The other day I was speaking with a friend who’s just spent a few years in Malawi. He remarked on how much more open Malawi is in terms of talking about HIV/AIDS. I said this surprised me, as I’d imagined Malawi to be more conservative even than Zimbabwe, particularly with regard to sexually transmitted infections. However, he reminded me that treatment for HIV and anti-retro virals are readily available in Malawi. Because people know they can get treated, they have been willing to overcome any shame or stigma associated with being HIV-positive. And because so many people are open about their status (because knowing their status and being open about it helps them get treatment), the stigma around HIV has diminished severely.

In Zimbabwe, on the other hand, ARVs are still not readily available – and even when people get on treatment, there is no guarantee they’ll be able to stay on it. Note as a case in point a recent report from CHRA about a lack of ARV availability at Mabvuku Clinic in Harare. Because treatment is not a sure thing, people have no reason to submit themselves to the vulnerability of knowing their status, or having other people know their status.

This reminded me of the feedback we received from many Zimbabweans about a proposal to engage door-to-door HIV testing. Whilst some were in favour of it, many questioned the usefulness of a large testing drive without the treatment resources to support it – and in the face of continued stigma around being HIV-positive. If Malawi is anything to go by, maybe Zimbabwe needs to focus on securing universal access to HIV treatment, and the distigmatisation will follow more readily on its own.

This entry was posted on May 21st, 2012 at 1:02 pm by Amanda Atwood and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.