University of Latvia

Department of Political Science

Difference in governmental response to AIDS epidemic in Denmark and Sweden

November ‘95

Sweden and Denmark are two countries which are considered to be very similar in their political systems. They both are welfare states - representatives of famous Scandinavian welfare model. Therefore very often people tend to think that almost everything in each of the Scandinavian countries is the same. In the last time this view must go through some changes: Norway didn’t join EU. And different AIDS policy in Sweden and Denmark is one of the points that shows us that every country in Nordic region lives its own life according to its particular traditions.

AIDS came to Denmark and Sweden in the beginning of 80th. Sweden adopted policy of consensus on AIDS. There have never been conflicts among political parties on this issue. AIDS was declared as a venereal disease covered by the Infectious Diseases Act (IDA). That made possible several restrictions: infected people must be registered, they could be isolated in a hospital, etc. But in most cases carrying out this law depended on physicians. Government didn’t act before it was clear that even heterosexuals could get HIV. Most of the government action was directed against “risk groups”: in 1987 gay bathhouses were closed, restrictive drug policy was introduced - compulsory treatment of HIV-positive drug users, and there was no distribution of sterile injection equipment. In 1989 Sweden was the only country which rejected the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers concerning ethical rules for the treatment of HIV infection.

In Denmark restrictive measures never gained support. More attention was given to information, voluntary testing, and counseling on safer sex. Swedish restrictive policy was criticized by Danes although a number of parties would rather adopt the same kind of policy. In contrary to Sweden needle exchange programs were regular in Copenhagen. As a result only 10 - 25% of IV drug users were infected, in Sweden the number was bigger.

In both countries government in the beginning of epidemic underestimated the problem. Danish minister of Interior Britta Schall Holberg even declared that AIDS is a disease of homosexuals and cannot affect others. Therefore financing of the research was late. In the beginning interest groups were the only ones which tried to influence state policy. In Denmark doctors and homosexuals often combined their efforts in order to expand the consciousness of the problem to heterosexuals. Hemophiliacs were the ones who broke that magic circle of ignorance. They used the window of opportunity to focus public opinion on problem of HIV infection. One factor which had influence in defining policy in Denmark was the strong personality of Minister of Interior Shall Holberg. She was advocate of cuttings in public sector and supposed that interest groups only wanted to get from her more money. Even advises of physicians’ organization she rejected. Only after her dismissal the problem of AIDS was fully recognized.

Scandinavian countries had very strong corporatism in 1970th - 1980th when interest organizations were taking part in decision making even on state level. Corporatism has declined in last decade but the tradition of interest group representation has remained.

In Sweden homosexuals were organized well and they were the ones who began educate risk groups on AIDS. Later several physicians’ groups were formed. Every interest organization recieves money from state and is able to carry out its actions. That helped to develop another way of dealing with AIDS epidemic - providing with information, psychological help, etc. Homosexuals’ organizations were most of all concerned with public opinion - they tried to defend their achievements in earlier years, when homosexuality gradually stopped to be regarded as immoral and bad.

In Sweden money was given enough to finance treatment in hospitals. Here the famous system of social security was seen in action. Infected people were provided with full treatment from state. I can compare Swedish state’s actions with caring mother’s. The state like a mother was not indifferent to its children and gave everything needed for their happiness but at the same time it required obedience. Denmark has more liberal political culture and such restrictive methods would not be possible there, although the majority of people were more tended to accept them. Only the image of liberal and democratic citizens didn’t allow them to discover their hidden sentiments. It is common that older people are more conservative. That is true also for Denmark where mostly older people are keepers of traditional values. Younger generations influenced by postmaterial values. Denmarks geografical situation contributed to that. In Sweden the international image of Copenhagen was used to warn people from foreign citizens and emphasise that AIDS has come from other countries. Denmark had industrialization earlier than Sweden and achieved welfare has changed values to more liberal in such areas as abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and prostitution. Denmark has been more open to international security organizations - it is a member of NATO and EU quite a long time. Sweden has always declared neutrality and developed some kind of isolationism. Another difference between both countries is in trust in political institutions. In 1970th there was crisis in Denmark and several new parties were formed which were against established institutions. People were tired of traditional parties, their values and bureaucracy. In Sweden such anti-establishment parties were formed later and were weaker. I can conclude that Swedes have hade more trust in their political institutions and therefore have been more willing to accept AIDS policy regarding the actions of government as legitimate.

The differences in policy cannot be explained by education and religion. Both countries had very early and quick secularization and church was not playing a big role in state policies. Liberal attitude to church developed also liberal views on things which were rather restricted in traditional religion. Sweden was the first country which began sexual education in schools. Educational systems are quite similiar in Denmark and Sweden and they both have introduced new programs in order to fit into the changing world. The problem is older people who have gone through a restrictive education built on traditional values.

Although the problem of AIDS was not recognized in the beginning later it got proper attention and needed money was provided. Scandinavian welfare model determines that everybody must get medical treatment and that was true in case of Sweden and Denmark. But regarding human rights Sweden was far behind Denmark. Laws were sever but their implementation depended on physicians who understood that such contain and control method will make things worse and people will not come to testing at all.

Only time will show which policy is going to be more effective - Danish or Swedish one but Swedes right now are alone in Europe with their restrictive policy.