"A powerful message from the Holy Ghost service of the Redeemed Christian Church of God".

There is no doubt that the 'AIDS Patient' from the stable of Redeemed Christian Church of God's Dove Media indeed came with some powerful messages. The issue in contention is the accuracy of information contained in the message in the light of recent developments in the arena of HIV/AIDS in Nigeria and around the world.

The storyline is about a mid level family whose only daughter tested positive to HIV/AIDS. Aside from the cover design of the video, nothing more looks attractive in 'the powerful message'.

Things went wrong from the beginning. The Title, 'The AIDS patient' betrays a knowledge of the disease in its entirety. It is time we realize that there is a big difference between HIV and AIDS. Testing positive to HIV is different from having AIDS. These are two very different conditions. AIDS being the condition of a compromised immune system, which will happen if a positive person shuns the many opportunity for intervention. Eniola here definitely does not have AIDS as can be seen that her immunity is not yet compromised.

Then, an HIV test was carried out on Eniola without her knowledge or consent and without the knowledge and consent of her parent. This goes against the norm of medical profession. Given that it is one of the flaws of our medical practice, the question to answer is what purpose is a projection of this flaw meant to achieve? Should an HIV test be carried out without the knowledge and consent of a patient? Testing her without her knowledge meant she does not have an opportunity for counseling. Should this be the case?

The result of her test was disclosed to her parent who kept same away from her in their wisdom. We must ask again if it is proper to ignore HIV post-test counseling, in a situation where the result reads positive. These are all issues of ethics and human rights which this film could have clarified but failed to do so.

The reaction of Mr. and Mrs. Tinubu to the news that their daughter is positive also reinforced the wrongly held notion that once you test positive your situation becomes hopeless. The reaction why me? Why me now? By Mr. Tinubu is giving vent to the opinion that there are certain people who could not be affected. This is one of the reasons why people who test negative are tagged with different names. We have to realize that everyone is at risk and it could be anyone at anytime.

The doctor talked about the need not to be alarmed, that "it is still in the window period". What is the doctor referring to here? The statement gave the doctor away as someone who is not qualified to practice that profession and demonstrates his limited knowledge about HIV/AIDS. Why make reference to 'window period' when you have established the presence of the virus in the body. The window period is that time when the virus may not be detected through a test. Now, modern technology abound that can detect the virus an hour after transmission. That the doctor lack every knowledge about the disease could also be reason why he could not counsel the couple. This would have been a great opportunity to educate our people, especially why it is important to embrace Voluntary Counseling and Testing (VCT), even before we notice any symptoms, instead that opportunity was lost.

We were also not given an opportunity of the details of Eniola's condition in relation to her CD 4 count and her viral load; this would have represented positive images of treatment that we rarely see. After she had tested positive no reference was made to the fact that she needs periodic medical examination to access her responses and things like that. This is seen an attempt to minimize the role and relationship that should exist between a patient and his or her doctor. The disease progression and non progression needs to be monitored by a qualified physician for proper response.

What I found most disgusting is the need for Eniola's parent to sell off all their properties purportedly, to buy Eniola's anti retroviral drugs! As of last year, many Nigerians who can not afford to visit private hospitals enrolled on the government program which only requires N1, 000 monthly to access drugs. There are people who are in obvious worse financial situation than the couple as portrayed, but have been able to cope well with the condition without the need to sell anything; they don't even have anything to sell any way. What message can we say the film is passing across with this?

Then, Eniola continued her life, she went back to school, back to her activities, continues taking drugs, but strangely she does not even know the drugs she is neither taking nor what she was taking them for. This will not and can not happen in real life. It's the level of make belief that distinguishes a great film. A girl of Eniola's age, with a steady date, kept out of the reality of her life, what if they engage in unprotected sex?

Then each time she needs to replenish her drugs, trouble will start, because the father must sell something to be able to do that. There was no where in the film to indicate that her parents were jobless, nor were they reportedly sacked from their employ. A couple who could afford parcels of land in choice locations in the city won't definitely go bankrupt because they have to buy drugs for a daughter who is HIV positive. Throughout the film, there was also no where Eniola was shown taking these prohibitive drugs!

The scene where Eniola disclosed her status to her boy friend could also have been used to portray the need to show understanding and love to those who just tested positive, we did not know if her boyfriend also considers it important to determine his own status.

What can justify the recourse to the herbalist, when the deterioration that Eniola suffers is more psychological given the shock she experienced when she eventually learned that she tested positive and not because her drugs failed her as we are made to believe?

Then, comes in the church, the ultimate solution?

Here, what the video has done is to portray other avenues of intervention as inferior and irrelevant to the potent miracle that can be found in a church. Accepting this as a norm is to go against time proven fact that treatment daily is becoming more effective in managing HIV/AIDS. I have so many friends who are ' born agains' but they dare not miss their drugs. One of them manages her church HIV/AIDS programs.

The film will have done better, if it shows that having faith in God helps the process of recovery. Like this, we will not be closing the door against other people whose faith differs from ours. In as much as we have a right to promote our believe, I think we also have an obligation to respect the believe of others.