Below
are two different posts. Read each post and write a response to each one,
discussing whether you agree or disagree with their
points by providing examples. Likewise, you may elaborate on a specific point.
Each reply must consist of at least two scholarly
citation in APA Format and be at least 150 words. Also, a biblical perspective must be
incorporated.
Post 1-
The topic of HIV testing and treatment for
those incarcerated in a prison or jail is a topic fraught with controversy and
strong opinions. To begin, it is important to highlight what is known to be
true regarding this population and topic. As the textbook discusses, the prison
population is at a higher risk of contracting HIV than the general public
(Gideon & Sung, 2010; Parsons & Cox, 2020). As such, it is important to
continue to measure HIV infection rates in the prison population. This can be
done through HIV testing both during admission and just prior to release. The
purpose of this would not be to amend treatment to those who are HIV positive
such that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) would be violated or in
question. Rather, the purpose of this testing is twofold: First, to gather
valuable data on the rate of infection within each prison environment, and
second, to ensure that those who do test positive for HIV receive the
appropriate treatment during their time incarcerated.
The topic of segregating those with HIV is
equally fraught with contention. Many may support this practice on fear alone,
that those who are currently HIV negative, including staff, may be at an
increased risk for contracting HIV if segregation is not utilized. Research
seems to indicate that this practice is not necessary to effectively prevent
the spread of HIV, and may in fact be unduly harmful to the inmate (Gideon
& Sung, 2010; Kilty, 2020). The National Commission on AIDS, the National
Commission on Correctional Health Care, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons have
all denounced segregation as an effective or necessary approach to public health
(Gideon & Sung, 2010). Although no U.S. Supreme Court case has been handed
down specifically clarifying the issue, and therefore it may be argued that no
inmate rights would be violated during segregation, it is clear that the
inmates who are segregated are frequently denied access to educational or
religious programs that others in the general population of the prison have
access to (Gideon & Sung, 2010).
My
approach to HIV prevention and detection, beyond the testing already discussed,
would be through the implementation of a harm reduction needle exchange program
and through the promotion/availability of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)
treatments to those at high risk for contraction of HIV (Parsons & Cox,
2020). This sort of treatment has been supported through research conducted on
the population of men who have sex with men (MSM) and, more recently in Parsons
and Cox’s (2020) work, in the prison drug user population, with promising
results
Post 2-
As an
administrator of a jail, I would suggest making HIV testing inside the prison
system mandatory for all inmates upon their arrival. This strategy would
guarantee the early identification of HIV/AIDS cases, enabling prompt treatment
commencement and the implementation of preventive measures to lessen the likelihood
of transmission among inmates. In 2020, Hotton et al.
Since
the jail population frequently comes from marginalized communities where HIV
and other STDs are more common, mandatory testing upon entry is essential.
Early detection of HIV infection allows for the provision of the required
medical attention and assistance to inmates, as well as the deployment of
suitable infection control measures to safeguard the general prison
population’s health and well-being.
Moreover,
not only at admission but also at frequent intervals during the prison term, I
would advise HIV testing. Regular testing can assist in detecting any new
illnesses that might arise while the person is in detention, guaranteeing
ongoing disease care and surveillance (Ong et al., 2018). Furthermore, all
offenders should have access to HIV testing before being released from prison,
as this transitional period is a crucial one during which people may be more
vulnerable to catching or spreading the virus (Cohen et al., 2013).
In
regards to the general policy of segregation for offenders who test positive
for HIV/AIDS, I would not advise it. Even while this kind of behavior may have
been more widespread in the past, it is now generally acknowledged to be
against the rights of the offender and to be a source of additional stigma and
prejudice (Haimowitz, 1989). As an alternative, the emphasis should be on
offering complete medical care and support services to HIV-positive inmates who
are part of the general prison population. Additionally, it is essential to
make sure that infection control and universal precautions are in place to
safeguard both staff and inmates (Haimowitz, 1989).
In
conclusion, I would advise the prison system to require HIV testing at the time
of admission, conduct testing on a regular basis while incarcerated, and do
testing before release. Since it violates their rights and may worsen the
social stigma attached to the illness, segregation of HIV/AIDS positive
criminals must to be avoided. These steps can help manage HIV within the prison
system and improve the general health and well-being of the jailed population
when paired with the proper medical care and support services (Frieden et al.,
2005).
