Citizens of the northern Nigerian state, Bauchi, are taking the battle against AIDs into their own hands. After reading the article, a few questions popped into my head. Even though participants can still say "yes" or "no" to a suitor, is this practice still fair? Yes, everyone has the chance to decide if they want to marry another participant, but who's to say they couldn't find a partner outside of those who have HIV (and then practice safe sex)?. Secondly, is this going to be a safe approach to stopping/slowing HIV for all involved? Lastly, UNAIDs is supporting the use of condoms. However, this area in Nigeria operates under Islamic law, and condom use is looked down upon. So, what happens when these couples (both having HIV) give birth to a child. Is there a good chance that the child will have HIV as well? If so, this may not be the best way to go about solving the HIV crisis in Nigeria.
BBC News
Nigeria Arranges HIV marriages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7598308.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think this is an innovative idea, because it still allows participants to live in the Islamic culture of Northern Nigeria. They are able to live as close to a normal life as possible, at least for those who are HIV positive. As for condom use, I have two ideas on the matter:
1) The participants in this program are responsible enough to engage in these HIV arranged marriages. Logically, they should also be responsible enough to use condoms despite their religion. Since they do not want to spread the virus to other partners, it would make sense that they would not want to spread the virus to their offspring.
2) As extreme as this may sound, this program could have proportionately less people infected with HIV than if it did not exist. If it did not exist, these participants could spread the virus to one or multiple partners, as well as offspring they may have with those partners. In this case, they could spread the virus to their offspring in the event that they refused to use condoms. Without the program, there are two groups that could potentially contract the virus. With the program, there is only one.
Alissa,
I liked the point you made in idea #2. It is better that only 1 group can potentially contract HIV. I didn't think of it that way.
I agree with what Alissa has said in her idea #2. With the program, the odds of contracting the virus when not already infected are very slim, unless people choose to go against the program or, as is very possible, have relations outside of their marriage or relationship.
There is no certain way to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS, unless a cure is developed. In the U.S., it would be crazy to tell people that they are limited to a certain population. While it may be a good way to try to control a spreading epidemic, is it correct to ask people to only get involved with "group x"? What do you guys think?
You have all made some really good points on this topic, and I agree with the fact that it seems as if this program could possibly result in less people becoming infected with HIV. It sounds like partaking in it is their own decision, rather than this group of people being forced into these marriages, since it does say "suitors who have tested positive and are willing to wed each other..." in the article. So I do feel like this is reasonable/fair since they have the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to be a part of this program.
After reading the article, I've come to a personal conclusion that this program/marital system can be either a total success or complete failure. I understand that this will allow HIV infected singles to establish relationships--which is positive for social growth, however what happens when love within the couples becomes stronger than the need for safety. Bringing two people together transfers feelings of strength because of their unity. This could urge HIV infected couples to take the risk of having children because they feel that their strength will overcome and able them to fufill their dreams of creating a family. From personal experience, most, if not all of us understand that love can make anyone do the "craziest" things. If a couple is willing to take on the challenge of having an HIV infected child, who are we to stop them. They can enforce the use of condoms, but it all boils down to the couples comfort zones. I'm not stating that my ideas are correct, just implying that feelings can overtake sensible decisions.
After reading the article and everyone's posts, I think it is great that Nigerians are simply talking about AIDS and finally doing someting to protect themselves. It is promising that they are understanding that they have other options and that there are others ways to go about doing things, even if they go against the norm or what is expected.
Post a Comment