ABSTRACT
This article examines the dynamic role of law as a tool, and potential barrier, to public health interventions designed to ameliorate the negative impacts of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) globally. Law impacts the lives of persons living with (and at risk of) HIV/AIDS in many ways. Laws may: (1) help to ensure that public health authorities are empowered to provide effective prevention and treatment programmes; (2) effectuate the human rights to life, health, work, education and property ownership of persons living with, or at risk of, HIV/AIDS; and (3) protect persons living with HIV/AIDS from social risks, stigma and other harms by respecting privacy and prohibiting unwarranted discrimination. However, laws can also create legal barriers in many countries that impede effective HIV/AIDS interventions by penalizing those with HIV/AIDS through criminal sanctions or other policies. As a result, it is recommended globally that laws should facilitate the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS consistent with scientific and public health practices and with a human rights framework. Effective use of existing laws that promote the public's health, and reforms of laws which impede it, contribute to improved individual and communal health outcomes concerning HIV/AIDS.
Subject(s)
Disease Outbreaks/legislation & jurisprudence , Global Health , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Contact Tracing/legislation & jurisprudence , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV Infections/epidemiology , Human Rights/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , International Cooperation , Mass Screening/legislation & jurisprudence , Prejudice , Risk-Taking , Sex Work/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
Many psychoanalysts treat individuals who are simultaneously in couples therapy or whose partners are in individual therapy. If such cases stall, some analysts may seek consultation from a colleague, though most have accepted the tacit historical prohibition against communication between therapists treating members of the same family. Experience, however, suggests that a certain form of communication between such therapists can have a powerfully enhancing effect on the concurrent therapies. After a review of the literature, the advantages, disadvantages, and impediments to collaborative cross-communication are examined. A model is then presented for use in ongoing discussion between therapists, and is illustrated with two clinical examples. The proposed model centers on the transference-countertransference configurations within the therapeutic field, and serves as an organizer highlighting areas for discussion.