Funding for HIV/AIDS not only goes to research, but also support programs for those living with HIV, like housing, hospice care, and children services. Taking away this money will not do anything but needlessly increase the suffering of people. You take away money when the problem has been solved, and HIV is still a MAJOR problem.
Even if you ignore the people who caught HIV through bad behavior, you have their infected children. Why write these people off? For some countries, this would be tantamount to writing off much of an entire generation.
We will be seeing an explosion of Alzheimer’s as the Baby Boomers grow older, no doubt. And there will be a lot of Generation Xers faced with the burden of caring for these people. I definitely want to see more funding shunted to Alzheimer’s research.
Can you prove that AIDS research is being funded disproportionately to its incidence? You need to come up with numbers of those afflicted with both diseases, and then numbers for the amount of federal research funded allocated to each disease. Until you do that, you’re just talking out of your ass.
To be fair though, funds are always limited, and we can’t always address everyone’s suffering. One could argue that these funds would be put to better long-term use by fighting, say, cancer.
Mind you, I’m not saying that this is indeed the case, and I’m certainly not arguing that we should pull the plug on support programs like these. However, the reality is that there are plenty of support programs and medical research initiatives which are under-funded… plenty of them. Like it or not, federal and state funds are limited, and so there will never be any lack of suffering people who need money badly.
In fact, that’s part of the OP’s complaint – funding for AIDS which could be going to Alzheimer’s research instead. I’ll grant that they don’t necessarily draw on the same resources – for example, there are doubtlessly individuals who would donate towards AIDS research, but not Alzheimer’s research. Still, there has got to be some overlap between the two, and so I can’t fault someone for being frustrated that AIDS gets so much attention.
Also, over and above the funding issue, there’s also the issue of laboratory resources and manpower. Even if funding were unlimited, there is still a finite amount of brainpower which can go into medical research, and a finite number of laboratories that are equipped for this task. Pouring these resources into AIDS research (or cancer, or diabetes, or tuberculosis) is bound to affect other research initiatives to some degree.
Mind you, I’m arguing from a moderate viewpoint here. I’m not arguing that AIDS research should be pulled, even though I think it gets too much attention. I will also grant that AIDS research could conceivably provide new insights into immunology in general (although frankly, I think this could be achieved more efficiently through other means). What I’m saying is that resources are limited, in various ways, and so we can’t always devote the proper funds to deserving programs, even if people are suffering needlessly.
Hard fact is, there’s enough money to fund research for all these devastating diseases. All we got to do is let go of it. But we want our stuff. Notice I say “we”.
Peace,
mangeorge
I can sympathize with your feelings. My father’s only sister died of Alzheimer’s after living for a number of years in a nursing home. Aunt Eileene was witty, beautiful and loving, and it was so painful to see her shell that her kids mostly couldn’t stand it. I occasionally (not very often; I’m not a saint, and it hurt me, too) gritted my teeth and visited her, but of course she knew nothing about it. All that was left the same of a once-beautiful woman was her glorious eyes (like stained glass “rose” windows, with alternating rays of green and brown, when you got close enough). And she lasted in that final condition (following the onset years, when she gradually lost function) for nearly ten years!
Now, let us suppose that the government does as you wish:
Other nations’ research will go on, but will be handicapped by being cut drastically (probably by >50%). So what?
It isn’t only African nations where AIDS is literally destroying societies (Parents die, leaving the children to the care of the grandparents. What happens when the grandparents die? The kids are homeless; some die, some become criminals in order to live, others sell their bodies, which - if they’re not already infected - leads to so becoming, adding another group of people spreading the virus.).
African nations are farther along that road, but India and China (to name only the biggies) are headed that way. They got their start, not through some endemic flaw for which they can be blamed, but because they aren’t wealthy and “we” are: through “sex tourism”, IOW, U.S. HIV carriers going to their countries to “share the wealth” of disease. :mad: :mad: (I really can’t think of a punishment sufficiently severe to seem fitting for persons who knowingly continued - and some still do! - to have unprotected sex, using “third world” citizens like Kleenex[sup]TM[/sup].) And, once the virus had entered local populations, it was, and continues to be, spread through local sexual mores, rather than through contaminated needles (at least 99%, my best guess), as most of them have cultures which give males (but not females) a great deal of sexual freedom. In both Africa and India, HIV has been spread more by (long distance) truck drivers than anyone or anything else, entering local communities via the women these men contact en route.
Following your scenario, what do you propose to do when all of these countries collapse, and desperate survivors are doing anything to esape?
Do you think we can build a wall around the U.S., as Israel is building a wall against the Palestinians?
I don’t think so. My first top-of-my-head guess as to cost would be $100 trillion (for only the 48 contiguous states), but I suspect I’m rather low. And if we built the wall, do you think it really would work to keep them out?? Perhaps, if half of the population were employed guarding the borders, we could keep most of them out. But how much good would that do? And how would we survive?
It is in our enlightened self-interest to do all we can, including spending billions on research and treatment for those who have already contracted the virus. (Of course, it’s also in our interests to promote, as strongly as possible, and with millions - billions, if necessary - the use of condoms. But do you think that (most) conservative and/or evangelical Christians will approve of that? Disclaimer: I’m an evangelical Christian, but I do know how to apply logic, and do not believe that the Deity considers condom non-use to be more important than helping people - most of whom have never heard the Christian message - to survive - so that they can, hopefully, hear said message.) And conservative politicians, who certainly have access to the data which would show them how misguided such a policy is (whether they pay any attention or not), continue to allocate aid dollars based on religious belief, rather than cold, hard logic.
Please consider acquiring a more complete knowledge of the relevant facts before adopting an either/or stance.
