Lifting The Lid On Hiv And Aids

Stealing from those in need

You may think that an Aids column is the wrong place to lambast the wanton, greedy selfish and depraved acts of the cashgate millionaires, but it certainly is because 500 000 people are in need of lifesaving antiretroviral treatment.

In addition, Malawi is way overdue on the important switch from stavudine to tenofovir and existing Global Fund grant which pays for drugs expires in early 2014. Looting of government coffers directly impacts people past, present and future.

An article that appeared in The Nation newspaper recently put in context what K110 billion (from two government eras) means to the health and agriculture sector: training 40 000 doctors over five years, building 12 district hospitals, training 200 000 nurse-mid wife technicians, 314 health centres with five staff houses, 440 years of health service in Nsanje.

Another article on IRIN news titled “Government corruption “cripples” Malawi’s health sector” reported about strikes at district hospitals following delays in salary payments.

Let us put this in perspective of Aids treatment and care. The fixed dose combination of efavirenz, tenofovir and FTC, which is the World Health Organisation recommended treatment, can be sourced at $219 [about K94 170] per person per year.  That is lifesaving treatment for 50 000 people for 25 years if we assume K110 billion.

Corruption negatively impacts patients due to reduced availability of medicines and health services. Lost resources cripple the ability of health-care institutions to provide adequate care. Donors and the public lose confidence in public institutions.

Malawi’s HIV and Aids budget covers treatment, care, institutional support, prevention and behaviour change.

The HIV and Aids budget is mainly donor-funded, the biggest contributors in 2011 to the HIV and Aids budget were the Global Fund followed by the World Bank, Norway/Sida and the UK’s Department for International Development.

Some donors have withheld funding pending full investigations of the cashgate scandal. What will happen to Malawi’s Aids programme which is heavily donor funded?

The nurses who provide care? HIV counsellors? The 400 000 persons currently on life saving treatment and the 500 000 in need of treatment?

Related Articles

Check Also
Close
Lifting The Lid On Hiv And Aids

Stealing from those in need

You may think that an Aids column is the wrong place to lambast the wanton, greedy selfish and depraved acts of the cashgate millionaires, but it certainly is, because 500 000 people are in need of lifesaving antiretroviral treatment; Malawi is way overdue on the important switch from stavudine to tenofovir and existing global fund grant, which pays for drugs expires in early 2014. Looting of government coffers directly impacts people past, present and future.

Wisdom Chimgwede earlier this week wrote a great article in The Nation about what the siphoning of K110 billion (from two government eras) translates to in the health and agriculture sector.

It translated into training 40 000 doctors over five years, building 12 district hospitals, training 200 000 nurse-mid wife technicians, 314 health centres with five staff houses, 440 years of health service in Nsanje.

Another article on IRIN news titled “Government corruption “cripples” Malawi’s health sector” reported on strikes at district hospitals following delays in salary payments.

Let us put this in the perspective of Aids treatment and care. The fixed dose combination of efavirenz , tenofovir and FTC, which is the World Health Organisation recommended treatment can be sourced at $219 per person per year. That is lifesaving treatment for 50 000 people for 25 years if we assume K 110 billion.

Corruption negatively impacts patients due to reduced availability of medicines and health services. Lost resources cripple the ability of health-care institutions to provide adequate care. Donors and the public lose confidence in public institutions.

Malawi’s HIV and Aids budget covers treatment, care, institutional support, prevention and behaviour change. The 2011 expenditure on HIV and Aids was $77.4 million of which 67% was spent on treatment and care.

The HIV and Aids budget is mainly donor-funded, the biggest contributors in 2011 to the HIV and Aids budget were the Global Fund followed by the World Bank, Norway/SIDA and the UK’s Department for International Development.

Some donors have withheld funding pending full investigations of the cash-gate scandal. What will happen to Malawi’s Aids programme which is heavily donor funded? The nurses who provide care? HIV counsellors? The 400 000 persons currently on life saving treatment and the 500 000 in need of treatment?

Think Tank

Can married couples work together?

BONIFACE PHIRI

The thought of a couple working in the same office send a chill down the spines of many traditionalist minds who find it unthinkable.

However, there seems to be paradigm shift melting through modern society as people slowly try to cope with new realities spurred by career demands as well as financial challenges and family responsibilities.

For some, the greatest challenge though is how to balance the equation, especially when the quest for money drags a couple into one office, raising the question of whether or not it is healthy for them to operate in the same work setting, or better still, the same department?

For Alfred Kumphasa, an accountant based in Blantyre, this is a path he does not want to travel again and would not encourage other couples to.

“It’s a tricky situation that tends to ruin your days with regularity. Mine was a tricky situation where my wife reported directly to me and you can imagine how things would be when, for instance, we had quarrelled at home, then have her bring me a report at work,” he states.

He recalls a worst case scenario where he was supposed to conduct his wife’s performance appraisal following a titanic quarrel over marital disagreements the previous night.

“It was terribly emotional and how I wished I could delegate the task to someone because I didn’t want her near me,” he says.

Kumphasa later asked his wife to change jobs, which she dully accepted.

“Now we live more happily together,” he says.

But a Blantyre-based human resource management expert Jallison Chaguluka says there is nothing wrong with a couple working in the same environment.

He advises such couples to leave their roles of husband and wife at the gate and treat each other as workmates in the office.

“What’s important for them is play their roles with maturity. Once in the office, they are workmates and colleagues.

“If they have quarrelled at home, I would suggest that they communicate through other staff members without necessarily showing they have a case between themselves. These couples should avoid washing dirty family linen in the public,” he says.

Renowned Chancellor College sociologist Jubilee Tizifa is of the opinion that is not appropriate for married couples to work in the same office as this could compromise confidentiality issues in the organisation, as secrecy may be difficult to maintain between husband and wife.

“In such cases, the couple may also find it difficult to respect organisational authority considering the nature of their relationship. For example, a husband who is lower in rank than the wife may find it difficult to take instructions from the wife who is senior,” she says.

Tizifa also argues that such arrangements may compromise professionalism since any quarrels in the couples’ home could manifest in the workplace.

“If the relationship is cordial, there may be collaboration between the two where one covers up each other’s weaknesses,” she says.

But for marriage counsellor Patrick Semphere, says there are no hard and fast rules regarding this scenario which he describes as “contentious.”

He affirms that there are both negative and positive sides to the subject.

“If there is mistrust between the two, it can be worsened by observations that seem to suggest that one of them is flirting with workmates.

“Assuming that one of the partners is in management, how can they fairly apply disciplinary measures on the other?” he wonders.

However, he believes that such a set up can enhance professional cohesion.

“Even if the husband is an accountant and wife a secretary, the fact that they are united by the same vision and mission statement of the organisation, gives them a common rallying point and help enhance their source of belonging to the same cause,” he says.

Nevertheless, Semphere concurs with Chaguluka in stating that failure to maintain a professional relationship can also mar the couple’s work and that disagreements have to be handled with maturity.

“You are employees first and spouses second when you are in the workplace. This order has to be respected. Disagreements at home can spill over to the workplace and this can be disruptive, so couples need to display maturity,” he says.

Related Articles

Back to top button