|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by The U.S. program for fighting AIDS worldwide is through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which claims to follow the "ABC" program (Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms) to combat AIDS on both prevention and treatment fronts. To date, the organization has "supported care for 3 million people so far — 1.2 million of them are vulnerable children and orphans. For prevention of mother-to-child transmission, we've supported services for 4.2 million women. Of those, 340,000 received short-term prophylaxis, averting approximately 65,000 infant infections." According to the State Department, PEPFAR has spent more than US$8 billion on HIV care, prevention and treatment programs in 15 poor countries since 2004.
Recently, however, the organization has come under fire from very high places for allegedly placing too much emphasis on the "A" of the ABC program. At the International AIDS Conference held in Toronto, Canada, Bill Gates criticized the program saying, "We need to put the power to prevent HIV in the hands of women. So we need tools that will allow women to protect themselves. This is true whether the woman is the faithful married mother of small children or a sex worker trying to scrape out a living in a slum." Bill Clinton was more direct in his criticism, claiming that, "The evidence is that abstinence-only programs are ultimately unsuccessful. Abstinence-only is an error."
Add a Comment (4)
Email This
Message Author
RSS
REal Solutions by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 21 August 2006
A whole lotta people in this world need to wake up and realize that preaching abstinence isn't making a difference in the fight against AIDS. Talking about abstinence isn't going to stop kids from having sex or stop the prostitute from practicing her trade. We need real solutions to the AIDS problem. Trying to get everybody to behave like Americans in the 50's is a pretty ridiculous plan. Talking about the dangers of AIDS and passing out condoms is a good idea, but telling people to abstain just isn't realistic and it's a waste of money that could be used somewhere else.
RE: REal Solutions by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 21 August 2006
You talk as if the US has the responsibility to justify everyone's choices and make every lifestyle safe. Sure, there are some who get the disease unawares from their spouse, and there are others who are raped or others who are oppressed - but there are some who simply make poor choices with their lives. If you choose to engage in risky behavior, I don't think the rest of the world has the responsibility to come along and remove the negative consequences.
Hundreds of thousands of people die in automobile accidents, and the government has taken steps to to try and remove this danger. Better emergency response and health care is part of it, but the majority of the prevention revolves around:
Now, despite the best efforts of MADD and other governmental and private organizations, it is very likely that people will still choose to drive drunk and still kill people and themselves doing so. Does that mean everyone should take a more "realistic" attitude towards the situation and just concentrate on making cars safer? Of course not. Does it mean that the US government has the responsibility to make all of them safe no matter what their personal choices? Of course not.
Both are the result of personal choice, and both result in the death of many innocent and many not-so-innocent people. Why it is that the choice is condemned in one and not the other, I'm not sure.
RE: REal Solutions by wyldeling :: NR6 :: on 21 August 2006
You talk as if the US has the responsibility to justify everyone's choices and make every lifestyle safe.
I don't believe he has implied that whatsoever. I think he is railing against the same problem that many others have complained about: abstinence programs usually don't work. This isn't justifying lifestyles, or trying to make them safe. As he says, that portion of the money could be put to better use.
If you choose to engage in risky behavior, I don't think the rest of the world has the responsibility to come along and remove the negative consequences.
Yes, you are correct. However, this area is not as black and white as it may seem. A significant portion of the women in Africa who are infected with HIV got it from their husbands. Their husbands were the ones who slept around. Additionally, the women cannot refuse to have sex with their husbands, or risk being beaten, nor can they force them to wear a condom. Thus, they become infected and risk spreading it to their unborn children.
Why is it that the choice is condemned in one and not the other.
I condemn both of them. And, I would revile the choice to have unprotected sex more if it was always made with knowledge of the consequences. Some would argue that this is the reason people should abstain from having sex until they are married, and that they should remain monogamous. I cannot fault that logic. Accept that it doesn't work, and without the additional knowledge of the consequences things like this happen.
Now, despite the best efforts of MADD and other governmental and private organizations, it is very likely that people will still choose to drive drunk and still kill people and themselves doing so.
Right. Knowledge is not a silver bullet, like most people claim. But, it is at least silver plated, in that it will make people more aware of the choices before them, and more likely to pick one that is safer. A good reference regarding sex education is from Advocates for Youth, which includes a long list of references.
As far as Africa is concerned, you need only look at what is happening with the polio vaccinations to understand how difficult any program, education based or otherwise, truly is.
RE: REal Solutions by Eye.Of.Sage :: NR6 :: on 21 August 2006
I haven't seen someone use the word 'lotta' before. :D You do have a point, but maybe we should find a cure for AID.