HIV This Week

Amon JJ, Todrys KW. Fear of Foreigners: HIV-related restrictions on entry, stay, and residence. J Int AIDS Soc. 2008;11(1):8.

Among the earliest and the most enduring responses to the HIV epidemic has been the imposition by governments of entry, stay, and residence restrictions for non-nationals living with HIV. Sixty-six of the 186 countries in the world for which data are available currently have some form of restriction in place. Although international human rights law allows for discrimination in the face of public health considerations, such discrimination must be the least intrusive measure required to effectively address the public health concern. HIV-related travel restrictions, by contrast, not only do not protect public health, but result in deleterious effects both at the societal level - negatively impacting HIV prevention and treatment efforts - and at the individual level, affecting, in particular, labour migrants, refugee candidates, students, and short-term travellers. Governments should repeal these laws and policies, and instead devote legislative attention and national resources to comprehensive HIV prevention, care, and treatment programmes serving citizens and non-citizens alike.

Editors’ note: In the 2001 Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS and in subsequent declarations, governments have committed to enact appropriate legislation to eliminate all forms of discrimination against persons living with HIV. HIV-related travel restrictions should be repealed immediately and entirely – they have no public health justification and are a human rights violation.

In developing countries, culture favours males for economic ventures more than females. There is evidence that allowing HIV-positive women inheritance rights will mitigate negative economic consequences of HIV and other related risks. This study aimed to examine the extent to which HIV-positive women have access to family resources in Abia State, Nigeria. Data collection instruments were questionnaires, focus group discussions, and interview guides using 98 HIV positive women in networks of people living with HIV. Five key informants were also interviewed to authenticate women’s responses. Eighty-five (86.7%) of the women were denied rights to family resources. Thirty-eight (64.4%) of them had negative relationship with their family members for demanding their husbands’ property. Because of limited financial assistance, the women took two types of risks in order to survive in the communities. Twenty-five women (25.5%) earned their livelihood by acting as hired labourers to others in the farm. More that half (55.1%) of the HIV-positive women were practicing unprotected sex. Although as many as 79.6% of the women were aware of risks of unprotected sex, 54 (55%) of them practised it. The commonest reason for taking the risk was sex partners’ dislike for condom use. The high proportion of HIV-positive women who were denied access to family resources could suggest lack of care and support. If this denial continues, the government’s efforts to reduce HIV prevalence would yield no significant result. There is therefore a need for an organized community education programme that emphasizes the benefits of empowering women living positively with HIV economically.

Editors’ note: Denying women living with HIV access to family resources thwarts their economic empowerment and increases sexual risk. Enactment and effective implementation of inheritance laws are needed to ensure that women can own and/or control resources such as land, housing, and livestock after the death of their husbands. Their well-being and that of their children depend on it.