There’s a lot of hype in this politically-correct world about funding research to find cures for AIDS/HIV. Today I read an article on Yahoo News about a new AIDS epidemic in Russia and that got me thinking more about the topic of funding AIDS research. Just this year, the federal government budgeted $3 billion for AIDS research ($18.5 billion total on AIDS-related spending). And this $3 billion figure does not, obviously, include research funding by state governments, private foundations, and charities. (How many countless AIDS foundations have been established by modern celebrities?) A lot of money is dumped into AIDS research.
To me, AIDS funding shouldn’t be a top priority because it’s a preventable disease. I, personally, am not worried about contracting AIDS because I have a monogamous relationship and try not to drink from too many public water fountains (just kidding on the last one). I think we should focus first on diseases that can’t be avoided.
Aside from the occasional tragic story of some kid who got a tainted blood transfusion, persons who adhere to certain moral sexual guidelines and abstain from sharing drug needles will never contract AIDS. Because AIDS is avoidable, I am often annoyed that so much money is dumped into finding a cure for it. If we took all of the AIDS research money and funneled it into research for non-preventable diseases (like cancer, where the victims are innocent of any personally irresponsible behavior), then just try to imagine how much accelerated progress we could see in finding cures for those diseases. Moreover, why doesn’t the government spend money on educational programs to teach people that they can keep from contracting AIDS by living a more sexually constrained lifestyle? Maybe it’s because we like to live our lives however we want without facing negative consequences. And that’s exactly what AIDS is . . . a consequence for certain types of behavior. (Again, remember that I’ve already acknowledged there are innocent people who get AIDS – but that definitely isn’t the norm.)
Am I just a cold-blooded, callous, excuse-of-a-human-being for thinking these thoughts? Or am I making sense here?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I was actually pondering this issue myself just a few days ago. Where else do we see so much attention and money directed at stopping, post hoc, such an easily preventable phenomenon? Regardless of one’s opinion on the merits of focusing efforts on finding a cure for something that – in most cases – is so patently and easily preventable, the sheer numbers ought to give one pause. AIDS generates a lot of hype, but the ‘AIDS epidemic’ is still dwarfed by the ravages of other diseases such as cancer, malaria, pneumonia/influenza, and tuberculosis.
The AIDS epidemic hype and the race for the cure is premised on our society’s obsession with separating cause from effect, with sheltering individuals from the results of their actions. Ultimately, it’s far more compassionate to be honest with people and warn them of the consequences of their actions than to lull them into a false sense of security by offering sham platitudes about ‘safe sex’ and proffering virtually unlimited resources to find a cure if their precautions fail.
The one exception to this rule of not holding people responsible for their actions seems to be with the tobacco industry. Our government seems to have no problem pursuing a policy – in this arena – of emphasizing individual responsibility and encouraging people to make the healthy and prudent lifestyle choice by refusing to smoke.
~Rose
The problem with a disease like AIDS is that the issue is not quite so cut and dry as it perhaps once was. While I agree that the majority of Americans who contract AIDS are individuals who should have known better (i.e., than to have indiscriminate sex with multiple partners, to do drugs with shared needles, etc.), there is also an increasing number of innocents: the children who suffer from the choices made by their parents. They would seem to be deserving of a cure, no matter what one may think of their parents.
I know that there is also a great deal of money being poured into world-wide relief of AIDS - which is astonishingly widespread throughout Africa and parts of Asia - but I have reservations about how much money other countries (and especially America, who is always expected to contribute more than most other countries combined) should contribute. It seems to me that relief programs should be charity-based, rather than financed by countries who are rapidly sinking farther and farther into national debt even without such burdens.
Ultimately, I think it's a hard question to answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no,' because there are some people who seem deserving of being cured of AIDS, just as one might say that cancer patients seem deserving of a cure. And the sheer number of AIDS 'victims' doesn't really allow us to discriminate - since the attention of research is concentrated on those diseases that effect the greatest volume of people. I would have to say that, while I agree that the government spending in this area seems ridiculously high - and would suggest that at least some research should be delegated to the private rather than government-funded sector - it is an area of research that could ultimately benefit millions of people around the world who suffer from AIDS as a bane of their heritage.
...just as long as America doesn't end up paying for all of thier medication as well...:(
If the Church were to follow in Christ's footsteps to love and serve the poor, sick, and disenfranchised governments would not have to be involved. What better way to serve Christ than to offer AIDS victims the love, forgiveness, and healing (to the best of our ability) that Christ offers to each and every one of us despite our sins?
Unfortunately, governments must get involved because it is in the best interest of civilizations to do so. The economic effects of AIDS are devastating (people in their prime taken out of the workforce and requiring expensive treatments), and even more, the effect to social/family relationships. While abstinence should be (and actually is in most places) stressed, AIDS is already affecting more and more innocents. And aren't we glad that Christ doesn't withhold from us based upon our guilt?
Let's not forget that Christ brought relief and change to prostitutes and tax collectors and reserved his scathing judgment and condemnation for the religious of the day who neglected their DUTY to the poor, and who walked by on the other side rather than help an innocent victim of sin. If He has offered us grace, shouldn't we do the same? Pity we don't; then the government wouldn't have to be in the business of trying where it always fails.
Rachelle –
I agree with you to the extent that Christians should offer love and help to AIDS victims (along with other victims of disease). My complaint is that the government heavily funds researching a disease that is almost entirely avoidable. And I think that AIDS research only gives people hope that they can continue in their sexually deviant behavior without facing the consequences. So . . . YES, as a Christian I should help the poor. BUT . . . I don’t think SOCIETY (the government) should encourage behavior that is destructive by continuing to fund research that would eliminate a bad consequence to bad behavior.
You say: “And aren’t we glad God doesn’t withhold from us based on our guilt?” I respond: Yes, I sure AM glad! But you have to realize two things: 1) God’s grace toward me requires a contrite heart; and 2) Despite repentance, I must still face the physical consequences of my disobedience to Him.
And, by the way, I don’t think government funding of research to eliminate a bad consequence to bad behavior encourages anyone to “repent” of anything!
Maybe it’s a fault of mine but I have never had very much patience for people who do really stupid things and then complain about the consequences. For instance, I know a gal (I used to work with her at Starbucks) who had a kid out of wedlock, never finished high school, only worked at Starbucks part-time because she wanted to make sure she had enough time to go bar-hopping every night and sleep in until 10 a.m., and lived off of a huge check from the state government every month . She always complained about her plight in life and wanted to blame everyone else for her problems. I wanted to strangle her and say, “Do you realize you are where you are because of YOU and the decisions YOU have made?!” The same thing goes for people who smoke cigarettes (I knew plenty of these people when I worked at Starbucks, too). I would see them sitting around smoking all day and think, to myself, that someday I’m going to be paying for their Medic-Aid bills (when they’re in the hospital suffering from emphysema or lung cancer) because THEY made bad decisions.
When the government REWARDS bad behavior, it simply ENCOURAGES bad behavior.
And, about abstinence education, it may be increasingly stressed in Christian circles but it certain is NOT stressed here in the California educational system and legislature. In fact, abstinence education mandates in California have been consistently softened and eliminated for the past several years, much to my complete chagrin. In this day and age, too many people simply want to revel in their sexual freedoms without having to pay for their actions. And, even worse, they want ME to pay my tax dollars to “fix” their bad consequences and make them go away.
If we truly want to “help” someone (show them love) we must explain to them that their lifestyle is not healthy rather than focus all our efforts on erasing any negative effects of their behavior.
Sorry for the tirade but I’m at my wits end on this issue and, like I said, maybe my lack of patience toward stupid people is a fault.
-Amy
I don't often disagree with Amy, but the title of this post called for a response, and I was compelled to comment--another infrequent practice of mine. And then I noticed that my wife beat me to it.
I appreciate that Amy was careful not to attach judgment to her analysis--the Christian "they got the disease for sinning, therefore they deserve to die" shrug-of-the-shoulders apathy. However, to say that AIDS is a "preventable disease" is an oversimplification when you consider innocent partners, blood recipients, and AIDS babies. I agree that the government can always allocate money more effectively, but I don't share the "annoyance" over funding research. Governments DO have a responsibility to a nation's general welfare, and AIDS has reached epidemic levels, requiring deliberate attention. AIDS researchers are not merely trying to eliminate the consequences of sin at this point: in some cases they're attempting to save entire communities and countries.
MOST diseases and injuries are the result of some human failure, whether in judgment or morals. To say that researching cures and offering treatment equates to approval of the failure is not precise logic. The doctor who treated my swollen lip did not berate me for spreading the infection; he simply supplied treatment.
Assigning funding priority based on prevention is interesting...I'm not much of an expert on the issue, but I would again point out that the AIDS crisis poses unique problems that require attention. The most preventable diseases are also the most benign. We'd all love to see a cure for acne, but it's hardly life-threatening.
To the poster above who says "there are some people who seem deserving of being cured of AIDS," I wonder at your concept of health care where only the deserving receive treatment. Strange...
Anyway, some of my thoughts. Good post--as always you generate interesting discussions =) Please notice I answered the "Am I wrong on this one?" question. Had you posted "Will you debate me?" I would have declined! Blame it on the holidays....
Mike R.
As a state, the government has a duty to protect its people and to promote the general welfare. Funding for AIDS research easily falls within these requirements. While you are right, the promiscuous lifestyle does encourage AIDS and people should know better than to expose themselves to the disease, especially in the U.S. where AIDS information is widely available, this does not allow us to turn a blind eye. A doctor would not refuse help to someone who hurts himself doing something stupid or "preventable." Likewise, we cannot refuse aid to AIDS/HIV patients simply because they may have contracted the virus in unresponsible and promiscuous behavior. We may not avoid one disease on this basis, while investigating and curing others, like cancer, which can also often be brought on by lifestyle, including lung cancer, liver cancer, and skin cancer.
While a different lifestyle should be promoted, AIDS is truely becoming a serious problem. As Christians and compassionate human beings, we cannot turn a blind eye to any horrifying and deadly disease. Recently, I have been working on a term paper that compares several African governments, and the effects of AIDS upon these countries are staggering. In Swaziland, for example, almost 40 percent of the population has the disease. Although that is the highest infection rate in the world, it's still distressing. The epidemic has left almost 60,000 orphans in that country alone, and that number is projected to grow to 120,000 by year 2010.
Also, the issue arises of those who were born with the disease. Should such individuals pay for the mistakes of their mother, who can pass on the virus either during birth or aftwards in breast milk? How can they be responsible for an action they did not take, receiving the penalty of what is basically a death sentence?
In the end, a human is still a human, no matter the disease they have or the way they received it. We have to be compassionate, and we must be undiscriminating in our choice of what diseases are worthy of being cured.
-Colin
Regardless of the moral implications of funding AIDS research, one must question whether it is funded in proportion to its occurrence. Without bothering to hunt up the statistics right now, it's my understanding that it's vastly overfunded compared to far more common and equally deadly diseases. Why does it get special treatment? (A: Powerful lobbying forces. Where's the natural lobbying group for colorectal cancer, after all?)
This illustrates the problem with all attempts to use government money to attempt to rectify societal injustices. Instead of redistributing on the basis of need, government winds up redistributing on the basis of demand. Which turns out to be equally, if not more, unfair than the original distribution.
Two quick thoughts. First, throwing money at research for a "cure" does not by necessity equate with "compassion" or "showing love." In other words, one can show compassion and love to those with AIDS in ways other than finding cures. Yes, we should find cures if we can. But I think the point being made here is one of priorities. No one -- even governments -- have infinite resources (despite what legislators, liberals, and socialists might think). Thus, the question becomes one of prioritizing. If you have two diseases that are both lacking in cures, but one is easily preventable (AIDS) and the other has an unknown cause (various forms of cancer), shouldn't we prioritize our resources to focus on preventing the one that is easily preventable while focusing other resources on a cure for the other (or determining the cause)? It's not a question of whether we should fund research for AIDS cures, but rather whether it warrants priority above research on cures for other diseases, given AIDS' relatively easy prevention.
Second, while government can compel obedience, it cannot compel compassion or love. If it does, then it is not true love or true compassion. By definition, love is a matter of the heart, a realm that is immune from human (i.e., government) coercion.
Clarification: When I posted on this topic I was thinking more about the U.S. AIDS problem vs. the AIDS problem worldwide. I agree that the worldwide AIDS epidemic has snowballed into a catastrophic problem and something must be done about it because of how many innocent lives it's taking on a daily basis. In the U.S., however, the "norm" is not for a person to contract AIDS unless they've personally done something to contribute.
And, as was speculated by one commenter, the reason I'm most "annoyed" is because AIDS research funding in the U.S. is such a priority (probably because of the political-correctness of it), not the fact that it's funded, period.
Thanks to everyone for the insightful comments. I'm definitely open to correction if I'm wrong - thus the very title of my post. :-)
I seriously doubt you are cold and heartless. :-)
But I do disagree with you, because your statement that AIDS is preventable doesn't take into account the millions of innocent children who contract and die from it by absolutely no fault of their own.
If America is really serious about being "the good guys" then they need to get on board with funding, and the same goes for all Christians in general. We're called to love and SERVE "the least of these" but we don't do that very often.
Post a Comment