AIDS
As we step into the next phase of our class, we will be analyzing the effects of imagery centered around AIDs and the set of tropes and stereotypes which accompany it.
A major part of Sontag's analysis of disease is centered around the associations which accompany a disease and the disjunction/gap which exists between the existence of a disease itself and it's perceived hyperbolic effects which creates a difference between the real and the created perceptions that we have.
Sontag succinctly describes the process of deconstructing stigma on page 7
"As long as a particular disease is treated as an evil, invincible predator, not just a disease, most people with cancer will indeed be demoralized by learning what disease they have. The solution is hardly to stop telling cancer patients the truth, but to rectify the conception of the disease, to de-mythicize it."
Recently, California revised its laws such that if you are a person with AIDS and you knowingly transmit AIDS to another person, that act is no longer a felony.
What effect do you think this law will have on the image of AIDS. Do you think this is a move in the right direction? Will it stigmatize AIDS further?
Also sorry for posting this late. I came back late from an interview, then I tried to get the blogspot to upload but chrome wouldn't save my cookies so I'm having Tom upload.
If you don't have time to respond to this post, I completely understand that and will take responsibility.
First, I think the image of AIDS will continue to be negative because of the effects it has on a victim. I do not know that this will stigmatize AIDS further, but it will spread the disease which is not a good thing. It is morally wrong for someone to hide that they have AIDS from a sexual partner. If someone has AIDS, they should always use protection knowing that they could spread the disease. The image of AIDS will continue to be a bad one, but this law is just making it a more complicated situation probably not a move in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of any legislation or legal definitions of AIDS, it will always be stigmatized. AIDS was originally a disease only thought to be transferred within the gay community, which is where the stigma began. People understand the danger and health risks of AIDS and unprotected sex, so I do not think the passing of this law will cause HIV positive people to no longer use condoms, but I do think that will help to remove the stigma of the disease. Then, these people who have tested positive will no longer be associated with crime and the irreversible diagnosis of this disease will no longer be considered "illegal". However, this could potentially mean that the disease could be transferred more frequently therefore increasing the amount of people affected by the stigma. This law seems to balance itself out as neither goof nor bad. Less of a stigma would exist, but, at the same time, more people would be affected by the stigma.
ReplyDeleteI think the today, any disease or sickness is stigmatized to some extent. They are seen as gross, contagious, unsettling and therefore we are uncomfortable when confronted by infection. But what is different for something sexually transmitted, is that there is a stronger shame attached. I think the shame has been even more enhanced in society's reaction to AIDs because it is common among homosexual men. The law seemed to be incredibly harmful to the already stigmatized victims because it removed any sense of their innocence and replaced it with incriminating connotations and guilt. Removing the law takes away legal impacts, but can't take away its footprint--one that only continues the stigmatization of AIDS.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that AIDS needs to be de-stigmatized, and I find the recently passed California bill a remarkably progressive step for the state. However, although the responsible legislators surely meant well and had the right intent for changing the law, I would argue that this revision was an inadequate step towards reducing the stigma surrounding people who have HIV/ AIDS. Knowingly transmitting a potentially life-altering disease to someone without letting them know beforehand is unethical and morally wrong; I believe that every individual should be able to decide for themselves whether they are willing to take that risk. But I also understand the issue here; because of the thriving stigma of and past criminalization of individuals who have AIDS, people would obviously be less inclined to have sex with someone knowing that they could potentially contract the disease, EVEN if improved and technologically advanced treatment methods are now available. Additionally, we have discussed how having a disease is costly—in many cases, one has to be wealthy enough to afford treatment in order to suitably treat symptoms, and simply assuming that another individual will be able to cover these costs is unjust and unfair to them. That being said, I do not think this law is a move in the right direction, and while I do not think it will further stigmatize AIDS, I do believe it will aid in the spreading of the disease.
ReplyDeleteI believe that aids needs to be destigmatized, and I think that this law indicates a positive trajectory in the way our society treats AIDs and its victims. As AIDS becomes more treatable, so to does it become impossible to uphold past stigmas. As less people die of the disease, it becomes less visible (insofar as a need to shine a spotlight on the disease goes away), ensuring its existence outside stereotypes that were driven by its deadliness and association with the gay community. While I'm not sure the law is a good or bad thing, its very passage proves the disease is not as polarized as it was 10 years ago.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think the new legislation has had a negative effect on people who have AIDS. I don't see how promoting an environment in which people don't need to disclose their condition or disease to a potential partner allows for a de-stigmatization of the disease; I see the opposite. Since California revised the law, media outlets, locally and nationally, have been running negative stories about AIDS as it relates to the revision of the law. In my opinion, the only thing the law does is that it makes the general public more fearful of AIDS because without a legal obligation of disclosure, anyone, including people's partners, could have the disease.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the act of willingly transmitting aids to another person without telling them is not a thing that is alright. I wasn't aware of that law before but I do believe that laws like these should be in place if aids patients are not willingly sharing information like this because it is very important. I do think that the talk of aids could possibly die down a little bit because it is a disease that is under control and are methods of dealing with it are pretty sturdy. However the stigma behind having aids I believe will always be one that is negative just because of the stories and stereotypes behind the disease.
ReplyDeleteThis legislation has somewhat drastic effects on our population. I believe it is the responsibility of the person with AIDS to handle their disease responsibly by making sure that they do not infect anyone in order to continue to the sanctity of people they are having sexual relations with and others. Condoms and other forms of protection work only so much. The other portion has to be the responsibility of the person with the disease to at least want to keep their sexual partner safe and illness-free by communicating. This legislation if anything enhances the stigma around AIDS as it may lead to over sensitivity in general, which in retrospect could be helpful or it could just make those who contract AIDS from someone who decided not to inform that person of their illness to show more anger towards the AIDS community, which definitely does not help the cause.
ReplyDeleteAIDS is a disease that has been so stigmatized that realistically I don’t think that can be changed. I believe this revised law will further contribute to the negative associations with the disease because it will allow for AIDS to “spread easier” thus creating more fear around the disease. The law says it’s not a felony to knowingly transmit AIDS and insinuates that the other person doesn’t need to know; which isn't very affective. This revised law will promote an environment where people can keep their health conditions a secret and even though they do have that right, it shouldn’t be kept a secret if there is a risk of jeopardizing the health of another person. If anything, this will negatively impact both people with AIDS and people without them because its basically saying that it’s okay not to communicate with your sexual partner or anyone else for that matter.
ReplyDeleteAIDs is a disease that his historically been stigmatized whether this law exists or not. However, i do think that the removal of this law could be seen as a step in the right direction. By not putting direct blame on a someone who was once a victim themselves you remove an extra layer of shame. It is not right to not disclose to your partner that you have AIDS but to incarcerate someone for that in my opinion is not right either. I think this law assumes that everyone has the same level of education of the same value system. If this law were to be in place than I believe it would be imperative that everyone was educated on AIDS and the importance of getting tested. I also believe that this law can foster an environment where the importance of getting tested is not present. If you are able to go to jail for "knowingly" transmitting this disease many people could just choose not to get tested. "Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals”. http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-downgrades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is a negative stigma regarding AIDS given the fact that it has been a disease that has devastated our country during the AIDS crisis. Due to these innate negative connotations of AIDS in our society, it is hard to get rid of the negativity. This law allows a person to knowingly transmit AIDS to another person without paying the consequences of facing a judge in court. I do not believe this will move the negative stigma around AIDS in the right direction. This is because it is important for a person to be aware whether or not their sexual partner has AIDS. I also believe that this law perpetuates the shame that already comes with having AIDS. It is a difficult discussion nonetheless; however, I think no matter what law is put into action, there will always be a negative stigma surrounding AIDS.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of legislation passed, the negative stigma that AIDS holds with continue to be perpetuated. Similar to cancer, because of what was been associated with the disease for so long now, nothing can really completely de-stigmatize it. I don't know if I see this particular law as a step in the right direction, since I see it only furthering the prominence of AIDS. If one can knowingly pass the disease to another, AIDS will continue to spread rapidly. As far as stigma in relation to the passing of this law, I'm not sure if it will stigmatize it further. I don't see it doing any good in breaking down the stigma, because it's almost treating it as if it's not as serious as it actually is. Negative stigma aside, it is a very serious disease that should be treated as soon as possible.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a stigma around AIDS, and it mainly is still with regards to the LGBT community. But let’s get down to business, many people in the world have HIV/AIDS right, and if having unprotected sex, you should always have that in mind. I do believe that if your partner (or even you) does have HIV/AIDS and you have not told your S/O that is morally wrong however I don’t think that it is necessarily a crime. There are people in the world (I can’t name the one person I am thinking about right now) that do use their HIV/AIDS maliciously. Having sex with someone without telling them ultimately giving them HIV…but how many people are going to be that sick and do that (that’s low-key biological warfare). Anygag, spitting on someone is a crime, and someone can be charged with criminal assault…and I believe that hiding the fact that you have actual AIDS, having sex with someone, and put someone in danger worse than spitting on someone…so it’s definitely on a spectrum.
ReplyDelete