The Journey Begins...

Becoming a mom has been an adventure. This particular adventure started with years of infertility, 11 months with a reproductive endocrinologist and after 9 months the arrival of a beautiful baby boy.


The last leg of this adventure began October 9th, 2010, well it actually began sometime January 2010; but I will spare you those details.

Let’s start on October 8th.

On October 8th I had what was to be my final obstetrics appointment with my midwife, my due date was October 15th and since I am one of the luckiest girls on earth, I was having a scheduled c-section on that day. After being examined I was informed by my midwife that the baby would stay put until they went in to get him and that I needed to schedule my pre-op appointment/consultation with the doctor in the practice that performs the c-sections. That appointment was set for October 14th, I was told to just relax and enjoy my last week of pregnancy.

After leaving the midwife’s office Jason, my husband, and I went to lunch and then to the mall; for some reason I had it in my mind that the baby HAD to have more hats. It’s not like we live in South Alabama where the seasons are: Summer, Still Summer, Christmas, and Summer. We went to every baby store in the mall and did not find a single hat that I liked. Jason joked that I was probably going to walk the baby out. Since I had just been told by my midwife, who is a medical professional, that I had virtually no risk of going into labor naturally, I didn’t believe him.

Fast forward to 8 a.m. Saturday October 9th; Jason is at work at the fire department, I am at home watching cartoons. After eating a gigantic chocolate muffin for breakfast I called my mom so I could talk to her on her way to work. A few minutes into our conversation I stood up to get a drink, immediately after standing I felt like I had peed my pants, I was 39 weeks pregnant, and ask any pregnant woman, pee happens. Shrugging it off I went and changed clothes while still talking to my mom. I sat on the bed put my clean pajama pants on stood up and peed again. This time I mentioned it to my mom, she said I need to call Jason and tell him what was going on because she thought I was leaking amniotic fluid. I laughed at her and told her she was crazy, but still called Jason just to get his opinion. If I forgot to mention it earlier he is also a paramedic.

When I entered my last trimester of pregnancy my husband and I developed a plan that would allow me to get in touch with him if I went into labor while he was at work. He works two jobs both are 24 hour shifts; 24 hours as a firemedic, 24 hours as a paramedic and then 24 hours at home. I work 12 hour night shifts as a police dispatcher; we figured that odds were I was going to go into labor while one of us was at work. As it turned out he was the one at work.

On this particular Saturday he was working at the fire department. According to our “plan” I was to call his cell phone, which of course he didn’t answer, and then call the administrative line to 911. At this point I was thinking that I wasn’t really in labor so there was no reason to call 911, administrative line or not. So I called every fire station trying to find him, no answer at any of them. I was still relatively calm, until I was standing in the bathroom and felt like I peed my pants again. Nobody has that much pee. I tried his cell-phone one last time, again with no answer, and then immediately called the administrative line to 911. I spoke with the supervisor and asked him to call Jason on the radio because he wasn’t answering my phone calls, the supervisor asked why, and I told him that I thought my water had broken he told me that Jason would call me back in under 5 minutes.

He did call me back in under 5 minutes; funny thing is that he never heard them call him on the radio, his partner heard them call him on the radio and came into the gym where he was working out telling him to call home NOW. When he called me I explained what was going on and he said that he was on his way home. The contractions started about 30 minutes before he got there. Through all of this excitement I was surprisingly calm. In the time it took for him to get from work to home I finished packing my bag, the baby’s bag, took a shower, and was ready to go when he walked through the door.

We live relatively close to the hospital so the drive wasn’t long, but I was having regular contractions, about 2-3 minutes apart. I really thought I was going to get to prove my doctor’s wrong. I had been told from the beginning of the pregnancy that I would have to have a c-section because I have what is known as an android pelvis. I was told that I would not go into labor naturally; and since I did go into labor naturally I was holding out hope that I would escape the surgeon’s scalpel. I found out quickly that I was wrong.

When we arrived at the hospital I had been in labor for approximately 3 hours. I was hooked up to a fetal monitor and a monitor to watch contractions. My contractions stayed 2-3 minutes apart and spiked all the way up to the top of the scale. A nurse checked to see if I was dilated, and I was less than 1cm, you have to be 10cm to even think about starting to push out a baby. She did a swab to check for amniotic fluid that came up positive, at this point they called in my midwife. The midwife arrived around 1pm she checked me for dilation progression and I was still less than 1 cm. So much for delivering naturally. She decided to do a ferning test which is a more in depth test for amniotic fluid. This test came up negative, she deduced that I had sprung a leak that had sealed itself back off, which is not as uncommon as one would think. When she got those results it was a few minutes before 3 pm and I had been in labor for eight hours. She checked my dilation again, I still had not made any progress, so we discussed the options I had.

My options were I could continue to labor for up to 24 hours and then have a c-section or I could have them call in the operating room staff and get it done then. 8 hours of labor was enough for me, which means, the operating room staff made some overtime that weekend.

I was in the operating room and prepped for surgery before 3:20, I had always heard that they moved quickly with c-sections but never really believed it.

While lying on the operating table with a drape in front of my face so I couldn’t see anything I could feel myself being basically lifted off the table. I looked at Jason and he had this amazed look on his face. He told me that what I thought was happening was. Which I didn’t completely understand until after it was all over and he gave me a detailed description of the delivery of our child.

Since I have an android pelvis there was no room for the baby to drop down, which is why I didn’t/couldn’t dilate. This also means that he was wedged under my ribs. Jason told me that Esther, my midwife, was pushing down on my ribs, while a nurse was pulling retractors and the doctor was “fishing” inside my abdomen trying to un-wedge the baby.

At 3:50 pm our son Joshua Davis Brooks was born, all 8lbs 8oz and 19 inches of him. Unlike a normal baby he didn’t cry when he came out he said “Wa-ah” and then just looked around the room, basically he cheated me out of that first cry moment. I vaguely remember him being shown to me before he and Jason were off to the nursery for the first bath, footprints, and all those other things they do to newborns.

The experience of being awake during surgery was different. I actually had conversations with my midwife and doctor as they were putting me back together. The conversation was nonsensical. We discussed landscaping, sign panting and when Jason and I are planning on another child. My response to that particular question was “can’t you guys get me sewn up before we discuss getting another one in there”. Overall it wasn’t bad, just strange.

I will never forget the day that my first child was born. No matter how uneventful it was it was still the beginning to the greatest journey of my life.

Ethics Final

Question 1: Are there any circumstances under which you would support the death penalty? If you answer "no," explain your categorical opposition to capital punishment. If you answer "yes," identify those circumstances and explain why they make the death penalty morally permissible or morally obligatory

The death penalty has its good aspects and its bad aspects. There is always the chance no matter how small that an innocent person would be put to death. For many this is a valid reason as to why the death penalty should be done away with. English jurist William Blackstone said, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." This quote demonstrates the seriousness of sending an innocent person to jail. Imagine just how much more serious it would be to accidently sentence an innocent person to death.

The justice system of the United States has embraced the concept of innocent until proven guilty. This leaves it up to the prosecution team to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. While this may seem to be an easy task in cases where one person looks to be guilty it is not always that easy. One must keep in mind that with every valid point that is made by the prosecution the defense has the chance to cast the shadow of doubt on their point. With the justice system, the way that it has become it is very difficult to prove a guilty person guilty and much more difficult to prove an innocent person guilty. In theory, with fewer people going to jail for crimes that they did not commit there is less of a reason to oppose the death penalty.

In my opinion, the death penalty should be a sentencing option for a multitude of violent crimes not just murder. Violent crimes, while they do not always bring forth the death of the victim, cause a death of a part of a person. Violent crimes such as rape can result in a rape victim being unable to trust anyone, or in extreme cases develop a fear of leaving their "safe place", usually their home. Someone who is a victim of a violent assault can also have the same reaction as a rape victim, or as a victim of attempted murder. Any violent crime that changes the victim in a radical and negative way should have the death penalty as one of the sentences available. I do believe that there are crimes that are truly crimes of passion and those should have a lesser sentence than crimes that cannot be classified as a crime of passion. A crime of passion could be defined as but not limited to, a person comes how to find their spouse in bed with another person, if the person who discovers them has a psychotic break and harms or in extreme cases kills one or both of the offending parties. Violent crimes that cannot be classified as crimes of passion are crimes such as rape, attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon, or any other extremely violent crime that involves no provocation from the victim.

The death penalty is underused in my opinion, and possibly, if it were used more it would become a deterrent to others. As stated in the book if there were days of the week designated as death penalty days and days designated as life sentence days there would be fewer murders committed on death penalty days. Yes, I do believe in the death penalty and think that it should be used more.

 

Question 2: Under what circumstances, if any, is it morally permissible to break the law? Explain how your position relates to the one King puts forward in his "Letter."

Since there are unjust law makers there are unjust laws. Unjust laws are permissible to break as long as they are broken in a just way. There are even some just laws that under certain circumstances they too can be broken. It all comes down to individual circumstances and the laws that are being broken.

As mentioned by Martin Luther King Jr. in his letter that was written while he was in a Birmingham jail, unjust laws are ethical to break. In Hitler's Germany, it was illegal to harbor or protect the Jews. While it was breaking the law to do these things, it was still ethical. While Hitler and his constituents were working towards the eradication of the Jews it did not make it unethical for someone to protect them. Alternatively, look back even further into history at the Underground Railroad. The Underground Railroad was a system that aided in moving slaves from the south to the free north. If someone were caught, doing so they would be punished and the slaves they were trying to save would go back to their owners.

While it may seem to be very clear as to what laws are unjust and should be broken it is not always so. If you were raised to believe a certain way then the laws that kept things that way would not seem unjust. However, if you were a part of the groups that the laws were persecuting the rightness or wrongness of breaking the law were much clearer.

There are still other laws that fit into the gray area of whether or not it is permissible to break them. One that immediately comes to mind is theft. If you steal because you are starving then yes it is more permissible to break that law, although still illegal and if caught you will still be punished. Even if you are caught and punished, there is the possibility that you would be given a lesser sentence because of why you were stealing. This is not true if you say you are stealing to feed your family but the items you steal are not food related. This being said there are organizations that feed the hungry, which, if you have access to these organizations, could nullify your argument about stealing to feed your family.

Self-defense shows even more laws that are just to break. If you are being attacked by someone and in order to save your life or the life of someone else, you assault or kill the offender, you have committed a crime. However, it is less likely that you will convicted of the crime because you were defending another life. If you catch someone breaking into your home and in order to protect yourself and your property that person is harmed in the removal from your property you should also not be convicted for harming him or her.

It is my opinion that life overrides the law. Regardless of the law that is being broken, if it is being broken to preserve life then it is permissible to break it.

Not to choose

Creationism and Evolution should not be taught to school aged children, partially because of the religious connotations associated with creationism, but mostly because of the amount of faith that is required for both.
Creationism v. Evolution, just the mention of the argument makes some people see red. To understand the argument you need to first understand both sides, if not completely then at least on the basic level. Creationism is the belief that God created everything, and evolution is a scientific belief of how life began. There are two main subtypes of evolution that most everyone is aware of. Microevolution is explained by Charles Darwin as natural selection. (Charles, 2003) Macro evolution is large scale evolution.
Evolution is generally associated with Charles Darwin, when the reality is, Darwin's most famous book "The Origin of the Species" was not about macro evolution but about natural selection. Micro evolution does have scientific proof, if it were not for natural selection there would not be variation in animal breeds, plant types or insects. Darwin showed no proof of macro evolution in his book. Macroevolution has not been proven past the theory phase, due to the fact it takes such an extensive amount of time for it to occur and it has not been observed.
Although creationism is a primarily Judeo-Christian belief, creationism is not completely faith based; creation science strives to not only disprove the science behind, but to also build the scientific proof of creation. One of the biggest points made is that since no one was around 4.5 million years ago to observe the development of the strata then the earth is only 10,000 years old. This same argument can be reversed since there were no creationists around 10,000 years ago to witness creation. (Moore, 2003) Since it cannot be proven it is also still a theory.
There is a scientific and philosophical rule called Occam's razor, it states that if all things are equal, the answer requiring the fewest jumps in logic is normally correct. (Occam's Razor- Definition from the Merriam-Webster-Online Dictionary) But, what should be considered a jump in logic? For some the simple statement that God created everything requires no jump, yet for other's it requires a giant leap of faith. In contrast some see that life coming from primordial soup (Primordial soup-Definition from the Meriiam-Webster Online Dictionary) requires no jump in logic. Picking which theory requires the fewest jumps in logic, is not the place of the educational system. Both creationism and evolution are scientific theories; neither can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. How can two conflicting theories be chosen from to teach school children?
Children are generally taught one belief system or the other depending on their parent's beliefs. By the time a child reaches school age he or she has already been indoctrinated by their parents' beliefs, and teaching a different belief could have detrimental effects on a child's comprehension of the subject matter. Whichever theory was chosen to be taught could cause undue stress in home life depending on which belief system the student's parents follow. If students have been taught one thing at home and then taught the other in the school setting it could be fuel for disruptive and unhelpful arguments in the classroom where there is neither time nor the resources to handle the argument successfully.
It is considered a breach of the "Separation of Church and State" (Separation Of Church And State) to teach anything religious in public schools. If it is taken into account that there are some people who practice science as their religion then scientific unproven theories should not be taught, just like creationism as a creation science and Judeo-Christian theory should not be taught. It is neither a publicly funded nor privately funded learning institution's responsibility to determine the basic beliefs of children left under their supervision.
    Neither evolution nor creationism should be taught to school aged children. The theories have no forbearance on learning of other scientific theory or fact. Whether the child believes that God created the universe or if the child believes that the universe was formed by a big bang, or any of the other countless theories of the beginning has no effect on whether or not the child can learn and understand the law of gravity or the law of inertia. Why cause so much unneeded strife?

Works Cited

Charles, D. (2003). The Origin of the Species. New York: Signet Classics.

Hutson, J. (1998, June). A Wall of Seperation. Retrieved 01 24, 2010, from Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

Moore, J. A. (2003). From Genesis to Genetics: The Case of Evolution and Creationism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Occam's Razor- Definition from the Merriam-Webster-Online Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved 1 24, 2010, from Dictionary and Thesaurus-Merriam-Webster Online: http://www.meriiam-webster.com/dictionary/Occam%27s%20Razor

Primordial soup-Definition from the Meriiam-Webster Online Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 24, 2010, from Dictonary adn Thesaurus- Merriam-Webster Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Primordial%soup

Separation Of Church And State. (n.d.). Retrieved 1 24, 2010, from History - AllAboutHistory.org: http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

How the Sexual revolution altered Family values

The sexual revolution changed the face of the family unit. It began with changing the definition of modesty which helped begin the feminist movement. The feminist revolution drastically changed the structure and functionality of the family unit. As in most debatable topics there is no clear answer to whether the effects of the sexual revolution were negative or positive.

It is believed that the sexual revolution began in the 1960s, but it actually began in the mid 1950s. The 1950s is usually viewed as the last decade of innocence, but if one was to look deeper into the happenings of the decade you would see the vast changes that were already beginning to take place in the country. By the mid1960s there was the widely known 'hippie' movement, which embraced the concepts of peace and free love. With the widespread "free love" it became common place for actions such as pre-marital sex and drug use to be considered not as bad or sinful as originally thought. In the 1960s and 1970s there was the feminist movement, which is often portrayed as groups of women who didn't shave and burned their bras.

One of the biggest and most noted events that changed society's view on modesty was the establishment of Playboy magazine in 1955. (Kennedy) Playboy is still in the lime light today, with shows like "The Girls Next Door" idealizing Hugh Hefner's lifestyle of being married to one woman, yet still having the "bunnies" live in his home and sleep in his bed. Women being portrayed in the magazines, even though these photos are "tastefully done", still had far more skin uncovered than considered appropriate in other publications of the time. Over time it became more socially acceptable to show more skin than once considered modest. This is true even for Playboy magazine, if you were to compare the photos from an issue in 1955 to issues released currently you would see a vast difference in the amount of material and what parts of the female body is covered.

The 1960s and the "hippie" movement brought with it free love and drug use. The young adults of the 1960s were in the first generation of children born to the baby boomers. (Kennedy) Children, who had been raised in the innocence of the 1950s, spent some of their adult lives rebelling against the constraints and morals that they were raised in. This would be the first generation of people who had widespread unprotected premarital sex, which led to their children being born out of wedlock, and being raised in single parent homes or in communes. With such wide spread premarital sex society began to become jaded to it and it was no longer seen as bad as it was in the 1950s, unwed mothers were less likely to be sent away to convents or homes for unwed mothers. The children born during this time period, to these mothers could be the largest group of children to be born in an unconventional family unit.

The Feminist Movement or Women's movement was supposed to be about breaking through the 'glass ceiling' and equality for women. It can be seen as extremely detrimental to the family unit. Before the movement women could work out of the home but the jobs they could do were very limited, after the movement the choices were greater. Around this time the economy made it impossible for a household to be supported by one person's income which forced women into the workplace. Once women entered the work place their children became more self reliant. Gone were the days of the woman being at home, taking care of the family and being a house keeper. It is unclear if this is truly the fault of the movement or just an economic shift.

The sexual revolution did bring forth some needed change. Women were to be treated equally in the work force, equal pay for equal work. This is probably the most positive change, and one that is taken for granted today.

The sexual revolution also had some very negative effects. The moral fiber of America began to tear. America went from a society that prided itself in being moral and prudish to society of people who didn't care what other people thought. Sex became less of a taboo and more in your face. The family suffered as well, with women not at home there were children left unsupervised for long periods of time. Not to say that children became neglected but they did not have the supervision that they once had. Parents became less involved with their children's lives leading to rebellion to try to regain their parent's attention.

The sexual revolution had its good and bad points, and we must continue to live with the results. The difference between the attitude of society of now and society of pre- sexual revolution is extremely apparent. In short sexual revolution caused society to lose its innocence.

 

Works Cited

Kennedy, D. (2005). The American Pageant Volume Ii: Since 1865. In D. Kennedy, The American Pageant Volume Ii: Since 1865 (pp. 884-937). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

 

English 101 Final

HIV and South Africa

    In the early 1980's the world became aware of an epidemic; this epidemic was nothing that had ever been seen before. Unlike the infamous bubonic plague of the 14^th century, this virus takes longer to be fatal, has very few outward signs (until the later stages), and is not carried by rats. The epidemic in question in is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). HIV is a retrovirus that attacks T cells in the human immune system and can lead to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). There are two subtypes of HIV, HIV-1 and HIV-2; HIV-2 is primarily attributed to being in Africa, while the rest of the world primarily has HIV-1. HIV is believed to have been around since the 1930's with at least one fatality in the 1950's. There is a high concentration of the HIV-2 strain in Africa with approximately 5.5 million people infected. The virus is continuing to spread throughout South Africa at an alarming rate, and it needs to be slowed. The number of infected people has been attributed to different reasons including: lack of education, cultural beliefs, and improper or non-use of protection during sexual intercourse. There are several different organizations in place whose goals are to aid in the education of South Africans about HIV, how the virus is spread and the steps needed to prevent spreading the virus to others. These same organizations strive to provide medical care for those who have already tested HIV positive. Even with the amount of HIV in South Africa there is still a stigma related to being HIV positive, which has led to a lack of willingness to discuss a positive status, leading to further spread of the virus.

    In the early years of the epidemic, 1983-1987, HIV was limited to certain groups of people, mainly homosexuals, blood transfusion recipients, intravenous drug users and hemophiliacs. Not until 1989 did studies confirm that the virus had entered into the heterosexual community (Karim). Once the virus entered into the heterosexual community the number of infected quickly surpassed the number infected in the homosexual community. After the realization was made that HIV was transmitted by blood transfusions, the South African government put into place a protocol to screen donated blood for the markers associated with the virus. Putting forth this protocol did not slow the overall spread of the virus, but has slowed the spread through blood transfusions. HIV is spread through the transfer of bodily fluids; this not only includes blood, but also seminal fluid, vaginal discharge, and breast milk. There has been no documentation of the virus being spread through urine and saliva, or tears. This shows that the chances of someone encountering the virus without performing some type of knowingly risky activity highly unlikely.

    HIV affects 1 in 5 South African adults, ages 15-49, affectively mostly young females and older males (HIV and AIDS statistics for South Africa). This possibly represents the culture of South Africans, believing that older men should marry younger women in order to guarantee the continuation of their bloodlines. As late as 2003, approximately 23% of all pregnant women in South Africa tested positive for HIV, this means there is a large number of South African children born with HIV or acquire HIV during or shortly after birth (HIV and AIDS statistics for South Africa). Since HIV can be transferred through breast milk, children with HIV positive mothers, even those that manage to go through the 9 month gestation period without contracting the virus, have a greater risk of acquiring the virus during the time of their lives that they breastfeed (HIV and AIDS statistics for South Africa). With the growing number of younger women being infected by the virus, it is safe to assume that there will be a growing number of small children with the virus, leading to an exponential growth of the infection rate once these children become sexually active.

    Early in the epidemic a lack of education about the virus and the various ways of contracting the virus, led to its rapid spread. Currently there are several organizations set into place to properly educate the people of South Africa on how to prevent contracting the virus. Even with these organizations in place, there is still an ignorance of the virus in more rural areas of South Africa. It has been observed that subjects who are educated, both on a purely academic level as well as directly about HIV have a better chance of not contracting the virus, and if they already have already tested positive for the virus they are more apt to take, the precautions needed to prevent the spreading of the virus to others. In contrast, the subjects of South Africa that have only been educated about the virus still tend not to use protection during sexual intercourse (HIV and AIDS statistics for South Africa). In recent years, there has been an onslaught of media related public service announcements bringing to light the prevention and the facts about HIV. While for the most part this publicity has helped, it has also hurt in some ways. With HIV being a very prevalent virus in South Africa, the carriers are generally accepted by society and not treated differently. There are a surprising number of individuals in South Africa who, although they have been told about how to avoid contracting the virus, go to an extreme and will refuse to eat meals with or sleep in the same room as someone who is HIV positive. There are groups that believe that the infected should be ashamed of their HIV status, regardless of how they contracted the disease, and consider them to be "dirty" (Hutchinson, Mahlaela and Yukick).

    The spread of HIV through sexual contact is still a common occurrence in South Africa, regardless of the mass media public service announcements. Like most countries, females who try to initiate condom use during sexual intercourse are generally ridiculed. It has been shown that if condoms are more readily available to the public, females are more likely to use them. For most men, neither the knowledge of how the virus is spread nor the availability of condoms seems to influence their use of condoms with every sexual partner. Studies have shown that women are more likely than men to openly discuss a positive HIV result, with friends, family and potential sexual partners (Hutchinson, Mahlaela and Yukick). This leads to the thought that women are more conscious about the virus, or that they are merely more concerned with protecting themselves than men are.

    The mass media attempts that were mentioned earlier are noble, in their attempts to educate the people of South Africa. Although their intentions are good, and the media has put forth a great effort at publicizing HIV, they have also made HIV positive subjects feel ostracized. With an increase in knowledge also comes an increase in fear, leading some to treat HIV positive subjects like second-class citizens by refusing to eat meals with them or even sleep in the same from with them (Hutchinson, Mahlaela and Yukick). There needs to be more effort to debunk the myths of how HIV is spread and be more matter of fact about the virus. This can be done by revamping the current public service announcements, to include the truths about HIV and directly discussing the myths that have been perpetrated by previous public service announcements, and those that are passed down as truths in families and throughout the community. A step that could be taken is having open forum discussions in public areas with question and answer sessions, led by someone who is properly educated about HIV and knows the myths that are considered truths in the particular communities in which they are holding these sessions.

    It has been shown that the subjects in South Africa with at least some secondary education seem to have a smaller chance of contracting HIV(Karim). With this in mind, it is reasonable to assume that, using the organizations that are already in place, the funding to make public school mandatory could be found. By requiring and providing education starting at an early age, possibly 5-6 years of age, there is a greater chance of properly educating citizens about the risks and preventative measures associated with HIV. At early ages, children are more likely to grasp new ideas and be able to put those ideas into practice. Even if the children of South Africa are not required to go to school for a full 13 years like the children of the United States, there will still be many opportunities to stress the seriousness of HIV. When being taught to young children and young adults, the discussions regarding HIV should be tactful and to the point, because it is harder to grasp concepts when they are presented in an off-handed fashion. Since there is a large population, who is already infected or still at risk for being infected, and are considered to be past the age of attending school, some form of education should also be provided to them. This program should be similar to the G.E.D. program of the United States, but geared towards the education needs of the people in South Africa. Regardless of the age of the person being taught, it is extremely important to have curriculum focused on teaching the proper ways to protect themselves and others in regards to HIV.

    Along with better education, there is a need for more readily available healthcare for those infected, and those who wish to remain HIV negative. When school is required for children, HIV screening should be the first thing required before entrance. Not to say that HIV positive children should be segregated from HIV negative children, or that they should be kept from school, but being aware of the HIV status of Children in a learning facility aids in how the child would be dealt with if by chance they are injured while at said learning facility. In addition, a child being aware of their HIV status would aid in leading discussions with the HIV positive and HIV negative children, since they would be required to put into practice some of the techniques they would be taught on how to prevent the spread of the virus. Screening should also be provided to all adults, with the option of keeping the results private since there is still a stigma related to being HIV positive (Hutchinson, Mahlaela and Yukick). With any positive result, the patient should be given the option to attend classes on how to cope with having the virus, the appropriate treatment for HIV and how to protect their children, spouses, and sexual partners. Any pregnant woman should be screened for HIV in order to have the option to take the appropriate anti-anti-retrovirals during their pregnancy to prevent the spread of HIV to their unborn child. Along with the ante partum anti-anti-retrovirals, HIV positive mothers should also be provided artificial milk for their child after the child is born, to further protect the child from the possibility of contracting the virus from its mother's breast milk. Retroviral should be provided for all HIV positive subjects after they have been properly tested. Providing anti-anti-retrovirals for the HIV positive subjects of South Africa is not enough, there also needs to be a more readily available supply of condoms and dental dams. Studies have shown that women are more likely to insist on the use of protection if they have it readily accessible (HIV and AIDS statistics for South Africa). With these forms of protection, there also needs to be provided instruction on the proper use of these items, be it in a pamphlet or in a classroom type setting. Removing the taboo from the use of these means of protection could go a long way in preventing the spread of HIV.

HIV is a serious concern for the people of South Africa, but by lifting the taboo, and brining to light the truths about the virus, the spread of the disease can be slowed further. It is necessary to not only provide better medical care for those infected with the virus but also educate the infected and uninfected on the proper ways to protect themselves and the people around them. Once everyone in South Africa is properly educated about HIV and has the supplies that they need in order to protect themselves, it is plausible to believe that the spread of HIV could be stopped.

Work Cited

HIV and AIDS statistics for South Africa. May 2009 http://www.avert.org/safricastats.htm.

Hutchinson, P.L., X. Mahlaela and Josh Yukcik. "Mass media, stigma, and disclosure of HIV

test results: multilevel analysis in the Eastern Cape, South Africa." AIDS Education and

Prevention 19.6 (2997): 489-510.

Karim, S.S. Abdool. HIV/AIDS in South Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006

A Solution for South Africa

The HIV epidemic is a growing problem in South Africa that needs to be solved. Even though HIV is a very common virus in the region, there is still a stigma about the disease leading to a lack of willingness to discuss a positive status. There are organizations in place whose goals are to aid in the education of South Africans about HIV, how the virus is spread and the steps that need to be followed in order to prevent spreading the virus to others. These organizations also provide medical care for those who are already HIV positive. Even with these safe guards in place, the amount of HIV positive people in South Africa has continued to increase.

In South Africa, there is a mass media attempt at educating the people in the area about HIV. Although the media has good intentions, and has made a great effort at publicizing HIV, it has also made HIV positive subjects feel ostracized. With an increase in knowledge also comes an increase in fear. Leading some to treat HIV positive subjects like second-class citizens by refusing to eat a meal with them or even sleep in the same room with them. (Hutchinson, Mahlaela and Yukick) There needs to be more effort to debunk the myths of how HIV is spread and be more matter of fact about the virus. This can be done by revamping the current public service announcements, to include the truths about HIV and directly discussing the myths that have been perpetrated by previous public service announcements and those that are passed down as truths in families and throughout the community. A step that could be taken is having open forum discussions in public areas with question and answer sessions, led by someone who is properly educated in HIV and knows the myths that are considered truths in the communities in which they are holding these sessions.

It has been shown that subjects in South Africa with at least some secondary education seem to have a smaller chance of contracting HIV. (Karim) With this in mind, it is reasonable to assume that making public education mandatory. With the organizations that are already in place there should be a way to find the funding for such ventures. By requiring and providing education starting at an early age, possibly 5-6 years of age, there is greater chance of properly education citizens about the risks and preventative measures associated with HIV. At early ages, children are more likely to grasp new ideas and be able to put those ideas into practice. Even if the children of South Africa are not required to go to school a full 13 years as children in United States are there will still be many opportunities to stress the seriousness of HIV. When being taught to young children and young adults, the discussions regarding HIV should be tactful and to the point, because it is harder to grasp concepts when they are presented in an off-handed fashion. Since there is a large population, who is already infected or still at risk for being infected, and are considered to be past the age of attending school, some form education should also be provided to them. Similar to the G.E.D. program of the United States but geared towards the educational needs of the people in South Africa. Regardless of the age of the person being taught, it is extremely important to have curriculum focused on teaching the proper ways to protect themselves and others in regards to HIV.

Along with better education in regards to HIV there also needs to be more readily available healthcare for those infected, and those who wish to remain HIV negative. When school is required for all children, HIV screening should be the first thing required before entrance. Not to say that HIV positive children should be segregated from HIV negative children or that they should be kept from school, but being aware of the HIV status of children in a learning facility aids in how the child would be dealt with in the case of injury. In addition, a child being aware of their HIV status would aid leading discussions with the HIV positive and HIV negative children, since they would be required to put into practice some of the techniques they would be taught on how to prevent the spread of the virus. Screening should also be provided to all adults, with the option of keeping the results private since there is still a stigma related to being HIV positive. (Hutchinson, Mahlaela and Yukick) With any positive result, the patient should be given the option to attend classes on how to cope with having the virus, the appropriate treatment for HIV and how to protect their children, spouses, and sexual partners. Any pregnant woman should be screened for HIV in order to have the option to take the appropriate retroviral during their pregnancy to prevent the spread of HIV to their unborn child. Along with ante partum retroviral, HIV positive mothers should also be provided artificial milk for their child after the child is born, to further protect the child from the possibility of contracting the virus from its mother's breast milk. Retroviral should be provided for all HIV positive subjects after they have been properly tested. Providing retroviral for the HIV positive subjects of South Africa is not enough, there also needs to be a more readily available supply of condoms and dental dams. Studies have shown that women are more likely to insist on the use of protection if they have it readily accessible. (HIV and AIDS statistics for South Africa) Not only do these need to be provide but instruction, be it in pamphlet form or in a classroom setting. Removing the taboo from the use of these means of protection could go a long way in preventing the spread of HIV.

HIV is a serious concern for the people of South Africa, but by lifting the taboo, and bringing to light the truths about the virus, the spread of the disease can be slowed further. Providing proper medical care for the people of South Africa can not only extend their lives after they have contracted the virus, but also allow the HIV negative subjects to remain HIV negative. Proper education both general education, and HIV specific education can help the South Africans in making better decisions in regards to their health, and allow them the option to further their education beyond what is mandated by law. These simple actions using the resources and organizations that are already in place can greatly reduce the risks of new infections and make the lives of the already infected more enjoyable.

Refrences

HIV and AIDS statistics for South Africa. May 2009 <http://www.avert.org/safricastats.htm>.

Hutchinson, P.L., X. Mahlaela and Josh Yukick. "MASS MEDIA, STIGMA, AND DISCLOSURE OF HIV TEST RESULTS: MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS IN THE EASTERN CAPE, SOUTH AFRICA." AIDS Education and Prevention 19.6 (2007): 489-510.

Karim, S.S. Abdool. HIV/AIDS in South Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

HIV and South Africa

In the early 1980s, the world became aware of an epidemic, this epidemic was like nothing that seen before. Unlike the infamous bubonic plague of the 14^th century, this virus takes longer to be fatal, has very few outward signs (until the later stages), and is not carried by rats. The epidemic in question is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). HIV is retrovirus that attacks T cells in the human immune system and can lead to Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). There are two subtypes of HIV, HIV-1, and HIV-2; HIV-2 is primarily attributed to being in Africa, while the rest of the world primarily only has HIV-1. HIV is believed to have been around since the 1930 with at least one fatality from the virus in the 1950s. There is a high concentration of the HIV-2 virus in Africa, with approximately 5.5 million people infected. The number of infected people has been attributed to several different reasons including: lack of education, cultural beliefs, and improper or non-use of protection during sexual intercourse.

In the early years of the epidemic, 1983-1987, HIV was limited to certain groups of people, mainly homosexuals, blood transfusion recipients, intravenous drug users, and hemophiliacs. It was not until 1989 that studies confirmed the virus entering into the heterosexual community. (Karim) Once the virus entered into the heterosexual community the number of infected quickly surpassed the number infected in the homosexual community. After the realization the HIV was transmitted by blood transfusions, the South African government put into place a protocol screen donated blood for the markers associated with the virus. Putting forth this protocol did not slow the overall spread of the virus, but has slowed the spread through blood transfusions. HIV is spread through the transfer of bodily fluids, this not only includes blood, but also semenal fluid, vaginal discharge, and breast milk. There has been no documentation of the virus being spread through urine, saliva or tears. Showing that the chances of someone coming in contact with the virus without performing some type of knowingly risky activity is highly unlikly.

HIV affects 1 in 5 South African adults, ages 15-49, affecting mostly young females and older males. This possibly represents the culture of South Africans, believing that older men should marry younger woman in order to guarantee the continuation of their blood line. As late as 2003 aproximatly 23% of all pregnant women in South Africa tested positive with the HIV virus, meaning several children born with the virus or acquiring the virus during or shortly after birth. Since HIV can be transferred through breast milk, children born to HIV positive mothers,even those children manage to go through the nine month gestation period without contracting the virus, have a greater risk of acquiring the virus during the time of their lives that they breastfeed. (HIV and AIDS statistics for South Africa) With the growing number of younger women being infected by the virus, it is safe to assume that there will be a growing number of small children with the virus, leading to an exponental growth of the infection rate once these children become sexually active themselves.

Early into the epidemic a lack of education about the virus, and the various ways of contracting the viruses, led to its rapid spread. Currently there are several organizations set into place to properly educate the people of South Africa on how to prevent contracting the virus. Even with the organizations in place there is still an ignorance to the virus in more rural areas of South Africa, it has been observed that subjects who are educated, both on a purely accademic level as well as directly about HIV have a better chance of not contracting the virus, and if they already have are more apt to take the precautions to prevent spreading the virus to others. This being said even after being instructed on the proper use of protection subjects in South Africa who have only been educated about the virus still tend to not use protection. (HIV and AIDS statistics for South Africa) In recent years there has been an onslaught of media related public service announcement bringing to light the prevention and facts about the HIV virus. While for the most part this publicity has helped it has also hurt in some ways. With HIV being a very prevalant virus in South Africa the carriers are generally accepted by society and not treated any differently. There is a surprising number of individuals in South Africa who, although being briefed on how to avoid contracting the disease, go to an extreme and will refuse to eat meals with someone who is HIV positive or even sleep in the same room as an HIV positive subject. Because of the media there are groups who believe that the infected should be ashamed of their HIV postive status, regardless of how they contracted the disease, and consider them to be "dirty". (Hutchinson, Mahlaela and Yukick)

The spread of HIV through sexual contact is still a common occurance in South Africa, regardless of the mass media public service announcements. As in most countries females you try to initiate condom use during sexual intercourse are generally riducled. Although it has been shown that if condoms are more readily available to the public, females are more likely to use them. For the most men the knowledge of how the virus is spread nor the availability of condomns seems to influence the use of condoms with every sexual partner. Studies have also shown that woman are more likely than me to openly discuss a positive HIV result, with friends, family and potential sexual partners. (Hutchinson, Mahlaela and Yukick) Leading to the thought that women are more conscious about the virus, or that they are more concenered with protecting themselves than men are.

It is increasingly obvious that something needs to be done in South Africa, in regards to HIV. There are already several organizations and protocols put into place to aid with halting the spread of HIV by increasing education and supplying options for South Africans to protect themselves. Removing the stigma from HIV could make it more likely for the people of the region to be more open with positive HIV results. If South Africans feel that they will not lose their social standing or be shunned by the community they may possibly be more likely to share their HIV status with friends,family and/or future sexual partners.

References

HIV and AIDS statistics for South Africa. May 2009 <http://www.avert.org/safricastats.htm>.

Hutchinson, P.L., X. Mahlaela and Josh Yukick. "MASS MEDIA, STIGMA, AND DISCLOSURE OF HIV TEST RESULTS: MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS IN THE EASTERN CAPE, SOUTH AFRICA." AIDS Education and Prevention 19.6 (2007): 489-510.

Karim, S.S. Abdool. HIV/AIDS in South Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.