AIDS is an incurable, fatal, contagious disease. It seems logical to treat it as such.
People who are dying of AIDS are not automatically more important than people dying of any other incurable, fatal, contagious disease. Nor are they less important.
However AIDS is different from other diseases in that it is actually quite hard to get. The vast majority of adults in first world countries with AIDS are people who have knowingly taken unnecessary risks. In the early and mid 1980s, people contracted the disease through blood transfusions and suchlike. Few of those people, if any, are still alive.
Adults who take risks, and suffer because of those risks have self inflicted injuries. They are not owed something by society. Society has no obligation to treat such people, any more than they have an obligation to treat someone after running with the bulls. Individuals in society may choose to treat such people, or choose to make donations for others to treat them, but taking money by force (eg tax) for such a purpose is immoral.
Friends, relatives or colleagues who have AIDS are people who have an incurable, fatal, contagious disease. Anyone who does not take appropriate precautions around such people is putting themselves at risk.
If someone has AIDS and then has unprotected sex with someone who does know, they are guilty of a crime - they have put someone at risk of death. They are criminals. However, if they tell their partner, and their partner makes an informed decision to have sex anyway, it is the partner's responsibility.
A trendy slogan in the 1980s was "there are no categories of AIDS sufferers". It was an idiotic and politically motivated slogan. Someone who has knowingly taken risk (and put others at risk) through rampant promiscuous unprotected sex does not compare with a 6 six year old girl who has contracted AIDS from a blood transfusion after a car accident.
The reality is that these slogans would never have been used if AIDS had not been a disease which primarily affected homosexuals.
See