explain AIDS advantages and disadvantages
Answers
Answer:
Advantages:
Can control the virus and allow your immune system to rebuild itself—the benefits are especially significant if you start treatment early. can prevent the transmission of HIV to your sex partner(s) allows women living with HIV to have healthy pregnancies and give birth to HIV-negative babies.
Disadvantages :
Sometimes aid is not a gift, but a loan, and poor countries may struggle to repay. Aid helps rebuild livelihoods and housing after a disaster. Aid may not reach the people who need it most. Corruption may lead to local politicians using aid for their own means or for political gain.
hope this helps you...
Please mark me as brainlist...
Explanation:
The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic has exerted an uneven effect on health care delivery in the United States. Five states have almost 65 percent of the 140,000 diagnosed cases of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and five cities have almost 40 percent. In 1987, 20 percent of hospitals provided 77 percent of the care for patients with AIDS, with 4 percent providing 32 percent. Minority populations account for 43 percent of all cases, and public hospitals treat more than twice as many patients with AIDS on average as private hospitals.1
Recognizing this concentration of cases, some policy makers and analysts have urged the establishment of separate health care institutions for people with AIDS and other manifestations of HIV infection. In New York City, a Mayor's Task Force on AIDS has recommended the development of two 200-patient subacute care facilities exclusively for the treatment of HIV infection.2 Weinberg and Murray have proposed in the Journal that New York dedicate one sizable hospital solely to the treatment of HIV-related illnesses; otherwise, "the care of patients with other acute life-threatening illnesses could be profoundly compromised."3 Still others have recommended the creation of regional AIDS/HIV-only centers to alleviate hospital overcrowding or provide better treatment for patients in areas with low concentrations of HIV-related illness.4 , 5 These regional centers "might serve as model institutions where diagnostic algorithms could be developed and new technologies tested quickly."4
These proposals are not without merit, but specialization might possibly turn into segregation, increasing the stigma associated with HIV infection, constricting patients' freedom of choice, and ultimately producing substandard care. That HIV infection has affected groups already at risk for stigmatization and coercion heightens the danger. Homosexual and bisexual men still compose the majority of adults and adolescents with AIDS in the United States, but the incidence of AIDS is increasing rapidly among intravenous drug users, their sexual partners, and children born to mothers with HIV infection. Eighty percent of intravenous drug users with AIDS are black or Hispanic.
The History of Single-Disease Hospitals
Well into the 20th century, single-disease hospitals were integral to the health care system. As late as 1910, they accounted for almost half of all hospital beds. They were first built in the post—Civil War period in a response to the rise of medical specialization. New specialties, such as pediatrics and orthopedics, announced themselves by opening distinctive hospitals in which the illness, the patients, and the treatment were differentiated from the aggregate misery in the almshouse hospital.
Beginning in the 1920s this trend was reversed, and the general, multiple-specialty hospital became the core of the system. Proper patient care and clinical research required an interdisciplinary team, and as specialties turned into subspecialties, most single-disease hospitals had difficulty marshaling the requisite experts. By the 1950s, with a few exceptions (notably in oncology), the general hospital had replaced the single-disease hospital.
The history of tuberculosis sanitariums and mental hospitals reveals a number of disadvantages to single-disease hospitals that must be reckoned with in the current policy debate. Indeed, the historical record places the burden of proof on those who would encourage single-disease institutions.
In 1900 there were 34 sanitariums and tuberculosis hospitals in the United States; by 1925, the number had climbed to 536.6 Although tuberculosis had been endemic in the United States through the 19th century, accounting for one of every five deaths in all social classes, by the 20th century it had become the disease of immigrants and tenement dwellers, and most sanitariums were established to treat them. The aim was in part benevolent: the sanitarium would provide poor people with the same curative regimen that the well-to-do had enjoyed at mountain and desert retreats. In practice, however, the facilities segregated patients according to their ability to pay, and municipal and state institutions could not duplicate the care or services that private facilities provided.
Sanitariums also attempted to relieve general hospitals of the care of patients with chronic and contagious illness and to protect the community from the spread of disease. But performance fell short of goals. Sanitariums became a supplement to general hospitals, not an alternative, and they did not quarantine patients effectively. Physicians were reluctant to report cases of tuberculosis, and patients developed effective strategies for avoiding the facilities. In fact, the ability of