PHILADELPHIA:

HIV/AIDS DE-STIGMATISATION THEN & NOW

By, Shreya Sorcar
Geoffry Bowers, Dominic D'Souza and Andrew Beckett all have one thing in common: they
were subject to HIV/AIDS-related discrimination and injustice. When AIDS was seen as a
gay man's scourge in the West and a sex worker's affliction in India, neither three were
ashamed of their illness. Although the critical details of Beckett's case and D'Souza's case are
dissimilar, the premise remains the same. Both the cases highlight the relationship between
behavioural issues concerning discrimination and social justice, specifically, social
oppression and prejudice.

The omnipresent subject of discrimination fuelled by stereotypes is conceivably the most

sensitive ethical issue emphasised in Philadelphia. Andy Beckett is displayed to be a
hardworking, meticulous, and promising lawyer, trusted by his employers in delivering his
potential in advocating for the firm's most crucial client. They were impressed by his work
ethic, which caused his promotion to 'senior associate'. After a few of the senior partners
learned he was suffering this illness, they orchestrated a pretence of dismissing him based on
a misfiled document and incompetency. In another scene, Beckett is researching his case at
the library when an older librarian "advised" him to retire to a private room for his comfort.
Beckett replied, "No. Would it make you more comfortable?" He met cold stares from
everyone around him. The "Please Remain Silent!" disclaimers did not trigger the deafening
silence in the library that day.

"Judge Garrett: In this courtroom, Mr Miller, justice is blind to matters of race, creed, colour,
religion, and sexual orientation.
Joe Miller: With all due respect, your honour, we do not live in this courtroom, though, do
we?"
This exchange is a representation of society's great detachment from the law that governs
them. Irrespective of the court's verdict, society will discriminate. Ironically it seems, the law
does not govern society; society governs the law. The global awareness of HIV/AIDS in the
'90s was limited. Many believed only homosexuals contract AIDS through what society
perceived to be reprehensible—challenged by conventional prejudice and homophobia;
several critical events in the movie point to bigotry. In India, the stigma surrounding
HIV/AIDS was due to its association with commercial sexual relationships. Indians share
oppressive conservative values, which is evident in an incident narrated by Mahesh Jadhav,
the founder of the Mahesh Foundation. In 2010, a young boy of 5, approached Mahesh
outside a hospital for food. Looking at his debilitated state, Mahesh inquired and learnt that
he was suffering from HIV himself and previously lost his parents to the deadly disease.
None of his family members nor orphanages would claim him due to his illness. Overcome
by empathy, Mahesh took him home and started a shelter for abandoned children with HIV.
Through his journey, he experienced various instances of social injustice. His family
ostracised him for their own "safety". The kids became helpless victims of societal bigotry
for no fault of their own. They were not allowed to appear for their final exams; no school
would admit them. In this narrative, one can witness the misconceptions, which reflect their
collective unawareness of the disease, which causes them to discriminate.

India has fought a long battle with the AIDS epidemic ever since its conception. It was a
chain reaction that triggered some crucial legal and socio-political developments; most
importantly, it changed the way Indians perceive HIV; this journey began with Dominic
D'Souza.

Dominic, Goa's "patient zero" of HIV himself, was India's first HIV/AIDS activist and played
a crucial part in movements for the rights of AIDS patients and the LGBTQ community. He
led a relatively ordinary life in Goa until his incarceration in 1989, popularly known as the
Lucy D'Souza (Dominic's mother) case. Even though Dominic lost the case, it provoked our
lawmakers to address two very critical issues regarding Goa’s Public Health Act. Firstly,
whether isolation of an AIDS patient against their will violates the right to equality, freedom
of movement and life and secondly, whether isolation of an AIDS patient without a court
hearing violates the audi alteram portem principle and render it unjust. Dominic,
unfortunately, passed away due to AIDS-related complications. Nevertheless, this was just
the beginning to HIV awareness and de-stigmatisation.

Mr Anand Grover, profoundly impacted by Dominic's death, decided to take on the system.
He was instrumental in India's HIV de-stigmatisation and LGBTQ revolution by leading the
counsel against Section 377 that criminalises homosexuality. He continued working with
socially marginalised communities, sex workers and drug users to get them the justice they
deserve. Such incidents influenced the government to formulate the "people-centric" HIV and
Aids (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2014, amended again in 2017. The Bill ensures equal
rights for people living with HIV/AIDS by protecting patients from specific discrimination by
the state. It extends to healthcare, education, public office, insurance and much more. It also
makes Anti-Retroviral Treatment, or ART, a legal right for all patients. Additionally,
guarantees free treatment by central and state governments.

The second ethical issue the movie highlights is dishonesty. Has Beckett infringed upon the
principles of honesty by concealing his sexual identity and illness from his employer? How
much and what information is an employee obligated to make knowledge of? The narrative
took place in the 1990s when people considered homosexuality dishonourable and errant,
despite which Beckett was not obligated to disclose it since it did not influence his work
performance in any way and hence, did not contravene the interests of the firm. An employee
is contractually required to uphold the interests of his employer in the ambit of work.
However, Beckett was obligated to inform his employers regarding his illness since it
required him to stay home for numerous days, affecting his job performance. The
unpredictability of Beckett's debilitated health is evident early on when he collapses at his
apartment. He goes to extreme lengths to conceal his illness from his colleagues and
employers, such as wearing "concealer" on his lesions. Aware of how his illness would affect
his performance, Beckett was obligated to inform his employers as a responsible employee.
Every lawyer finds themselves at an ethical crossroads once in their career, requiring them to
weigh out their professional responsibility to their personal biases and find a balance in the
moral ambiguity. As observed in the movie, Miller, ironically an "ambulance chaser", faces a
similar challenge when approached by Beckett for representation. His visible contempt for
people with HIV/AIDS and his homophobic mentality clouds his judgement. Do we as
lawyers have the liberty to decide whom we represent merely based on our biases? Further, if
yes, how does this ensure justice is made accessible to all? Concerning Philadelphia, the only
ground for Beckett lacking legal representation was his illness, perceived to be a direct
consequence of his sexuality.

The "silent" racial intolerance experienced by Miller in the library causes him to empathise
with the discrimination Beckett was subjected to. The pivotal scene in the movie features
Beckett and Miller joining forces to take on the system. Miller's empathy towards the
socially marginalised motivated him to fight the societal preconceptions and biases. Had
Miller decided to let his ethnocentricity get the better of him, justice would have lost.