Europe, led by the UK, last night signalled a major split with the United States over curbing the Aids pandemic in a statement that tacitly urged African governments not to heed the abstinence-focused agenda of the Bush administration.
The statement, released for World Aids Day today, emphasises the fundamental importance of condoms, sex education and access to reproductive health services. “We are profoundly concerned about the resurgence of partial or incomplete messages on HIV prevention which are not grounded in evidence and have limited effectiveness,” it says.
The US has pledged $15bn (£8.6bn) over five years to fight the disease, most of which is channelled through the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar). Pepfar grants come with conditions, however – two thirds of the money has to go to pro-abstinence programmes, and it is not available to any organisations with clinics that offer abortion services or even counselling. The US is also opposed to the provision of needles and syringes to drug users on the grounds that it could be construed as encouraging their habit.
This is about as corrupt and backwards as everything the world has come to expect from the White House. Pity the career foreign service and American aid workers who have to apologize for this crap.
Apparently we have the white version of Robert Mugabe running our country.
Backward? Probably.
Corrupt? Why is it corrupt? I don’t understand why you would say such a thing? They (the govt.) have pledged money to fight a problem as long as the recipients abide by certain (backward?) conditions.
It doesn’t say that the govt. official in charge of disbursing the money will take a cut. It doesn’t imply that the recipients must pay a fee to accept the donation. It doesn’t ask for political favor in return for the donation…
Backward…I find it amusing that we in the US are always considered backward or prudish when we voice our moral opinion. (This is not to say that I agree with the conditions attached to the money for fighting AIDS, I am merely saying that as a nation, our government has imposed a moral condition on the use of the money given.)
Backward? Definitely not a liberal view. Maybe not effective. Definitely counter-productive.
Corrupt? Give me a break. Use a better term. How about short-sighted. How about motivated by the religious right? How about what the statement itself says, “limited effectiveness?”
But you have to admit that abstinence does work, I myself am a 29 year old vergan, and I can say with out a doubt that I am not a father, since I am 1) a vergan, and 2) never donated sperm, it imposable for me to have help created a child.
Also I know some one that works on a program called bio-war, where they simulate outbreaks of diseases, and he has said (and this he is a ultra-liberal, and he was just going from what is in the medical journals that he reads) that unless you are gay or do drugs or have unprotected sex you chances of getting aids are very low (in the singal digits of %)
Of foreign aide… I wonder what is the use in spending so much money to postpone the eventual death of those already infected from a disease which currently has no cure. Is it better to give medicine to an infected prostitute (just as an example) so that she can live longer and possibly infect more people, or to let her die sooner and therefore possibly reduce her contribution to the spreading of the virus? You can pump money into the treatment of a rapidly growing infected population, but until there is a real cure, that money is essentially being thrown away for no real gain.
The money would be better spent on prevention and cure research than for the treatment of those already infected.
garym — among the several definitions of corruption, you will find, “lacking in integrity”, and “touched by rot or decay”. Trying to pass off ideology from the Middle Ages as a best practice — is corrupt in my opinion. Hindering sound, easy practices in the battle against AIDs — is corrupt in my opinion.
Mike — I would say we should spend to keep some one alive, because as long as some one is alive, there is hope that 1) they might live long enouph that they might see a cure 2) they could still have some impact on sociaty (good or bad unsaid, but some one aids could still have a good impact on sociaty) 3) (this comes from me being pro-life, also when I say I am prolife I mean fully, I am also against the death penalty too) Life needs to be protected and be protected to the best of our ability. 4) Who is to say (as you put it) that the prostitute is worth less then some one else, I would say what the prostitute is doing is wrong, but that does not decrease the persons worth as a human.
Why would you attack the only approach that has seen any positive results. In Uganda the ABC program (Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms) has had extraordinary results. Seems unethical to try to stop an approach that has been proven to save lives – just because you hate Bush. If I was going to give someone 15 billion I’d want to make sure if was used effectively.
Eideard,
Again, I ask how can you call this corrupt?
Their stated moral principle is that an “abstinence focused agenda” will help cure AIDS. This is based on the premise that pre-marital sex is amoral. I think this administration has taken an untenable position, and that is the extreme moral high-ground.
I say it is untenable because it is unjustifiable to deny aid to these countries simply because we (the general we, not all of us in particular) feel that they should be able to control their AIDS problem simply through abstinence, while at the same time we have a similar AIDS problem caused in-part from the same causes.
Again, I think ineffective is a better adjective. But, no, I still don’t think the administration is corrupt on this issue.
garym — disagreeing about adjectives is the least of our problems. I don’t pretend to be a nice guy about this topic [maybe a few others, too?]. I’ve had to confront AIDs ever since my cousin died from it in 1984.
Call the Washington clowns whatever you wish. Please keep on working at getting them out of the way of more useful and productive activity. Park them in history’s parking lot for useless vehicles.
The “Utopian-Anarchist” conservatives must be appalled by this cold reality shower.
Michael P.
My argument for applying equal punishment for the same criminal act based on equal worth of the victim has no application here. The issue I brought up is one of limited resources being used in a more pragmatic manner. You can continue to pump more and more money into treating people who are already dying from AIDS, but you will have less money and resources available for prevention and cure research. I would think that in the long-run, that money would be better spent the other way around.
In any case, I don’t think the government should be used as an alternative to private charity.
garym
Ed makes a good point on his definition of “corrupt”. I might add that another meaning of corruption would include the promotion of a favorite cause at the expense of the public good. In other words, this is promoting the neo-con, radical Christian view that their “moral” belief is better then sound medical practice. Corruption doesn’t need to exchange cash as the evidenced by the contractor that did free construction work for the Connecticut Governor found out.
This is also a waste of money as it is doomed to failure. I agree that your choice of other words also do a good job of summing up the “intelligence” behind this maneuver.
Michael P.
Sorry to hear about your condition. I’m not sure what a vergin is but it doesn’t sound good. Is it an exotic medical condition, or something like a vegan? A religious cult maybe? I couldn’t find the definition for it. If it prevents you from fathering children, does that make you sterile or just impotent?
As for contracting AIDs, any time bodily fluids are exchanged there is a strong risk of transferring any pathogen. This could be AIDs, Hepatitis, Elboa Fever, Yellow Fever, and even the common cold. Body fluids could be blood, saliva, sputum, or sperm. Sex, drugs, and Rock & Roll have little to do with spreading diseases unless they include the transfer of body fluids.
If you have ever noticed, all those who need to touch another person now wear prophylactic protection. Most noticeable are the gloves worn by medical personnel for self protection. Condoms are another prophylactic protection that are strongly recommended.
And as much as certain “christian” leaders preach abstinence, there are those that have had a hard time keeping their pants on. Jimmy Swagart, Jim Bakker, and too many Roman Catholic priests to count have set an extremely hypocritical example. I also understand dubya had his own little dalliances.
Abstinence worked for Richard Nixon – he wasn’t giving up anything.
You certainly wouldn’t hear this from Bill Clinton.
“Apparently we have the white version of Robert Mugabe running our country.
Comment by Improbus — 12/1/2005 @ 12:12 pm”
Not Likely, Mugabe is smart.
Mike (not O Connor or Cannali as far as I can tell…)
Your statement is a very Utilitarian type of statement, spend the money on the greater good and all.
Unfortunately, one of the big downfalls of Utilitarianism is that it removes the humanity of actions. Yes, it would be fiscally sound to say that any money spent on treating people who have HIV/AIDS is money wasted, we should instead spend it on a cure or prevention to keep the upcoming generations from getting it. But, it removes the humanity and compassion that defines what we are along with who we are.
Besides, how can you find a cure if you don’t try to treat those already infected? The only way to test a possible cure is on people who currently have the infection…but we can’t treat them because it would be a waste of money so there is no way to see if we have a cure.
See the dilema?
I just stumbled on this forum cuz I like Dvorak’s rantings about cyber-thingies. Sorry I can’t say the same about the quality of the discourse on this particular thread.
George Bush has provided more resources to fight AIDS in Africa than anyone else, and for this he is being condemned as (let me see if I’ve got it right): a SQUARE.
An analogy, if I may be permitted: You help substance abusers by finding ways to keep them away from their drugs of choice until they figure out their own defenses.
You certainly don’t get better by sneering at the idea of abstaining from drugs just because all the kids at the cool lunch table will laugh at you if you clean up your act.
As I understand it, you have to be extremely unlucky to get AIDS if you don’t have sex and don’t use intravenous drugs. So if we’re taking a $15 billion gamble on Africa, why not bet on the things we KNOW are most likely to stop transmission of the disease?
To do otherwise seems illogical to me if we’re serious about helping that benighted region.
That’s all I’ve got to say.
TFA: “two thirds of the money has to go to pro-abstinence programmes, and it [b]is not available to any organisations with clinics that offer abortion services or even counselling.[/b]”
I cannot believe nobody has mentioned this yet. I can see (though strongly disagree with) tieing this money to pro-abstinence organizations, but WHAT do abortion clinics have to do with AIDS?
garym,
Actually, I don’t care about where individuals or private organizations place their spending priorities, nor would I ever be critical of them. But, where governments are involved, I believe that they should spend the people’s money in a very pragmatic and utlitarian manner. While you may argue that people have a moral obligation to be charitable (and I would probably agree to some extent), there is nothing moral or charitable about taking from one person to give to another.
Abstinence is not about moral elitism, it’s about common sense. AIDS is spread through intraveneous fluid transfer, which means sex, drug use, or blood transfusion. Infection through blood transfusion is pretty rare with current screening procedures, which leaves sex and drug use, both of which are entirely voluntary choices of an individual (discounting rape, of course). The easiest method of preventing a consequence is to NOT perform the action leading to that consequence. If you absolutely don’t want sexually transmitted diseases then DON’T have sex (it’s really not as hard as you think. Try it.). If you don’t want to get AIDS from a heroin needle then don’t do heroin (a little harder if you’re addicted, but still doable).
And if someone is providing a lot of money for a cause, then I see nothing wrong with them detailing a portion of it to start programs that teach people the only 100% effective way to keep from getting AIDS.
Good ideas people. Maybe we should take these ideas a step farther and refuse medical treatment to any potentially obese people that consume any sugar as it is risky behavior. We should also not treat any people that drink or smoke as it is also risky behavior. It’s amazing how many problems “abstinence” can solve. If we can just get everyone to abstain from doing anything then we wouldn’t have any problems. It’s such an obviously simple solution…no wonder Bush thought of it.
I cannot believe some of these outlandish comments I’ve heard over a policy that for once puts some restrictions on how are money gets wasted and simply requires some education on the benefits of abstinence as a viable alternative to the way they’ve been doing it now. Clearly that wasn’t working too well now was it?
A more important question to ask is “how are the U.S. taxpayers supposed to pay for this along with everything else?”
Donkey: tax and spend
Elephant: borrow and spend
U.S. Citizen: wtf just happened?
Hey Teyecoon,
Just thought I’d point out that Insurance companies factor insurance rates based on the risks people take, so there is something to that.
Anyway, you are correct that smoking and drinking can fall under the abstinence category. Eating, however, is a little different. Smoking, drinking, sex, and illegal drugs are all common in that they are not essential to sustain life. If need be, they can be abstained from indefinitely. Eating obviously is bit more necessary, however, you can certainly abstain from unhealthy foods and eat healthy foods instead, especially if you are prone to obesity (or diabetic). Like I said before, it’s just good old-fashioned common sense: Take care of yourself.
As for your allegation that I’m suggesting we don’t help people who take risks, I don’t believe I said that.
The money in this case is going to programs that teach people about abstinence, in the same way that money is spent on A.A. meetings, drug rehab, smoker support groups, and nutrition programs, as well as materials educating people as to the various pros and cons of each habit. No one is forcing people to be abstinent, just like we don’t force people to quit smoking. But if we can get people to not smoke, not do drugs, eat healthier, etc. before they even start taking the “risks” then we’ve started to eliminate the problem and save lives before they’re in danger. In fact, that’s exactly the strategy behind the “condom eductation” programs the EU wants to continue, the only difference being that using a condom means you’re trying to mitigate the risk in progress instead of avoiding it entirely. In my mind that’s like trying to put a filter in your trachea to mitigate the effect on your lungs when you smoke. You’re still more than likely to cancer somewhere else, so just avoid the risk and stop smoking.
If always find it interesting that people are willing to educate people about condoms and not abstinence. They both perform the same task, but only one is guarenteed to work. I guess people just don’t want to give up their risky sex.
Later.
Only an elitist in his ivory tower would characterize $15 Billion to fight the AIDS pandemic in Africa as “backwards” and “corrupt.”
Two-thirds of the money must go to programs that include pro-abstinance as PART of their approach. It is disingenuous to suggest that the US (Bush Administration) is against the use of condoms, sex education and access to reproductive health services. On the contrary, it has done far more than Europe to facilitate exactly those things.
Indeed, this is more than any previous administration has ever done to combat this tragedy, but you call it “crap” because it requires the INCLUSION of absitinence and the EXCLUSION of killing the children you pretend to care about.
Tyecoon wrote: “Good ideas people. Maybe we should take these ideas a step farther and refuse medical treatment to any potentially obese people that consume any sugar as it is risky behavior.”
No one ever suggested REFUSING MEDICAL TREATMENT.
On the contrary, Bush is spending $15 Billion dollars to provide treatment. He simply put conditions on some of that money, so that instead of handing out condoms, needles, and abortions, the programs actually educate people about how to effectively combat this disease. That is to say: avoid intravenous drug use and indiscriminate sexual activity.
Of course, you would prefer enabling people to continue the most hazardous behavior… or encourage them to abort their children… or perhaps not spending this money at all. I wonder, if the citizens in question were overwhelmingly white instead of black, if you would have the same position.
After two decades of supporting and participating in activism on behalf of AIDS victims, it’s never surprising to be attacked by someone who cares more about politics than accomplishing something positive. If anyone cares to examine a thoroughgoing report detailing the deceit of politicians offering a missionary crusade under the guise of public health, I’d suggest the following document as a start:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/report-030702-AIDS.pdf
It’s quite long and well-documented. Worth examining if you care to reflect on more than religious slogans and slander.
It really is hard to believe the lack of personal education expressed by some of the commenters to this entry.
News flash! Abstinence can’t be taught. If there was a chance for it to be taught, it would occur with people who actually had enough of an education to be able to read and write, unfortunately, it doesn’t work there either. Any random idiot should be able to put that together on their own, but I apparently assume too much.
Texas had one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in 2000, governed by our idiot in chief’s careful abstinence policy, while Massachussettes had one of the lowest (I’m guessing they took the safe sex approach).
The wingnuts can talk themselves blue in the face trying to subscribe to the pseudo-religious doctrine which has no connection to reality whatsoever. But they sure as hell shouldn’t say that abstinence education is effective. Abstinence is effective… but it can’t be taught… deall with that… it is a fact.
Hey John ,
How about a feature where we can strikethrough the superfluous and ad hominem parts of people’s comments, just like you were doing with the P.R. releases. It makes reading them and getting to the kernel of the argument (or lack thereof) a lot easier. [interesting copy editing by-product: see Usage Note http://tinyurl.com/a3onz ]
Like this:
It really is hard to believe the lack of personal education expressed by some of the commenters to this entry.Any random idiot should be able to put that together on their own, but I apparently assume too much.while Massachussettes had one of the lowest (I’m guessing they took the safe sex approach)[You should leave the parenthetical part out, because it completely undermines your argument. And its superfluous: If you don’t include a source for statements like this, we’ll just assume you’re pulling it out of your ass anyway. Now you may have a smart ass like me, which says a lot of mostly accurate but smelly things (i.e. it sounds correct, but its kinda fishy), but we’ll evaluate that from the context. ]Do a google search for teen pregnancy rates in the US. I’m sure you can handle that.
To poster number 3 — the 29 year old “vergen:”
I think you need to get some pal. it will either improve your spelling or free up your other hand so you can type better.
Peace…
Mike T
Texas vs. Massachusetts isn’t about the type of school curriculum, but the overall culture. Read ‘Black Rednecks and White Liberals’. New England is better educated ever since people settled there, while the people who settled in the South had a more violent, less educated, and more sexually corrupt culture. Teen pregancies and shotgun weddings were always very common hundreds of years before schools had any sort of sex education.