exposed
(Ogden and Nyblade, 2005).
According to UNAIDS (2006), training materials based on false
facts about the transmission of HIV and AIDS have some
aspects of discrimination against HIV patients. In this case,
when school curriculum offer false training about HIV and
AIDS, students infected with the disease feel isolated because
they would think that the teachings are targeting their freedom.
It evident that most schools provide false information especially
about the transmission of HIV, which tends to scare away other
students from the students infected with the disease (Herek,
Capitanio and Widaman, 2002). This is an indirect form of
discrimination because students isolate their infected
counterparts based on the information taught in school.

2.5 Discrimination in the Work Place
From high schools, colleges and universities, discrimination
against persons infected with HIV and AIDS spills over to the
corporate world with a special focus on the employment
opportunities. It is evident that discrimination against persons
living with HIV and AIDS is apparent in the employment sector
whereby AIDS patients are denied opportunities despite their
colorful qualifications and relevant job experiences (UNAIDS,
2006; Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath, Kanu and Jolly, 2005).
Discrimination against persons living with HIV and AIDS in the
employment sector comes in different forms depending on the
underlying circumstances. For instance, a section of employers
will not recruit applicants infected with HIV, other employers
will offer little compensation to HIV positive workers, and
others will not consider promoting HIV patients, while others
will limit HIV patients to specific positions not crucial to the
growth and development of the organization (Alonzo, 1995;
UNAIDS, 2006). In most cases, discrimination against persons
with HIV and AIDS denies many organizations the relevant
expertise because they may not do the recruitment on the basis
of merit.
Just like the school admissions, employment opportunities
should consider applicants on the basis of qualifications as per
the job requirements. Other factors like religion, color and
gender, ethnicity, and HIV status should not determine the
outcome of the employment interview. However, many
organizations have gone ahead with the discrimination to
request for a medical report to prove that one is HIV free before
recruiting employees (UNAIDS, 2006). In their argument, the
employers would claim that HIV patients do not meet the
required health standards and thus they may shy away customers
as well as business partners.
Notably, discrimination against persons with HIV and AIDS is
most common in hotels and health care facilities because the
management is keen not to lose customers most of whom are not
willing to be served by HIV positive employees. With the

current perception of the community about HIV and AIDS
transmission, which has been fueled by the non-factual training
about the numerous ways of transmitting HIV and AIDS, the
society will not be comfortable with food and medical services
offered by HIV positive employees (UNAIDS, 2006). However,
this is just another version of discrimination because is possible
for the organization to take the necessary caution and work with
all people regardless of their HIV status.
Many countries have passed legislations in owing to the
increasing discrimination of persons infected with HIV and
AIDS. For instance, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
provide considerable protection for people with disabilities as
well as people living positively with HIV and AIDS (Global
Network of People Living with HIV, 2012). According to the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), persons living with
HIV and AIDS should not be denied employment opportunities
and even the act provides that such people should be accorded
preferential treatment just like people with natural impairments,
or simply disabled (Global Network of People Living With HIV,
2012). In this case, for the government to pass legislations in
relation to employment discrimination, it is evident that the vice
is increasing.
Another common form of discrimination at the workplace
against persons infected with HIV and AIDS is the substandard
compensation offered by employers when they realise the
employee is HIV positive. This is common with customer
oriented businesses and organisations whereby employers argue
that some HIV positive employees discourage customers and
therefore they are not productive as the HIV negative
counterparts (Parker and Aggleton, 2003; DFID, 2006). This is
against the universal law of employment as well as the law of
human rights because in is the right of employees to receive
compensation proportionate to their work regardless of their
HIV status or any other underlying factors.
On a different score, some organisations will deny persons
infected with HIV and AIDs the opportunity to advance their

careers because they do not consider promoting them to higher
positions (Deacon, Stephney and Prosalendis, 2005; Hong,Van
and Ogden, 2004). This is a form of discrimination because as
per the universal employment laws, organisation should offer
their employees some rewards which may be in form of material
things or promotions. Promotions in employment are associated
with higher compensations and other employment benefits like
higher medical allowances, house allowances, transport
allowances, as well as entertainment. In this case, a HIV
positive employee feels isolated from the all these benefits
associated with higher ranking positions in an organisation for
no tangible reasons (Deacon, Stephney and Prosalendis, 2005).
There is another indirect form of employment discrimination
against persons living with HIV and AIDs whereby
organisations develop rules, policies and other workplace
conditions which does not favour employees infected with HIV
and AIDS (Deacon, Stephney and Prosalendis, 2005). For
instance, some organisations will develop working policies
which extend the working hours until late night. In this case, if
some employees are receiving some HIV and AIDS medications,
it would be impossible for them to continue with medication
given the tight schedules of the employment. In this case, the
HIV positive employee may choose to stop the medication for a
while, or may choose to abandon the employment (Global
Network of People Living With HIV, 2012). On a different
score, organisational policies may set higher health standards
including body weight which HIV positive persons may not
meet. Such policies automatically send employees away if their
health standards are affected as a result of HIV and AIDS
infection.
Some organisational policies will target to eliminate some
social groups the society would perceive as immoral and
associated with the spread of HIV and AIDs (UNAIDS, 2006;
Ogden and Nyblade, 2005). As mentioned earlier, such groups
include the gays and bisexuals. In real sense, the organisation
in question is trying to limit the possibility of employing

persons infected by HIV and AIDS (Ogden and Nyblade, 2005).
This is evident because there is no tangible reason to restrict
some social groups in employment unless the organisation fears
the consequences of the actions of such groups. In this case, if
there are some people subscribed to such social groups and they
happen to HIV positive, they would not think they are
discriminated because they belong to those immoral social
groups, but they would think the organisation is discriminating
them because of their HIV status (UNAIDS, 2006; Ogden and
Nyblade, 2005).
Differential treatment for the employees infected with HIV and
AIDS in organisations is evident when employers decide to
make public the HIV statuses of their employees. Even though
the motive may be different, it amounts to some kind of
discrimination in cases whereby the HIV status is not a
determining factor. Just few occupations like surgeons, dentists
and laboratory technicians, who are a prone to accidents thus
exposing their body fluids to their patients, other occupations
may not be necessary to produce a proof of HIV status. This is a
kind of harassment because most of the employees are not
comfortable with their HIV statuses being exposed without their
consent. This exposure in one way or another exposes those
persons infected with HIV and AIDs to stigma from their fellow
employees and the rest of the society.
It is important to note that some organisational policies related
to employment interviews and recruitment requires the
interview panel to seek clarification from the applicant about
their HIV statuses (Herek, Capitanio and Widaman, 2002;
UNAIDS, 2006). However, some of the interviewers may ask
leading questions if they suspect an applicant is HIV positive or
if the applicant belongs to any of the social groups associated
with the spread of HIV and AIDS. In this case, applicants
infected with HIV may feel a sense of isolation which in this
case amounts to a certain level of discrimination.
In response to this isolation, some countries have developed
laws protecting persons infected with HIV and AIDS from

workplace discrimination. For instance the United Kingdom has
passed the Equality act 2010, which protects employees from
any workplace discrimination (ATLIS 2010; Global Network of
People Living With HIV, 2012). Similarly, the United Kingdom
government passed the disability discrimination act in 1995
which included persons living with HIV and AIDS. This act
protects persons with disabilities from workplace discrimination
but it also places persons infected with HIV and AIDS under
similar protection (Alonzo, 1995). The passing of these various
legislations protecting persons living with HIV and AIDS at the
workplace is a clear indication that discrimination against
persons infected with HIV and AIDS is real and it is affecting
the overall process of fighting the epidemic.
According to Ahsan (2011), associating with persons infected
with HIV and AIDs in the society or at the workplace can
potentially earn you a considerable discrimination. From a
general perspective, the society will have different perspectives
about the process of transmitting HIV and AIDS. In this case, a
society which perceives that the normal contact with persons
infected with HIV and AIDs would contract the disease will
always isolate those associated with infected persons with the
disease (Snyder, Omoto and Crain, 1999). This trend has
therefore spilled over to the workplace whereby some of
employees who are actively involved in charity work in aid of
HIV and AIDS patients are isolated by their fellow workers or
by the organisation management for their contact with infected
persons. This isolation is common in health care centres
whereby health workers specialised with care, testing and
general medication of HIV and AIDS patients are looked down
upon by other workers from different departments not handling
HIV and AIDS patients (Ahsan, 2011; Snyder, Omoto and
Crain, 1999).

2.6 Discrimination in Hospitals
Discrimination against persons infected with HIV and AIDS is
prevalent in different setting including at the healthcare centres.
Even though the scenario is ironical because it is expected that
HIV and AIDS patients should receive maximum care and
protection from the Hospitals, the opposite is happening. It is
evident that isolation for persons infected with HIV and AIDS
has extended even to the hospitals whereby HIV patients are
treated differently from other patients and are looked down
upon by healthcare workers as immoral (Hong, Van and Ogden,
2004).
Discrimination against persons infected with HIV and AIDS at
the healthcare centres comes in different forms depending on
the underlying circumstances. For instance, persons infected
with HIV and AIDS may denied access to services from other
departments apart from the department dealing with HIV, other
hospitals will isolate HIV patients in separate rooms to avoid
contact with other patients, some health care workers will
harass HIV patients claiming that it is the fault of the patients
to contract the disease, other hospitals will make public what is
supposed to be a confidential information about the HIV status
of a person, while other hospitals will prescribe the wrong
medication to HIV patients in order to punish them for what the
society would refer as immorality (Ahsan, 2011; Ogden and
Nyblade, 2005; UNAIDS, 2006; Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath, Kanu
and Jolly, 2005).
Cases of healthcare centres denying persons infected with HIV
and AIDS access to medical services from other hospital
departments apart from the HIV and AIDS department are
prevalent across the globe (Deacon, Stephney and Prosalendis,
2005). The fact that a section of healthcare workers still holds
the perception that HIV and AIDS is easily transmissible
through the normal body contact is a clear indication that such

health workers will avoid the contact of HIV infected persons
even in their workplaces at the hospitals. For instance, some
hospitals will deny persons infected with HIV and AIDs to
access surgical services because they argue that provision of
such services is prone to accidents during the operations and
therefore the healthcare workers are prone to infection through
body fluid contact (Hong, Van and Ogden, J 2004; Deacon,
Stephney and Prosalendis, 2005).
On a similar score, many HIV positive patients are denied the
services of the dentistry department for fear of infecting the
healthcare staff and other patients visiting the department.
Notably, some patients visiting the dentistry department would
not prefer to be served together with HIV positive patients
because they tend to think that some of the dentistry equipment
will get contaminated with the disease (Feyissa, Abebe, Girma
and Woldie, 2012). Even though the department deals with
sensitive equipment capable of causing the contact of body
fluids, patients infected with HIV and AIDS have the right to
receive dental services at any hospital without discrimination.
The universal human rights prohibits any sort of torture
inflicted on humans and therefore in this case, denying persons
infected with HIV and AIDS dental services if tantamount to
forcing them to live with additional pain, which the dentists are
in a position to eliminate (Kinsler, Wong, Sayles, Davis and
Cunningham, 2007; Li et at, 2013).
HIV and AIDS patients also get difficulties when accessing
drug treatment centres or some services of skilled nurses
because their statuses put other persons accessing those services
at a potential risk of contracting HIV and AIDS. For instance,
some drug rehabilitation centers will refer HIV positive drug
addicts to other rehabilitation centres specializing with HIV
positive persons, which amount to a certain level of
discrimination (Deacon, Stephney and Prosalendis, 2005).
Similarly, some public and private clinics offering specialized
nursing services in the recent past have isolated persons
infected with HIV and AIDS for reasons believed to be the fear

of being infected with the disease due the continued contact
with these HIV positive patients. This has become an important
factor for such specialized nursing clinics to consider when
accepting patients (Deacon, Stephney and Prosalendis, 2005).
Physical isolation for persons living with HIV and AIDS is also
evident in healthcare centres whereby HIV patients have
separate waiting rooms, separate consultation rooms, separate
injection rooms as well as separate booking desks or offices
(Feyissa, Abebe, Girma and Woldie, 2012; Li et at, 2013).
Even though the argument behind this isolation is to reduce the
general contact of HIV positive patients with other patients, the
justification for the act fails the ethical threshold of treating
people equally in a healthcare setting. HIV and AIDS are not
easily transmissible through normal body contact without the
exchange of infected body fluids. In this sense, placing persons
infected with HIV and AIDs in separate rooms in a healthcare
setting inflicts a sense of isolation, which causes a certain level
of stigma (Kinsler, Wong, Sayles, Davis and Cunningham,
2007).
This kind of discrimination against persons infected with HIV
and AIDS is based on falsehoods about the process of
transmitting HIV. According to Kinsler, Wong, Sayles, Davis
and Cunningham (2007), there are various ways of preventing
the spread of HIV and AIDS in the healthcare setting like
wearing protective garments and use of preventive medication
in case of hospital accidents instead of isolating a section of
patients just because they test HIV positive. As part of
preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS, inclusion of the
already infected is of paramount importance. This kind of
discrimination is potentially capable of upsetting them thus
forcing them to spread the disease even more (Kinsler, Wong,
Sayles, Davis and Cunningham, 2007).
On a different score, discrimination against persons living with
HIV and AIDS can also be on the health workers if some are
infected with HIV and AIDS (Ahsan, 2011; Global Network of
People Living with HIV, 2012). This discrimination is typically

like the one experienced at the workplace whereby the
management and other workers will indirectly or directly harass
their fellow employees for their HIV positive status. In a health
care setting, it is possible that the situation will not be different
as some healthcare workers will have some insulting utterances
towards their fellow healthcare workers if they happen to be
HIV and AIDS positive (Ogden and Nyblade, 2005). This
isolation may affect the infected healthcare worker in the sense
that some of the healthcare workers got infected by accident
while serving other infected patients and therefore it may not be
their fault (Snyder, Omoto and Crain, 1999).
Information about a person’s HIV status should be confidential
and therefore it is the obligation of healthcare workers to
uphold medical ethics regarding the confidentiality of patients’
personal information as well as their HIV status. However, the
opposite is happening in many healthcare facilities whereby the
healthcare workers in charge of healthcare records make public
patients information which in this case is supposed to be
confidential (Kinsler, Wong, Sayles, Davis and Cunningham,
2007; Li et at, 2013). In this case, it is possible for HIV patients
to perceive this as intentional and targeting to cause stigma.
HIV patients feel discriminated in this case because most of
them are already aware of the society’s perception towards the
disease. Therefore they would tend to think that the society will
isolate them because they are immoral.
It is therefore evident that exposing the patients’ personal
information as well as their HIV status amounts to some kind of
isolation because this exposes them to discrimination by the rest
of the society. The underlying argument in this case is that if
the society did not know the HIV status of the person in
question, it would not isolate the HIV infected person. In other
words, the health worker is responsible for the discrimination
facing the person in the community.
In extreme cases, healthcare workers have been accused of
providing inaccurate medication to HIV and AIDS patients as a
way of punishing the patients on what the health workers would

refer as immoral behavior (Feyissa, Abebe, Girma and Woldie,
2012; Li et at, 2013). Since in most cases HIV and AIDS
patients would have inadequate knowledge about the disease
medication, some health workers will take such opportunities to
prescribe wrong medication knowingly in order to cause
problems to the patient as a way of punishing him/her for their
careless behavior, which lead to HIV infection (Feyissa, Abebe,
Girma and Woldie, 2012). The act of providing inaccurate
medication to victims of HIV and AIDS is against the universal
human rights. Every person has a right to receive medical care
regardless of any other underlying factor as may be defined by
the health worker.
2.7 Extend of discrimination to the family of the infected
In the recent past, discrimination against persons infected with
HIV and AIDS is has spilled over to include the families of the
infected persons (UNAIDS, 2006). Discrimination against the
families associated with HIV positive persons is apparent in
different settings including in schools, hospital, in the
community, and at the workplace (Ogden, Nyblade, 2005;
Alonzo, 1995; Ahsan, 2011). The discrimination against the
families of persons infected with HIV and AIDS is based on the
common perceptions held by the community towards the social
groups associated with HIV and AIDS. Just because a HIV
positive person belongs to a certain family, the society will
therefore associate that family with immorality. In other words,
the society will generalize that such families belong to the
immoral social groups (ATLIS, 2010; Ehiri, Anyanwu, Donath,
Kanu and Jolly, 2005).
In school, students and teachers associated with HIV and AIDS
patients face discrimination for actions they may not be
involved. For instance, students nursing HIV positive parents
may not be in a position to convenience the community about
their HIV status because in most cases the community will think
they are as well infected (Visser, Makin, Lehobye, 2006).
Discrimination for students associated with HIV positive family

members comes in different forms. According to Campbell and
Deacon (2006), it is possible that other students in school will
make provoking utterances, directly or indirectly targeted to
those students associated with HIV and AIDS families. It is also
possible that some schools management boards will develop
policies and rules targeting to eliminate or traumatize students
associated with HIV positive persons.
On a different score, teaching of falsehoods about the about the
nature of HIV and AIDS in relation to transmission and
medication in schools indirectly scares students from HIV
positive families (Ware, Wyatt and Tugenberg, 2006; Whittaker,
1992). For instance, the non-factual analysis of the various
modes of HIV and AIDS transmission instills fear in the minds
of students nursing HIV positive parents and this translates to
discrimination of the parents by their own children (Vance and
Denham, 2008). If the schools management boards design non-
factual HIV and AIDS training manuals the net effect of the
false teaching is felt by both the HIV positive students as well
as those nursing their family members infected with the disease.
In healthcare setting, the case is not different. Most healthcare
providers discriminate both the HIV and AIDS patients as well
as the family members of these HIV positive persons seeking
assisting the HIV positive persons to access medical care
(Adebajo, Bamgbala and Oyediran, 2003; Young and Bendavid,
2010). It is a common phenomenon that HIV positive persons
and their caregivers will receive similar treatment despite the
fact that one is HIV free. For instance, some healthcare
providers will have separate waiting rooms for HIV positive
persons and their guardians, separate washrooms, separate
changing rooms, separate wards as well as separate consultation
rooms. In this case, such caregivers feel isolated from the
society just like any other HIV positive person even though they
are HIV free (Kidd, Clay and Chiiya, 2007; Feyissa, Abebe,
Girma and Woldie, 2012).
Discrimination for the families of HIV positive persons can
come in a different form whereby healthcare providers directly

or indirectly blame these families for the HIV status of one of
their members (Chan, Rungpueng and Reidpath, 2009; Campbell
and Deacon, 2006). Research has revealed that a section of
health workers providing nursing services to HIV positive will
insult their caregivers with rude questions about the status of
the HIV positive person. Such questions are having some hidden
meaning and in most cases, they would mean that it is the fault
of the family to leave their member to contract the HIV virus
(Adebajo, Bamgbala and Oyediran, 2003; Young and Bendavid,
2010). In this case, it is evident that the overall effect is
discrimination because the family is forced to bear the
responsibility of contracting the disease whereas in reality, it
may not be involved.
According to Campbell and Deacon (2006), the HIV status of a
person is confidential to him/her and to some extent, his family.
It is therefore the obligation of the healthcare provider to
maintain the relevant secret shielding such information, which
might result to stigma from the community. However, most
health care providers have gone against this medical ethics to
reveal to the community the presence of HIV positive persons
and their respective families. This has a direct effect of
discrimination from the community since having the
information allows the community to generalize issues related
to this deadly disease. In other words, revealing the HIV status
of some family members places the whole family at a risk of
isolation from the society (Hong, Van and Ogden, 2004;
Deacon, Stephney and Prosalendis, 2005). The society look
down families nursing HIV and AIDS patients as immoral and
would in most cases associate these families with immoral
social groups like homosexuality, bisexuality, and commercial
sex workers (White and Carr, 2005).
Discrimination for persons associated with HIV and AIDS
patients is also apparent in the workplace because some workers
act directly or indirectly to insult their fellow workers in cases
whereby those fellow workers are nursing HIV and AIDS
patients (Global Network of People Living with HIV, 2012;

Parker and Aggleton, 2003). Even though the workers may not
be aware of any HIV positive family member of their core-
workers, any utterances and actions proving a bad attitude
towards the disease is potentially capable of causing stigma. For
instance, speaking about the immorality issue associated with
HIV and AIDS in the workplace in the presence of HIV positive
persons or workers nursing HIV positive persons silently
intimidates those workers and amounts to a sense of isolation
(Chan, Rungpueng and Reidpath, 2009; Visser, Makin and
Lehobye, 2006).
Discrimination against persons infected with HIV and AIDS
together with their families is rampant in the community. Just
like HIV positive persons will suffer a certain level of isolation
in the community, so is their families and other persons closely
associated (Campbell and Deacon, 2006; Visser, Makin and
Lehobye, 2006). It is a common phenomenon that the society
will hold different perceptions and stereotypes about the nature
of HIV and its transmission. Because the community associates
HIV and AIDs with immorality and curse, it is evident that
families nursing HIV patients will have a share of the
discrimination because the community will perceive the
background of the HIV positive person as immoral (Kidd, Clay
and Chiiya, 2007; Campbell and Deacon, 2006; Visser, Makin
and Lehobye, 2006).
Based on the HIV statuses of some of the family members, the
community will isolate other family members not infected with
the disease in community activities like sports, games and other
social events. This is because with the thinking that HIV
infection is possible through normal contacts, the society may
generalize the whole family as infected (Campbell and Deacon,
2006). On a different score, the community may in most cases
deny families associated with HIV positive persons the
opportunity to participate in different community charity works
like adopting children. This instills a sense of isolation because
there are no justified reasons for denying them such
opportunities. It is as well against the universal human rights

because the child is also denied an opportunity to benefit from
well-wishers (Ogden and Nyblade, 2005; UNAIDS, 2006). 3.0
Methodology
Research methodology is a systematic way of solving research
problems (Kumar, 2008). Studies are scientifically done through
a method. According to Kumar (2008) study methodology
involves a step by step procedure where it begins with an
overview of the approach selected, research design, samples and
sampling method, data collection method, data analysis and data
interpretation. However, he argues that there are quite a number
of research methods which can be used to carry out studies and
may not include all the sections outlined.
Using only the relevant methods this section provides an outline
of the strategy used to obtain information leading to the
conclusion and recommendations of this study. The content of
this section sheds light to other studies wishing to expand the
topic on the most appropriate method of getting information. As
mentioned earlier, the overall objective of this study is to
explore literature and confirm any presence of social
discrimination against people living positively with AIDS and
the extent of this discrimination to family members of the
infected. In attaining this objective, the study applied a
systematic review of the available literature from published
journals, books and accredited websites. In this case, the study
did not have any contact with HIV victims, their family
members or other relevant caregivers and therefore it entirely
inferred the information available on similar researches from
the public domain.
In a bid to meet the outlined objectives, the study identified six
common setting apparently associated with social discrimination
against people infected with AIDS. Guided by the scope and the
objectives of the study, the study explored all relevant
information required to justify any presence of social
discrimination against people living positively with AIDS and
the extent of this discrimination to family members of the
infected. This being an evidence-based study, descriptive

review of the existing literature was the best approach to obtain
the relevant information. Based on the information reviewed on
the previous researches, the study would be in a position to
make informed conclusions and recommendations. 4.0 Results
and Discussion
Three decades after the discovery of HIV and AIDS, and with
the knowledge instilled on people by state governments and
non-governmental organizations, the existing literature still
reveals a considerable level of discrimination against persons
infected with HIV and to some extent, their families. It is
evident that discrimination is apparent across different settings
including in the family, in the community, at the workplace, at
the hospital as well as in schools, colleges, and universities. It
is also evident that discrimination has extended to the families
of those infected by the disease apparently in the above-
mentioned settings.
The study revealed that persons infected with HIV and AIDS are
prone to a certain level segregation even from close family
members. Just for the obvious reason of avoiding the disease,
the family may not be comfortable when interacting with people
infected with AIDS even if the infected people belong to their
family. It was evident that ssocial discrimination against
persons infected by HIV and AIDS in the family manifests in
different settings including food, clothing, transport, social
events, medical care, education, as well as sharing of family
property. Notably some families force AIDS patients to leave
their homes and join AIDS care centres as a way of eliminating
the risk of infecting other family members.
From the literature review, the study has found that the
community still holds the non-factual perception that the
disease is associated with immorality and other undesirable
social groups. Similarly, a section of the community perceives
the disease as a curse and therefore they would be keen to
associate with persons infected with HIV and AIDS. The study
revealed that discrimination against persons living with HIV
and AIDS has affected different contexts of community

interactions leading to violation of human rights, unjustified
criminal prosecutions, compromised police investigations,
violation of disability laws, and other legal issues.
The review of existing literature found that discrimination
against persons infected with HIV and AIDS in schools and
colleges manifests in different circumstances including in
admission, selection of courses, students’ accommodation, as
well as in classrooms. The study also revealed that in some
extreme circumstances, schools teach false information about
HIV and AIDS transmission, while some school will make
public to other students about the HIV status of the students
without seeking these students’ consent. The study confirmed
this as a major source of discrimination. The literature also
revealed that discrimination against persons living with HIV
and AIDS is apparent at the workplace whereby AIDS patients
are denied opportunities despite their colorful qualifications and
relevant job experiences.
The study confirmed the presence of discrimination against
persons infected with HIV and AIDS at the healthcare centres.
The study found out that isolation for persons infected with HIV
and AIDS is prevalent in the hospitals whereby HIV patients are
treated differently from other patients. For instance, the study
found that persons infected with HIV, AIDS may be denied
access to services from other departments apart from the
department dealing with HIV, and other hospitals will isolate
HIV patients in separate rooms to avoid contact with other
patients. On a different score, health care providers have been
accused of making public what is supposed to be confidential
information about the HIV status of a person.
The study was keen to note from the literature review that
discrimination against persons infected with HIV and AIDS is
has spilled over to include the families of the infected persons.
In this case, the study confirmed that families associated with
HIV patients face in schools, in hospitals, in the community,
and at the workplace. The study understood that the
discrimination against the families of persons infected with HIV

and AIDS is based on the common perceptions held by the
community towards the social groups associated with HIV and
AIDS. The study therefore concluded that families associated
with HIV patients will face similar isolation as the patients
because the society will generalize that such families belong to
the immoral social groups.
In response to alarming rate of social discrimination against
persons infected with HIV and the extent of that discrimination
to their families, the study noted various legislations by
different states to protect HIV patients against such
discrimination. However, it was evident that such legislations
have not realized much impact on the alarming and therefore
discrimination persists even to date.
5.0 Conclusion and recommendations
5.1 Conclusion
The study shed light on the presence of social discrimination
against persons infected with HIV and AIDS across different
contexts of the society. However, the underlying argument was
that the society would always look down persons infected with
HIV and AIDS as immoral and cursed. This causes a general
feeling that such people should not be part of the community
and this is what amounts to discrimination. It was evident that
the society will as well isolate families of those who are HIV
positive because they also associate them with immorality and
unacceptable behavior.
The study concluded that despite the government and non-
governmental organizations’ efforts to protect discrimination,
the vice still exists and therefore it has greatly affected the
pursuit of realizing a HIV free world. The training on HIV and
AIDS has been rooted on falsehoods and therefore there are no
immediate prospects of ending the current perceptions held by

the community about HIV transmission and treatment.
5.2 Recommendations
In light of the findings of the literature review, the study
therefore makes the following recommendations:
· The study would recommend that state governments and other
stakeholders in the fight against HIV and AIDS develop a
universal HIV training manual based on facts about the
transmission and medication of HIV to change the current
community perception about the disease
· The study would recommend for more legislations targeting
the protection of HIV positive persons against social
discrimination
· Reducing HIV and AIDS prevalence in the community is one
of the most effective ways of ending this social discrimination.
In this sense, it is the obligation of the various stakeholders to
strategize on the possible ways of curbing the spread of HIV.
6.0 References

Adebajo, S., B, Bamgbala, A.,O, Oyediran, M., A 2003,
“Attitudes of Health Care Providers to
Persons Living with HIV/AIDS in Lagos State, Nigeria,”
African Journal of Reproductive Health,” vol. 7, no.1, pp. 103-
112
Ahsan, U., A 2011, “HIV/AIDS-Related Stigma and
Discrimination: A Study of Health Care
Providers in Bangladesh,” Journal of the International
Association of Providers of AIDS Care (JIAPAC), vol. 10 no.
2, pp. 97-104
Alonzo, A 1995, “Stigma, HIV and AIDS: An exploration and
elaboration of a stigma
trajectory.” Social Science and Medicine vol. 41, no.3, pp. 303-
315.
ATLIS 2010, “Stigma, Isolation, and Discrimination and their
impact on HIV serostatus
disclosure,” A global survey of 2,035 patients
Campbell, C, Deacon, H 2006, “Introduction - Unravelling the
Contexts of Stigma: From
Internalization to Resistance to Change,” Journal of Community
& Applied Social Psychology, Vol.16, no.1, pp. 411-417
Chan, K., Y, Rungpueng, A Reidpath, D 2009, “AIDS and the
stigma of sexual promiscuity:
Thai nurses’ risk perceptions of occupational exposure to HIV,”
Culture, Health and Sexuality, vol. 11, no.4, pp. 353-368.
Deacon, H., Stephney I., Prosalendis, S 2005, Understanding
HIV/AIDS Stigma: A theoretical
and methodological analysis, Cape Town: HSRC Press.
DFID 2006, “Addressing HIV and AIDS related stigma and
discrimination: An audit of DFID’s
current work,” Internal document, Global AIDS Policy team
Ehiri, J., E, Anyanwu, E., C, Donath, E, Kanu I, Jolly, P., E
2005, “AIDS-related stigma in sub-
Saharan Africa: its contexts and potential intervention
strategies,” AIDS Public Policy J. Vol.20, no. 1, pp. 25-39
Feyissa, G., T., Abebe, L, Girma, E., Woldie, M 2012, “Stigma

and discrimination against
people living with HIV by healthcare providers, Southwest
Ethiopia,” BMC Public Health, vo.12, no.3, pp. 522-527
Global Network of People Living With HIV 2012, “Stigma and
Discrimination at Work:
Findings from the People Living with HIV Stigma Index,”
Evidence Brief, Global Network of People Living with HIV
(GNP+)
Goldin, C 1994, “Stigmatization and AIDS: Critical issues in
public health,” Social Science and
Medicine vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 1359-1366.
Herek, G., M, Capitanio, J., P 1999, “AIDS Stigma and sexual
prejudice," American Behavioral
Scientist,” vol. 42, no, 7, pp. 1130–1147.
Herek, G., M, Capitanio, J., P, Widaman, K., F 2002, “HIV-
related stigma and knowledge in the
United States: prevalence and trends, 1991-1999,” Am J Public
Health, Vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 371–7.
Hong, K., T., Van, N.,T., Ogden, J 2004, “Because this is the
disease of the century”
Understanding HIV and AIDS-related Stigma and
Discriminaton, ICRW.
Human Rights Watch 2004, “A Test of Inequality:
Discrimination against Women Living with
HIV in the Dominican Republic,” vol.16, no. 4 B
IPPF 2009, “HIV stigma and discrimination remain a significant
challenge in the UK”
Kidd, R, Clay, S, Chiiya, C 2007, Understanding and
Challenging HIV Stigma: Toolkit for
Action (2nd Ed), Brighton: International HIV/AIDS Alliance,
AED and ICRW.
Kinsler, J., J, Wong, M., D., Sayles, J., N, Davis, C,
Cunningham, W., E 2007, “The effect of
perceived stigma from a healthcare provider on access to care
amongst a low-income HIV positive population,” AIDS Patient
Care STDs vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 584-592

Kumar, R 2008, Research Methodology, New Delhi: APH
Publishing Corporation
Li, L., Wu. Z., Liang, L., J., Lin, C., Guan, J., Jia, M., Rou, K.,
Yan Z 2013, “Reducing HIV-
related stigma in health care settings: A randomized controlled
trial in China,” Am J Public Health, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 286-92.
Ogden, J., Nyblade, L 2005, "Common at its core: HIV-related
stigma across
contexts," International Center for Research on Women.
Pardasani, M., Moreno, C., L., Forge, N., R 2010, Cultural
Competence and HIV: Handbook of
HIV and Social Work, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
Parker, R., Aggleton, P 2003, “HIV and AIDS-related stigma
and discrimination: a conceptual
framework and implications for action,” Social Science &
Medicine, vol. 57, no.1, pp. 13-24
Rubin, M., Hewstone, M 2004, “Social identity, system
justification, and social dominance,”
Political Psychology, 25, 823-844.
Snyder, M., Omoto A., M., Crain, A., L 1999, "Punished for
their good deeds: stigmatization for
AIDS volunteers," American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 42,
no.7, pp. 1175–1192.
Somerville, M., Orkin, A 1989, “Human rights, discrimination
and AIDS: Concepts and issues,”
AIDS 3(Suppl 1), S283-S287
UNAIDS 2006, "The impact of AIDS on people and
societies" Report on the global AIDS
epidemic.
Vance, R., Denham, S 2008, “HIV/AIDS related stigma:
Delivering appropriate nursing care,”
Teaching and Learning in Nursing, vol. 3, no.2, pp. 59-66
Visser, M., Makin, J, Lehobye, K 2006, “Stigmatizing attitudes
of the community towards
people living with HIV/AIDS,” Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, vol.16, no.1, pp. 42-58

Ware, N. C., Wyatt, M. A., Tugenberg, T 2006, “Social
relationships, stigma and adherence to
antiretroviral therapy for HIV/AIDS,” AIDS Care-Psychological
and Socio-medical Aspects of AIDS/HIV, vol. 18, no.8, pp. 904
- 910.
White, R., C, Carr, R 2005, “Homosexuality and HIV/AIDS
stigma in Jamaica. Culture, Health
& Sexuality,” vol. 7, no.4, pp. 347-359.
Whittaker, A. M 1992, “Living with HIV: Resistance by
Positive People,” Medical
Anthropology Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 385-390.
World health organization 2012, Global Health Observatory
(GHO): HIV/AIDS Global situation
and trends, World health organization, Viewed April 11, 2014
From [http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en/]
Young, S., D, Bendavid, E 2010, “The relationship between
HIV testing, stigma, and health
service usage,” AIDS Care - Psychological and Socio-Medical
Aspects of AIDS/HIV, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 373-380

42Social discrimination faced by AIDS patients and t.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 42Social discrimination faced by AIDS patients and t.docx

Similar to 42Social discrimination faced by AIDS patients and t.docx (18)

More from gilbertkpeters11344

More from gilbertkpeters11344 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

42Social discrimination faced by AIDS patients and t.docx