Last class, we had the honor of hearing from Dr. Colleen Kraft and Dr. Clifford Gunthel. Rather than delivering a typical presentation with PowerPoint slides, the speakers chose to run an interactive session featuring a film documenting the story of a couple suffering from AIDS. The film was compelling, especially since several friends shared that they were fighting back tears while engaging with the video. For me, one theme stood out: how Mark deals with the loss of Tom.

One scene that caused me to cry (which only worsened my sickness-induced symptom of watery eyes) was seeing Tom’s body shortly after he passed away. The gravity of AIDS became even more abundantly clear as I could not imagine how one would feel to view their loved one in such a final state. However, I vividly recall hearing Mark sing “You Are My Sunshine” by Jasmine Thompson; the voice breaks in Mark’s singing as he was weeping were immensely painful, and there were numerous times that I wanted to cover my ears as the scene made my heart break. However, I was immediately reminded of my time shadowing a physician at a neuro-ICU. At the neuro-ICU, I saw countless families lose loved ones and cope in numerous ways, ranging from singing to performing religious rituals to screaming. Especially when a patient is at the neuro-ICU for a critical condition, family members are aware of the possibility that their loved one may not make it. However, knowing that information already did not make the neuro-ICU losses any easier, similar to Mark’s loss of Tom.

Another impactful scene in the film involved Mark sharing how silly it felt to read a book on the several stages of grief. I recall him explaining that reading the text seemed trivial, considering he knows how he feels and does not need to be explained that he may be undergoing the stage of denial or acceptance. Hearing the aforementioned dialogue made me ponder how it must feel to read books about other conditions while having first-hand experiences with the condition. For example, when one is anxious and quite overwhelmed, I imagine it would not be beneficial to read descriptions of how one could be stressed. Therefore, I believe that texts such as those about grief for one who lost a loved one should be carefully written with advice to manage pain rather than descriptions that people could describe as ‘mansplaining.’ This scene also reminded me of my time shadowing a physician at a neuro-ICU. When prepping for a meeting with a family that lost a family member, I was told by the physician to avoid explaining their pain as such a conversation can appear insensitive and condescending by unintentionally minimizing the grief of the family.

Last week, a topic that Dr. Raper discussed was helplessness and control. A particular conversation that moved me involved culture’s role in shaping one’s feelings of helplessness or control. For example, cultures that emphasize the importance of a man working and being the breadwinner while the woman takes care of the house and raises the children may make a husband who stays at home (due to various reasons, like physical health) feel quite insecure and helpless. Additionally, cultures that stigmatize divorce can make it incredibly difficult to leave an abusive relationship, even if separating from a toxic partner is the best decision an individual can make—the fear of being ostracized by your community can be significant. 

After class, I kept thinking about helplessness during COVID-19, particularly brought on by the Indian culture. I was painfully reminded of how my family and many other Indians living abroad (ex: Indian Americans) lived in a state of fear of losing their loved ones overseas. Such a fear was tightly associated with helplessness due to the travel restrictions imposed by various governments that made travel to and out of India nearly impossible. I heard countless stories of individuals needing to attend the funerals of their loved ones virtually via Zoom. Hindus, who make up the vast majority of India, believe that proper funeral processions must occur; otherwise, it can be challenging for one’s soul to leave a body and continue with its journey (Callaghan Mortuary, n.d.; Kramer, 2021). Not being able to witness the funeral of your loved one in person (if at all due to mass cremation sites becoming the norm to avoid the spread of the contagion) caused immense pain (Singh, 2021). Far too many asked themselves the following: ‘Is living abroad worth it if I cannot even see my family members, who dedicated their lives to doing all they can to see me lead a better life in another country, in their final moments, or at their funeral? Should I have stayed in India?‘ My family, much like many others of the Indian diaspora, constantly called relatives in India and asked if they were doing well, hoping and praying for an affirmative response (Singh, 2021). Do you all relate to this feeling of helplessness over the last couple of years?

Last week, we had the privilege of hearing from Dr. Emily Bianchi from Goizueta Business School. Given her expertise in recessions, she discussed psychological strategies often used to manage uncertainty. She noted that humans despise uncertainty, so much to the point that humans would prefer to definitely get shocked and know the frequency of those shocks that will be administered as opposed to having a 50/50 chance of receiving or not receiving shocks. She suggested that the hatred of uncertainty may stem from the anxiety and fear neurologically arising from uncertainty, and we thus have many compensatory strategies to overcome uncertainty.

One such compensatory strategy is relying on conspiracy theories to explain challenging concepts. During Dr. Bianchi’s discussion, I was immediately reminded of the numerous conspiracy theories about COVID-19. The Alliance for Science at Cornell University eloquently outlines the top 10 conspiracy theories about COVID-19 as of April 20, 2020—during the early stages of the pandemic in the United States (Lynas, 2020). Several conspiracies, from those involving Bill Gates to big pharma, were not rooted in logic. One widespread conspiracy theory I heard was that COVID-19 was created by Chinese scientists to be used as a biological weapon; in fact, 23% of Americans thought that COVID-19 was intentionally made (Schaeffer, 2020). Some (ideologically) conservatives, like Senator Tom Scott, pushed this theory that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was involved in biological warfare (Stevenson, 2020). Nonetheless, there is now genetic sequencing evidence that the coronavirus in question has origins in bats (Lynas, 2020).

Considering that conspiracies tend to come from uncertainty, do you think that there would have been fewer about COVID-19 if the Trump administration shared some notions with certainty about COVID-19 (ex: what the government will do to mitigate the spread of the virus instead of not addressing it)?

Last Tuesday, we had the privilege of hearing from Dr. Musa Dube. Her discussion, as storytelling, included details about her life as a theologian and her work with churches. Her journey began as an academic and evolved into rounding the entire continent of Africa to hold workshops with various Christian leaders to change the discourse involving HIV/AIDS. Something that stood out to me in her conversation was the following assertion: “Jesus is HIV positive.” It is rather profound for lectures and informational sessions to conclude that the God of a well-known religion has HIV. Dr. Dube noted that the aforementioned statement, when backed with evidence from the Bible, helped address the discrimination toward African individuals who had HIV/AIDS. Dr. Dube shared that, unfortunately, the shame associated with HIV/AIDS that began due to the disease’s sexual nature (in terms of transmission) worsened to the thought that individuals who tested positive for HIV were sinners and deserved their suffering. However, Dr. Dube found that sharing that Jesus is HIV positive makes people question if they can be discriminatory towards people who have HIV/AIDS because you undoubtedly cannot be discriminatory towards God.

According to a Healthcare (Basel) journal article by Rewerska-Juśko and Rejdak, patients suffering from COVID-19 often suffer from social stigma. Social stigma is “the attitude of discrimination, disapproval, or negative perception of a given group due to the properties and features it represents” (Rewerska-Juśko and Rejdak, 2022). Rewerska-Juśko and Rejdak found that the social stigma towards COVID-19 patients can be significant when considering attitudes involving vaccination status, social status, etc., and social rejection. At the height of the pandemic in 2021, I can vividly recall members of my extended family making comments that people contracting COVID-19 lead an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle or are simply suffering from the consequences of living a virtue-free and religion-free life. Therefore, I wonder, if religious leaders made comments that religious entities were COVID-19 positive, could we have minimized the social stigma toward COVID-19 patients? What do you all think?

This past Tuesday, Ms. Sandy Thurman gave a presentation that included a brief history of AIDS, an explanation of PEPFAR, and a discussion on the relationship between the government and pandemics. A message that Ms. Thurman continuously shared in her conversation was about the importance of collaboration—she mentioned that not everyone will always agree, but the best initiatives will leverage people’s passions. For example, when the Clinton administration wanted to raise money for Africa as individuals were suffering from AIDS, a conservative Senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms, did not want to support the initiative as he did not want to endorse homosexuality tacitly. Therefore, the Clinton administration decided to make an announcement about AIDS and how the disease affects numerous resilient children in Africa. Senator Helms, who was vital in financing programs, loved helping kids—Ms. Thurman and her team knew that the Senator would provide his support to provide hope for the children in Africa. 

A federal court judge recently ruled in Braidwood Management v. Becerra that an Affordable Care Act mandate that requires employers on most health insurance plans to provide HIV PrEP is unconstitutional as it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Gonzalez 2022). The plaintiffs were two Christian-owned businesses and six individuals (Gonzalez 2022). Regardless of one’s views on the LGBTQ+ community and the judicial approaches used in the decision, the ramifications of this case can be significant. HIV PrEP, a preventative measure recommended especially for men who have sex with men as they are at a heightened risk of contracting HIV, has a high efficacy rate and helps limit the spread of HIV (Gonzalez 2022). HIV PrEP has been noted to lower the likelihood (by up to 98%!) of people initially testing negative for HIV and later suffering from the virus (International Association of Providers of AIDS Care [IAPAC] 2022). This decision can be a significant roadblock to the United States’ goal of lowering the amount of new HIV infections by 75% in the next three years (IAPAC 2022). 

Given what Ms. Thurman shared in class, I wonder if the Department of Health and Human Services can, if not already being done, provide information on how older adults, for example, are also at risk of contracting HIV in a supplemental briefing that needs to be filed—perhaps such details can sway the judge’s opinion before a final decision must be made on whether HIV PrEP violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Human Rights Campaign 2017 and Gonzalez 2022). What do you all think?