Battling disease

With yet another shortage of HIV/AIDS drugs, India needs a strong law to end the problem

Government agencies must be compelled to iron out messy bureaucratic systems that cause stock-outs, say experts.

Since September, health activists have been complaining about the shortage of HIV/AIDS drugs. Antiretroviral therapy centres across the country have been reporting shortages of the life-saving drugs, condoms and testing kits provided by the National AIDS Control Organisation under the government’s free treatment programme.

Patients who came into Delhi's hospitals to collect a medicines for the month were sent away with 15-day doses or sometimes just enough to last them a week. Karnataka felt the crunch in early October. “We had a problem in the first week of October,” said BT Thyagaraj, assistant director for care and support at the Karnataka State AIDS Prevention Society.  "At that time the stock from Andhra Pradesh was shifted to here."

He added that Karnataka now has a buffer stock for more than two months.

The HIV/AIDS drug shortage is a recurring problem in the second half of every year and NACO is used to redistributing its resources, sending medicines where they are most required. This year, however, the shortage has been so acute that the organisation has had to take more extreme measures. Patients have asked to replace Nevirapine, one of the three drugs that make up the ART cocktail and of which there is a shortage, with another drug called Efavirenz. “Medically that is not a very good idea because someone who was on Nevirapine may not respond to Efavirenz or may even have side effects to it,” said Nochiketa Mohanty, India Programme Manager at AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

Programme undermined

The drug shortage has also stopped NACO from adopting more ambitious World Health Organisation guidelines for treatment, Mohanty points out. NACO usually starts ART treatment for patients whose CD4 cells count falls to below 350. Last year, WHO recommended that treatment be started for anyone whose CD4 count dropped below 500. This would mean making almost twice the number of ART drugs available, since more patients in the earlier stages of infection would become eligible for treatment. In view of the drug shortage, NACO has kept its ART initiation criterion at the 350 CD4 count.

HIV/AIDS activists blame the crisis on delays in the payment and procurement process and the lack of a good information technology-based method to forecast what quantities of ART drugs will be needed through the year. A strong HIV/AIDS law will help clean up government systems when it comes to controlling the disease, activists say. But the HIV/AIDS bill, which is expected to be taken up in the winter session of parliament, falls short on several points says Surekha Shetty, senior legal officer with Lawyers Collective.

The United Progressive Alliance government introduced the bill in the Rajya Sabha in February and it has since gone back to the health ministry’s standing committee for comment and suggestion from civil society. One problem area in the bill that legal experts are trying to get changed is the provision on treatment of HIV/AIDS patients. In its current form the bill provides that:
 “The measures to be taken by the Central Government or State Government under section 13 shall include the measure for providing, as far as possible, Anti Retroviral and Opportunistic Infection Management to people living with HIV or AIDS.”

The words “as far as possible” does not ensure that the government will provide free first-line, second-line and third-line treatment along with viral tests, infection management and nutritional support. Although NACO’s mandate is to ensure all of the above, it can shrug its shoulders and not be held responsible in case of a stock-out. “If there is a HIV law that guarantees complete treatment then hopefully the government will have to ensure that there are no stock-outs,” said Shetty.

Legal experts are also hoping that the final version of the bill will include a stronger definition of discrimination, a provision for free treatment and compensation for people who are occupationally exposed to the disease, provision for a health ombudsman in every district who can make emergency orders and special procedures in court for civil and criminal penalties in case the HIV/AIDS law is flouted.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.