World AIDS Day ~ December 1

[Lisa]

According to UNAIDS estimates, there are now 33.2 million people living with HIV, including 2.5 million children. During 2007 some 2.5 million people became newly infected with the virus. Around half of all people who become infected with HIV do so before they are 25 and are killed by AIDS before they are 35.
Around 95% of people with HIV/AIDS live in developing nations. But HIV today is a threat to men, women and children on all continents around the world.
Started on 1st December 1988, World AIDS Day is not just about raising money, but also about increasing awareness, fighting prejudice and improving education. World AIDS Day is important in reminding people that HIV has not gone away, and that there are many things still to be done.

Link to Page



I have known two people in my life time pass away from this terrible disease. One was a high school friend and the other a patient when I worked for a home nutrition program. I am, however, lucky enough that no one really close to me has died from this terrible disease.



I believe that everyone needs to do their part to prevent the spreading of AIDS.

Who here believes that our government agencies are doing enough in educating the public in safe sex practices and preventing the further spread of this disease?

 

[Kacey]

Who here believes that our government agencies are doing enough in educating the public in safe sex practices and preventing the further spread of this disease?

Not me. While I, like yourself, have not known anyone close to me who died of this disease, I did know a teen with hemophilia - back before better blood screening existed - who contracted AIDS via a blood transfusion. He was a student at the middle school where I work, and caused a round of very concerned, but, as it turned out, somewhat misguided "education" about how to handle bodily fluids - information that was useful in general, but was, in light of today's more comprehensive information about how AIDS is transmitted, incorrect. This information had the effect of making most of the staff afraid to come near the boy, through no fault of his own; sadly, the more perceptive students picked up on this as well, and without knowing why, kept their distance too. The young man died in high school.

In addition to the government, there are other sources of information out there that provide contradictory and/or misleading information about STDs generally, which may cause people concerned about AIDS to feel that they are in less danger than they really are. The one that comes to mind most immediately is the advertising for Valtrex, which claims to reduces the spread of genital herpes; while the advertising is quite clear that it reduces the risk rather than preventing it, nonetheless, it is encouraging people with an incurable disease to believe that the medication can be enough; the disclaimers about safe sex practices and transmission at times other than a visible break out are, IMHO, rather overshadowed by the actors' statements about "I have genital herpes" "I don't".

Do I believe that the government needs to do more? Certainly. I also believe that is is not only the government, but the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and any organization that provides information about birth control. In addition, as long as the American public maintains the belief that "it can't happen to me because I'm not [insert group here]" or "it can't happen to me because I don't [insert high risk activity here]" we are going to continue to experience problems. Citizens of this country, and of any country with similar concerns, need to step up and take responsibility for their own health and that of their partners - and that needs to be encouraged by any agency in a position to do so, private, public, and governmental.

 

[Big Don]

Why is this the government's responsibility? People should be responsible for their own actions and prosper or suffer accordingly.

 

[Lisa]

Why is this the government's responsibility? People should be responsible for their own actions and prosper or suffer accordingly.

So are you saying that those people that are infected by the virus via blood transfusions or children that are infected via their mother being a drug user should "suffer accordingly" as you put it?

Isn't it the government's responsibility to ensure that our blood isn't tainted? Isn't it our government's responsibility to educate the people that elected them, to give them the information needed to make safe responsible decisions?

 

[Kacey]

Why is this the government's responsibility? People should be responsible for their own actions and prosper or suffer accordingly.

Then... whose responsibility is it to transmit the information necessary for people to make informed decisions? This is where I think the government, along with quite a few other agencies, are falling down - not because they are not mandating specific behaviors (although they are), but because the agencies involved are not providing the information needed to make a reasonable, informed decision in a compact and useful format; the information is either horribly truncated (e.g. "only abstinence will prevent the spread of STDs") or contains so much detail that is horribly confusing.

 

[Andrew Green]

Why is this the government's responsibility? People should be responsible for their own actions and prosper or suffer accordingly.

Because that is what they are paid and elected for? To keep us safe, and to ensure that we get good information, rather then bad information about how to stay healthy and safe.

Because when millions of people are infected by this disease that is huge drain on health care systems which costs everyone more. (Even with privatized ones, drives up insurance prices which effects everyone)

How about smoking? Had the government not stepped in and shown that it is really bad for you, would cigarette companies not still be advertising the health benefits of smoking and paying doctors to recommend it?

AIDS and other STD's are a public health issue, and the government should do what it can to contain it. Same as if there was suddenly a outbreak of Ebola in a area, I'd expect the government to try and contain it. By telling people not to go there, quarantining the area, etc.

And really what it comes down to is that if we can expect a government to provide education on math, English, Social Studies, Science, Phys Ed, etc. Why shouldn't health be in there? Well it already is, so why ignore sexual health?