What would Tsvangirai’s public HIV test achieve?
6 Dec 2011 § Leave a comment
In as much as I agree with most of Jonathan Moyo’s take on Tsvangirai’s sexual behaviour and strongly disapprove of promiscuity in general, I do not agree with the assertion that Tsvangirai should go for a public HIV test.
I agree the alleged behaviour exposes him (Tsvangirai), the women he sleeps with and their partners to the risk of HIV infection yet I do not see why his HIV status should be public interest. What purpose will a public test and any result thereof achieve in Zimbabwe’s fight against HIV/ AIDS?
Tsvangirai is an influential political leader but I have doubts over his public influence on morality. Zimbabweans are intelligent enough to make personal decisions on their sexual conduct; Tsvangirai’s behaviour is never going to derail HIV/ AIDS programmes in both the short and long-term except if he were to be president and decide that his government would not fund the said programs.
I dispute that his bedroom matters are of interest to the general public except his numerous ‘lovers’. Zimbabweans do not tend to talk about sex in public; I would have doubts over their interest in Tsvangirai’s liaisons. The media, which is not really the typical public, has shown a lot of interest but that does not necessarily translate to public mood. If anything, it does not appear to have affected his popularity, judging by the size of the crowd in his recent rally.
Public interest should not be used to compromise ethical medical/ clinical codes of practice. If anything public interest lies in knowing their medical records remain confidential irrespective of their socio-economic status or diagnoses. Confidentiality is everything in health practice, you compromise that you lose confidence in the whole system and the repercussions can be devastating.
Were Tsvangirai to be forced into having a public HIV test and results published publicly that would certainly have an impact on the numbers of people coming forward for voluntary tests because they would not be sure if their data would be protected. We cannot predict with certainty the health impact of such action but there would be some effect on infection rate, diagnoses as well as delays in treatment commencement due to people shying away from formal health institutions.
The other problem with any public testing of the Prime Minister is the message that it would be sending out about HIV and AIDS. HIV testing and certainly the status is not one of the preconditions for a PM or presidential job and many other senior jobs including within the health sector for as long as the individual does not perform any invasive procedures.
HIV is no longer a death sentence that it was in the 1980s and 90s; it is now a treatable and an effectively managed condition in many countries. What we should be working on is fighting the stigma associated with HIV infection. Instead of fighting stigma, Tsvangirai’s public show will reverse all the gains in that direction as the message would be that HIV positive people cannot hold high positions in public or private organisations yet the reality is that HIV does not in and of itself hinder people’s abilities.
A public HIV test by anyone let alone Tsvangirai is not necessary; were practice to be dictated to by public interest we would have surgeons performing public surgeries on public figures to prove a point. Private health matters should remain protected by confidentiality laws regardless of public interest for as long as there were no compelling legal reasons not to do so.