HIV & AIDS in the UK - Has AIDS education failed?

Information for the public about HIV/AIDS comes mainly from two different sources: the media and the government. The media disseminates information through newspapers, television and radio, and the government attempts to educate the public directly, sometimes using the media for advertising, sometimes through schools or governmental courses.

When it became clear that the HIV epidemic wasn't going to go away, the government in the UK embarked on a campaign of educating the public. In the early months of 1986, the government launched the first public information campaign 'Don't aid AIDS', although there was still disagreement over the name of the virus. The next year the government launched a leaflet campaign, targeting every household in the UK with the 'AIDS - Don't Die of Ignorance' slogan. There was an 'AIDS week' in the media, and the subject received a lot of television and radio coverage. Princess Diana opened the first specialist hospital, and the press made note of the fact that she didn't wear protective gloves when shaking hands with AIDS patients - indicating the strength of the prejudice still felt towards people affected by the disease.

At the start of the epidemic, the media covered stories about gay men and drug users becoming HIV positive, implying that in some way they were to blame for their infection. Meanwhile, newspapers portrayed people who had been infected from blood products as innocent victims of a plague spread by the reprehensible behaviour of others. HIV became seen as something that made people seem 'dirty', and the popular misunderstandings about transmission increased prejudice. Many people who are HIV positive still experience discrimination, both socially and in the medical profession.

During the early years, the media fuelled these fears, with stories about people being attacked with needles or deliberately infected through sex.

In secondary schools, sex education was not a compulsory part of the curriculum, and in those schools where it was taught it was often inadequate, looking at little more than 'how babies are made'. This did not equip young people to protect themselves from infection or to appreciate the need for safe sex.

In 1987, Tabloid newspapers were outraged that some sex education still discussed gay lifestyles and taught young people about the risks involved in unsafe sex. In America, President Reagan made a speech advocating AIDS education, as long as sexual abstinence was given as the best way of avoiding infection.

In 1988 The government passed its Local Government Act, section 28 of which stated that local authorities were not to in any way 'promote' homosexuality in schools. This reduced even further the scope for sex education, at a time when young gay men were particularly at risk of HIV infection. It is only recently that the legislation was repealed.

Although they denied it, the Tory government showed that their attitudes to sex education were Victorian and repressive. Without debate, the government passed a new Education Act in 1993, which contained an Amendment 63 which made sex and HIV education compulsory in all secondary schools, but gave parents the right to withdraw their children from sex education classes - even if they were over the age of consent.

Again, in 1993 the tabloids promoted moral outrage about sex education, with the 'Mars Bar parties' story. There was a national outcry in March 1994 after 'Mars Bar parties' (using chocolate bars during oral sex) were explained to Leeds pupils of ten and eleven in response to a question. There were also protests over role play involving 'mummy', 'daddy' and 'mummy's lover'. The lesson was by a nurse visiting from the Health Authority. Even today, lobbyists such as the group 'Family and Youth Concern' are against sex education in schools, saying that it is tantamount to child-abuse, a subject which the UK media has recently made highly charged.

In 1994 In the UK, the Department of Health vetoed an AIDS campaign promoting safer sex and condoms, developed at a cost of £2m, on the grounds that it was too explicit. The campaign was developed by the Health Education Authority (a government funded body) who later in the year were banned by the Department of Health from distributing the book, 'Your Pocket Guide to Sex'. It was aimed at 16 to 25 year olds, giving advice on contraception, HIV and safe sex. The media reacted hysterically, saying that it was encouraging young people to have sex, and the government panicked. They pulped the book and threatened to stop all of their AIDS and sexual health education programmes.
The Department of Education produced a draft circular which suggested that teachers giving contraception advice 'could amount to a criminal offence'.

In 2000, the Learning and Skills Bill removed any responsibility from Local Authorities for sex education in schools, and placed this responsibility on the individual schools' governing bodies and head teachers. The bill also ensured that sex education must emphasise the importance of marriage.

It can be concluded that the hysteria stirred up by the tabloids held up the provision of adequate sex education by a number of years, and even now many young people are still not being taught about the basic mechanics of sex until they are already sexually active. Many STDs, such as chlamydia, are mainly found amongst young people. There is still criticism that sex education in the UK does not start early enough - children often become sexually active before reaching the age of consent - and concentrates too much on biology and not enough on pregnancy, disease transmission and the social aspects of human sexuality. Sex education, which is an area in which children consistently report wanting more information, remains too boring. Some teachers still think that sex education is an embarrassing topic for them, and some students find it embarrassing if they know the teacher.

Ultimately, the problem has not been that sex education has failed, more that adequate sex education has never really been provided.

Even now, it is not only children and young people who need sex and HIV education - adults lack knowledge, too. The Durex Report, 2004 found that magazines are the main source of HIV/AIDS information for 25% of people, followed by friends, and the internet at 14%. Doctor and health services are the main source of information for only 2% of the population.

Sex and HIV is a sensitive topic for the government, and they are very afraid of being accused of liberalism or of promoting any sort of sexual activity by informing people about it. By avoiding the issue, however, they have laid themselves open to accusations of negligence.

HIV/AIDS prevention work has another point against it, in the government's eyes - it does not produce numeric results, which the government likes to see, to justify its spending on these matters. HIV prevention cannot produce these figures - it is impossible to say "we spent £30,000 and saved 30 lives" - there is no way to know how many people might have been infected if the work had not been done. Politically, governments prefer to spend money on things that produce results, to look good in the media. This is another example of public relations being more important than public health.