
Early responses
The first case of AIDS in Thailand occurred in 1984.4 For the next few years, gay men, sex workers, injecting drug users and tourists were more commonly affected than other groups. The government took some basic measures to deal with the issue, but an epidemic was not yet apparent. Most of these measures were aimed at high-risk groups, as the government believed that there was not yet sufficient reason to carry out prevention campaigns among the general public.At the same time, public awareness of the issue was increasing. The case of Cha-on Suesom, a factory worker who became infected with HIV following a blood transfusion, was widely broadcast through the media after he agreed to allow his story and identity to be publicised in 1987. He became well known after appearing on TV shows and in national newspapers, allowing the public to appreciate the human side of the epidemic. Cha-on and his wife had both been fired from their jobs as a result of his HIV-positive status, and the injustice of this situation helped to increase public sympathy for people living with HIV. 6
Between 1988 and 1989, the HIV prevalence among injecting drug users rose dramatically, from virtually zero to 40%. The prevalence among sex workers also increased, with studies in Chang Mai, northern Thailand, suggesting that 44% of sex workers were infected with HIV.7 The rising level of infection among sex workers led to subsequent waves of the epidemic among the male clients of sex workers, their wives and partners, and their children.8
The prevailing view was still that HIV and AIDS had come from abroad and were mostly confined to a few individuals in high-risk groups. It was still not generally recognised that the epidemic would spread more widely. One government official insisted that the situation was under control, and stated that:
“The general public need not be alarmed. Thai-to-Thai transmission is not in evidence.”9
Some members of Thailand’s parliament proposed that all foreigners should be required to pass an HIV test before being admitted to the country.10 In keeping with the view that the threat was limited, the government only spent $180,000 on HIV prevention in 1988.11
No comments:
Post a Comment