Is the Term "AIDS" Outdated?
At the outset of the HIV epidemic, an AIDS diagnosis meant your life was going to come to an end very soon. The term "AIDS" was synonymous with illness and end of life. A person was said to be dying of AIDS. Today much has changed. People are diagnosed with AIDS in the same way; with a CD4 count less than 200; with a CD4 percentage of less than 14; or by being diagnosed with one of the AIDS defining illnesses. The difference is, people aren't dying after an AIDS diagnosis like they once did. It's not uncommon for a person to have a CD4 count of less than 200; start HIV medications; and strengthen their immune system to the point where their CD4 is above 200. Yet the rule is, once an AIDS diagnosis, always an AIDS diagnosis. And to the world outside of the HIV community, AIDS still implies sickness and death. In fact even some HIV-infected people believe an AIDS diagnosis is a signal that the end is near. We, however know different. I think Los Angeles Times writer John-Manuel Andriote said it best:
-
"I choose not to call myself a "person with AIDS" because I don't believe the term AIDS accurately describes my health status. Instead, I choose to say, "I am living well with HIV."
Is it time to do away with the term AIDS? It labels people; it carries with it a tremendous amount of stigma; and it just isn't accurate anymore. Is it time to retire this term?
What Do You Think?
Is AIDS an outdated term? Does it label and stigmatize an entire group of people? Do you think the term AIDS needs to go away? I would love to hear your opinion.
Related Information
I just returned from a children’s museum that had a special exhibit on Ryan White. I really remember this very clearly because Ryan and I were about the same age as he battled AIDS and the world. Reading all of the things today reminded me how much pain and torture this boy and others have lived through due to ignorance of the words and the disease.
I don’t think the term is outdated at all. It’s outdated to use the term in a derogatory way, but the term “AIDS” classifies a group of illnesses, which is not something that should be called outdated or not. Yes it’s true that people with HIV are living longer, but I think the term “AIDS” should be kept.
Actually AIDS describes what HIV is doing/has done/will do to your body. I think the term needs to be done away with.
I think the acronym AIDS is still apt and useful, where the majority of people on this planet who are infected with HIV also have AIDS, or will have. Here in The States and other developed countries we have the good fortune to have antiretrovirals that for many if not most, can save lives and prevent progression.
However these medications have their own consequences and side effects, and “living well with HIV” with side effects, which let’s face it, most people on meds have, and having AIDS are just terms.
AIDS is not going away any time soon on this planet, and millions will die in Africa and Asia as a result of it, and certainly they are not living well with HIV.
What this blog has brought into question, and what people are still studying is when someone has HIV infection that has progressed to the definition of AIDS, and then their CD4’s have rebounded, and their opportunisitic infections and malignancies are in remission, are they immune competent?
We don’t know yet, and so once you’ve had a lower-than-200 CD4 count, are your rebounded CD4’s able to keep you ‘healthy’? The jury is still out on this one.
The term AIDS is fine, provided it is used correctly to describe someone with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. What needs to be done away with is the phrase “HIV/AIDS” as it implies the two separate conditions are inherently connected or even one and the same. One doesn’t say HPV/cervical cancer or EBV/Chronic Fatigue… The truth is, HIV has never been proven to be the cause of AIDS. This is confirmed when one actually reads the history and early research by Gallo et al. It’s also been stated very clearly by Kary Mullis, Ph.D., in the foreword to “Inventing The AIDS Virus” by Peter Duesberg, Ph.D. Mullis won the Nobel Prize for inveting the PCR test, which is now used to assess viral loads in AIDS patients. He says HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS. So, let’s be specific when discussing these two different conditions: HIV infection and AIDS.
v well done said ppl living with HIV/AIDs they should feel ” i m well leaving with HIV” in terms of AIDS diagnosis ppl should not feel thier life is end or it’s too short.. though CD4 count is lesser than 200. thanks to GOD coz new medaction has come, person can increse their immune system and CD4 too so i dnt think so term of AIDs an outdated..
I stand to be corrected if necessary.I believe one starts off by being HIV positive and then the condition progresses to AIDS.The coming in of ARVs has resulted in some people whose AIDS condition responded positively to therapy and the people are now “living well or very well with HIV”.Others have not responded well to therapy, be it first or second line therapy etc but their condition remains AIDS.If a person who is “living well or very well with HIV” fails to abide by the ARV prescription for some reason, their condition rapidly drops to AIDS.In view of this state of affairs I think the coming in of ARVs should have brougt a new term that describes people “leaving well with HIV”. A term which gives us hope, determination or courage to live on.A term which neutralizes the stagma attached to AIDS.As long as there are people who can not get ARVs whilst they are HIV positive the term AIDS will never be outdated.It can only be outdated when the AIDS condition is completely done away with. On another note please can give me more information on what it means to be on first/second line treatment, its causes and posible effects in the long run?
Ochen horoshii post! Spasibo za prodelannuyu rabotu!