The basic biology of the virus, HIV, and the disease it causes, AIDS. The economic, social and political factors that determine who gets sick and who remains healthy, who lives and who dies. The progress of scientific research and medical treatments. The reasons for hope; the reasons for fear. (To get a glimpse of some of the materials that students have been posting on the course forums, go to @AIDSFAH or #AIDSFAH.)
07.01 - HIV and the Law
Loading...
Del curso dictado por University of Michigan
AIDS: Fear and Hope
194 calificaciones
De la lección
Unit 7 - Wrapping Up
Cure? Legal Issues, Cost, The Future, Acting Up
Conoce a los instructores
Richard Meisler, Ph.D.Lecturer
Department of American Culture, University of Michigan
Our subject today is HIV and the law.
We will begin with laws that are designed to protect public health.
We'll move on to the major US law that provides care for HIV positive people and
we'll briefly set the stage for another session on criminal laws bearing on HIV.
In the United States and many other countries,
the government can take action to protect people from contagious diseases.
These laws have generally not been used in the case of HIV and
AIDS, but I begin with them for two reasons.
People often wonder about whether isolation or
quarantine was appropriate in this epidemic.
And in the early stages of the epidemic when there was a lot of fear,
even panic, there was suggestions that public health measures should be taken.
The US law allows the government to order isolation, the separation
of sick people with a contagious disease from people who aren't sick.
It also allows for quarantine which both separates and restricts the movement
of people exposed to a disease to determine whether they will become sick.
The Federal government maintains a list of diseases for which isolation and
quarantine are authorized.
Here's the list which currently includes nine diseases.
As you can see, viral hemorrhagic fevers,
like Ebola, are on the list and HIV is not.
Clearly, there is a tension between public health considerations and civil liberties.
Public health officials acting under these laws can restrict the freedom and
movement of citizens.
The health dangers must be serious and the underlying medical knowledge must be very
strong in order to justify such isolation and quarantine.
What about HIV?
As I have said, the panic that many people felt early in the epidemic
led some to demand restrictions on the movement and behavior of infected people.
As information accumulated about how the disease spread, it became clear
that casual, incidental contact with an infected person was not dangerous.
There was not a generalized public health danger from HIV.
It is certainly a good thing that officials resisted pleas for
restriction on HIV-positive people.
One country, Cuba, isolated HIV-positive people by law until 1993.
You may remember that Professor Larry La Fountain-Stokes mentioned that,
when I asked him to review the HIV situation in several Caribbean countries.
Although no longer required to do so by law,
some of these HIV-positive people still live in the quarantine sanatoria.
And the harshness of the Cuban response has generally been moderated.
The story of HIV in Cuba is complex and positive.
There is universal healthcare in Cuba and an extremely aggressive HIV
education program that also saturates the country with condoms.
Cuba has a very low HIV prevalence and I'm not in a position to
judge the extent to which the early quarantine policy contributed to it.
Let's move on from the provisions of public health laws,
which generally had little influence on the HIV AIDS epidemic, to the legislation
in the United States that bears directly upon the treatment and prevention if HIV.
A large, fast growing,
deadly epidemic requires governmental action.
In the United States, only the Federal government had the resources and
the reach to respond to the spread of HIV.
We have discussed the criticisms of President Reagan for
not showing public leadership and for not rapidly increasing budgets when HIV hit.
The federal government did, however, respond very positively
in 1990 when Congress passed the Ryan White Care Act.
We saw this photo at the very beginning of the course.
Ryan White was a teenager who contracted HIV from blood
products used to treat his hemophilia.
He was the target of discrimination because of his HIV and became
a spokesperson and symbol in the struggle for fair treatment of HIV positive people.
Ryan died just before his 18th birthday in 1990.
And a major piece of comprehensive legislation on HIV and
AIDS was named in his honor that same year.
For almost 25 years now, the Ryan White Care Act, reauthorized and
revised in some ways, has been the key law that has defined and
funded care and prevention in the United States.
The primary goal of the act is to provide help to HIV people who do not have
sufficient money or healthcare insurance to pay for their care and treatment.
This makes the government the payer of last resort when no
other sources of funds are available.
In 2014, 536,000 people are receiving assistance under this act,
and the bill is authorized at $2.32 billion.
This compares with the original funding level in 1991 of 220 million.
About one-third of the money goes to ADAP, the AIDS drug
assistance program that helps people pay for their anti retro viral medicines.
The law has special provisions to provide assistance to minority communities and
areas that have been especially hard hit by the epidemic.
It provides incentives to localities for
testing and identifying HIV infected people who do not know their status.
The Care Act also funds a variety of programs to attempt to
improve treatments and services for HIV positive people.
Of course, there are exceptions.
Some people don't know about available medical services.
Some people live in remote areas where they can't reach medical care.
But it is generally true that because of the Ryan White Care Act,
virtually every HIV-positive person in the United States can get
access to medical care, support services and the medicines that they need.
It took about a decade for the US Federal government to move from a President who
barely mentioned aids to legislation that aimed to care for
everyone who was infected.
I'll conclude with an odd provision of the Ryan White Care Act.
When it was passed in 1990, it required every state to
certify that its criminal laws could prosecute any HIV
positive person who knowingly exposed another person to HIV.
That brings us to another aspect of HIV and the law.
It is often called the criminalization of HIV, and
we'll discuss that in another session.
Explora nuestro catálogo
Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.
Coursera brinda acceso universal a la mejor educación del mundo, al asociarse con las mejores universidades y organizaciones, para ofrecer cursos en línea.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
