Bush-Moral Crusade (NY Times editorial)

[echo0001]

In the battle against AIDS, the Bush administration is both savior and scoundrel. Washington is the single largest financier of AIDS programs in poor countries. But the administration uses its muscle to extinguish necessary and successful programs it finds politically objectionable, and to carry out ineffective ideological crusades.

First the good news. Washington's financing for AIDS treatment does not go as far as it could because American programs have been buying only expensive brand-name drugs, a sop to the pharmaceutical lobby. Administration officials have said that without approval from the Food and Drug Administration, they can't be sure that generics are safe and effective, even though the World Health Organization has endorsed many of them and AIDS programs around the world use them with excellent results. It's not a question of science: the drugs cannot be used in the United States because they would violate patents, so the F.D.A. never examined them.

Until now. Last week, the F.D.A. approved for overseas use two Indian-made generic versions of nevirapine, a standard ingredient in the triple cocktail, and a generic version of efavirenz, another widely used antiretroviral. That brings the number of approved generic antiretrovirals to seven. While none are yet in use in Washington's overseas programs, the approvals will eventually allow four times as many lives to be saved for the same amount of money.

Also last week, however, the administration was on a moral crusade that could lead to a significant rise in AIDS cases in Russia, China, elsewhere in Asia and in the former East bloc. In these places, drug users who inject are a prime risk group for AIDS, and the gateway through which the epidemic will spread into the general population. As many as a third of new AIDS infections outside sub-Saharan Africa are in drug users; in Russia, Unaids estimates that injecting drug users are 80 percent of the infected. Needle exchange programs can help control this part of the epidemic.

But at a Unaids policy meeting this month, a Bush administration official asked that all references to needle exchange be dropped from the group's governing policy paper.

Unaids doesn't control much money, but it sets world policy on how to fight AIDS, and usually operates by consensus to give its recommendations more force. Although America is virtually alone in its opposition to needle exchange, its clout as the largest Unaids donor means it might be able to win a vote this week in the group's program coordination board. If Unaids could no longer work on needle exchange, nations would lose a valuable source of technical help. And a lack of consensus could keep countries from starting needle exchanges.

American law already forbids United States money from financing needle exchange programs. For Washington to decide that it wants to stop everyone else from doing that as well is a breathtakingly dangerous step.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/opinion/27mon3.html?th&emc=th&oref=login


The response to an epidemic should not be dictated by morality; the response to an epidemic should be dictated by medical knowledge and experience. The Bush Administration is sacrificing lives for the sake of their own moral code. And it pisses me off.

 

[Dreadsox]

Then do not take the money....

Sad as it may seem, the President has a constituency to be faithful to.

I am not saying it is right or wrong....I have been very vocal in here about my lack of support for the strings attatched to the money. Bono however on meet the press had a very different attitude about the President and the money given.

 

[kobayashi]

Then do not take the money....

but why provide the money if you are going to actively promote practices that will limit the spread of the disease?

i don't mean to suggest that they should provide nothing.

but the policy is counter productive to say the least.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Single use needles should be used all over from Africa to Eastern Europe to Asia, but you have to have a lot of them and a lot of distribution or else needle sharing will become even worse.

 

[80sU2isBest]

"Also last week, however, the administration was on a moral crusade that could lead to a significant rise in AIDS cases in Russia, China, elsewhere in Asia and in the former East bloc. In these places, drug users who inject are a prime risk group for AIDS, and the gateway through which the epidemic will spread into the general population. As many as a third of new AIDS infections outside sub-Saharan Africa are in drug users; in Russia, Unaids estimates that injecting drug users are 80 percent of the infected. Needle exchange programs can help control this part of the epidemic."

The US refusing to join the needle exchange could lead to a significant rise in needle-related AIDS cases? Hmmm...and here I was thinking that people who inject drugs into their veins were the cause of needle-related AIDS cases...

Silly me.

 

[Irvine511]

[BThe US refusing to join the needle exchange could lead to a significant rise in needle-related AIDS cases? Hmmm...and here I was thinking that people who inject drugs into their veins were the cause of needle-related AIDS cases...

Silly me. [/B]

so if you're a drug user, you deserve to die from AIDS?

 

[80sU2isBest]

so if you're a drug user, you deserve to die from AIDS?

Good grief, Irvine did I say that?

I said nothing about anyone deserving anything. The article blamed any rise in AIDS cases on the US because it's not joining the needle exchange. That's ridiculous. The people injecting themselves have the blame. Did the US make them inject themselves with drugs?

 

[melon]

America wastes money just like it wastes oil and resources. "Efficency" is plain not in the American vocabulary--except, of course, when businesses are looking for excuses to fire workers. Then they counter it by paying their CEO hundreds of millions of dollars.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

'Bush' and 'moral' in the same sentence. Wow.

 

[Irvine511]

Good grief, Irvine did I say that?

I said nothing about anyone deserving anything. The article blamed any rise in AIDS cases on the US because it's not joining the needle exchange. That's ridiculous. The people injecting themselves have the blame. Did the US make them inject themselves with drugs?

does it matter why people inject themselves with drugs? all that matters is that people do, and they need help in both getting off drugs and in reducing the transmission of HIV from one user to the next. if the US fails to address this problem, and if it continues to view needle exchange programs as analagous to an endorsement of drug use, then yes, we will be to blame.

to hold an individual to account for what is a very complex problem -- which we can trace back, perhaps, to economic inequality and lack of opportunity, something the US does little to ameliorate -- is really simplistic. one one level, yes, i suppose someone does make a decision to stick a needle in their arm. but i also don't think that assigning blame is at all productive, and that with problems like these, *especially* in countries like Russia, we're better off addressing first the needle itself, and then the circumstance that lead to drug use.

 

[80sU2isBest]

does it matter why people inject themselves with drugs? all that matters is that people do, and they need help in both getting off drugs and in reducing the transmission of HIV from one user to the next. if the US fails to address this problem, and if it continues to view needle exchange programs as analagous to an endorsement of drug use, then yes, we will be to blame.

to hold an individual to account for what is a very complex problem -- which we can trace back, perhaps, to economic inequality and lack of opportunity, something the US does little to ameliorate -- is really simplistic. one one level, yes, i suppose someone does make a decision to stick a needle in their arm. but i also don't think that assigning blame is at all productive, and that with problems like these, *especially* in countries like Russia, we're better off addressing first the needle itself, and then the circumstance that lead to drug use.

The government has no business giving out needles so that people can shoot themselves up with drugs. People make their own choices; if they choose the dangerous choices, then it's on their own heads. To say on one hand "We made it illegal in our own country" and on the other hand, say "But since you're in Russia we don't mind subsidizing your deadly habit" is outrageous. Does anyone remember a certain something called "personal responsibility"?

There are many human rights that are inalienable. Living destructively and then expecting the government to help you live destructively is not a right.

And the idea that drug problems can be traced back to "economic inequality" is just an enabling excuse. Most people who experience "economic inequality"don't turn to drugs. Those who turn to drugs make their own choices.

 

[Irvine511]

The government has no business giving out needles so that people can shoot themselves up with drugs. People make their own choices; if they choose the dangerous choices, then it's on their own heads. To say on one hand "We made it illegal in our own country" and on the other hand, say "But since you're in Russia we don't mind subsidizing your deadly habit" is outrageous. Does anyone remember a certain something called "personal responsibility"?

There are many human rights that are inalienable. Living destructively and then expecting the government to help you live destructively is not a right.

And the idea that drug problems can be traced back to "economic inequality" is just an enabling excuse. Most people who experience "economic inequality"don't turn to drugs. Those who turn to drugs make their own choices.

so do those who turn to drugs and get AIDS deserve to die?

also, isn't the point of needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV -- and isn't that a greater evil than someone shooting up drugs (contrary to popular believe, the majority of people who get HIV get it either through needles or sex wtih someone who uses needles)?

why take an easy moral stand that drugs are wrong when the greater crisis is HIV? why cut off your nose to spite your face? it strikes me as the same mentality that says no to condoms because you shouldn't be having sex to begin with. can't we say taht we live in a far from perfect world where people do drugs and have sex, and that while one does make a choice to engage in this behavior, it's far more complicated than that and what people need is compassion and not judgement and that a needle exchange program is one way to start?

 

[80sU2isBest]

so do those who turn to drugs and get AIDS deserve to die?

also, isn't the point of needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV -- and isn't that a greater evil than someone shooting up drugs (contrary to popular believe, the majority of people who get HIV get it either through needles or sex wtih someone who uses needles)?

why take an easy moral stand that drugs are wrong when the greater crisis is HIV? why cut off your nose to spite your face? it strikes me as the same mentality that says no to condoms because you shouldn't be having sex to begin with. can't we say taht we live in a far from perfect world where people do drugs and have sex, and that while one does make a choice to engage in this behavior, it's far more complicated than that and what people need is compassion and not judgement and that a needle exchange program is one way to start?

I'm not saying they deserve to die. But I am saying they are making a dangerous choice, so they are to blame. No one made them shoot up; not me, not the governement, no one. They choose to, knowing it's dangerous. Governments should not use their people's money to subsidize the dangerous habits/crimes of people.

When society says "I know shooting up is dangerous, but since I figure you're going to do it anway, I'm going to go give you needles to do it with", society has become an enabler. People never learn to stop dangerous habits when the people who are supposed to be helping them become enablers. If you had a friend who was a smoker, and you were against it, would you buy him a pack of cigarettes just because you figure "Oh well, he's going to do it anyway"? No, you wouldn't (I hope). You would encourage him to stop smoking, and if you had to get tough you would. Bush is making the right choice. He is choosing not to be an enabler.

 

[80sU2isBest]

it strikes me as the same mentality that says no to condoms because you shouldn't be having sex to begin with.

Last I heard, sex is not illegal. However, illegal drug usage is indeed ... illegal.

 

[financeguy]

Bush is making the right choice. He is choosing not to be an enabler.

Amusing considering Bush is an untreated alcoholic who will probably relapse any day now. One would wonder why those close to him have not encouraged him to seek treatment. They must be 'enablers'.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Amusing considering Bush is an untreated alcoholic who will probably relapse any day now.

That's just ridiculous, fg. Untreated? He stopped drinking. Or is "finding the strength through God" somehow less effective than other "treatments"? My father stopped drinking through his faith in God.

And what leads you to the conclusion that he's going to "relapse any day now"? Please tell me where you bought your crystal ball.

 

[financeguy]

That's just ridiculous, fg. Untreated? He stopped drinking. Or is "finding the strength through God" somehow less effective than other "treatments"? My father stopped drinking through his faith in God.

And what leads you to the conclusion that he's going to "relapse any day now"? Please tell me where you bought your crystal ball.

Many experts in the area of addiction treatment consider Bush to exhibit all the classic signs of being a 'dry drunk' or untreated alcoholic.

And I don't believe Bush is genuinely a Christian, incidentally.

What leads me to the conclusion that he's going to relapse? The stress he is under and his guilty conscience.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Many experts in the area of addiction treatment consider Bush to exhibit all the classic signs of being a 'dry drunk' or untreated alcoholic.

And I don't believe Bush is genuinely a Christian, incidentally.

What leads me to the conclusion that he's going to relapse? The stress he is under and his guilty conscience.

FG, have you ever considered going on tour with your mind-reading capabilities? I think you could make lots of money.

Already, I've learned some important things I didn't know.

Bush is not a Christian. He has a guilty conscience. He is about to crack and start drinking himself under the table again.

Keep it up, this kind of info is very valuable.

 

[popsadie]

lol..I have to agree here with 80's here. I'm not Bush's biggest fan, but claiming he has 'dry alcholism' is ridiculous. I know alcoholism CAN be an addiction- but drinking isn't automatically a disease. I do think that all the labels society places on compulsive and addictive behaviors is somewhat ridiculous---it seems like everything is a 'disease'...which makes me wonder...what has happened to individual choices and personal responsibility....

 

[BVS]

lol..I have to agree here with 80's here. I'm not Bush's biggest fan, but claiming he has 'dry alcholism' is ridiculous. I know alcoholism CAN be an addiction- but drinking isn't automatically a disease. I do think that all the labels society places on compulsive and addictive behaviors is somewhat ridiculous---it seems like everything is a 'disease'...which makes me wonder...what has happened to individual choices and personal responsibility....

Said by someone who's obviously never had to deal with it.

 

[financeguy]

lol..I have to agree here with 80's here. I'm not Bush's biggest fan, but claiming he has 'dry alcholism' is ridiculous. I know alcoholism CAN be an addiction- but drinking isn't automatically a disease.

Drinking alcohol, even to excess, is not a disease in itself, true, but Bush has admitted that for a long period in his life he could not remember a day he didn't drink.

 

[nbcrusader]

And I don't believe Bush is genuinely a Christian, incidentally.

Care to define how you determine who qualifies as a genine Christian?

 

[Irvine511]

---it seems like everything is a 'disease'...which makes me wonder...what has happened to individual choices and personal responsibility....

i think this gets to a very interesting question: just how responsible are we for the choices we make? this goes for good things as well as bad things.

a quote i like is "so many people born on third base think they hit a triple." i know many people like this. i grew up in a somewhat idyllic town where everyone was educated, fed, etc. i have friends who went to Ivy League schools, have fancy jobs, and make a good amount of money. and then i hear them, firstly, pat themselves on the back for working so hard, and then turn around and grumble about the taxes they have to pay for services that they don't use (like public schools, for example). this strikes me as an abdication of personal responsibility. they were given everything, how could you *NOT* screw it up? don't walk around thinking you're so wonderful and so smart, because had you been born into different circumstance, things might not have worked out so well.

i think the idea of personal responsibility can be both delusional as well as a great way to absolve yourself of social responsibility. when i was in college, there was a very interesting art project that went on my senior year: huge pictures of starving children, drug addicts, the poorest of the poor, real examples of human failure were placed all along the library with the words "WHO'S RESPONSIBILITY IS IT?"

so i pose that question to everyone. are we all responsible for Russian drug addicts and Tanzanian prostitutes and the rich kid from San Diego who paralyzes himself when he crashes his dad's porsche? or are they all fully responsible for their situations?

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not saying they deserve to die. But I am saying they are making a dangerous choice, so they are to blame. No one made them shoot up; not me, not the governement, no one. They choose to, knowing it's dangerous. Governments should not use their people's money to subsidize the dangerous habits/crimes of people.

When society says "I know shooting up is dangerous, but since I figure you're going to do it anway, I'm going to go give you needles to do it with", society has become an enabler. People never learn to stop dangerous habits when the people who are supposed to be helping them become enablers. If you had a friend who was a smoker, and you were against it, would you buy him a pack of cigarettes just because you figure "Oh well, he's going to do it anyway"? No, you wouldn't (I hope). You would encourage him to stop smoking, and if you had to get tough you would. Bush is making the right choice. He is choosing not to be an enabler.

what's worse? enabling drug abuse or enabling AIDS?

 

[80sU2isBest]

what's worse? enabling drug abuse or enabling AIDS?

I'd say the ones enabling AIDS are the ones shooting drugs into their veins.

 

[Irvine511]

I'd say the ones enabling AIDS are the ones shooting drugs into their veins.

but you didn't answer my question: which is worse, enabling drug use or enabling AIDS? if we give people clean needles, we enable drug use, but we slow down the spread of AIDS. if we don't give people drug use, we don't enable their destructive habits, but AIDS continues to be spread via needles at about the same rate as it is now (and, as i said, the #1 way to get AIDS in the West is via injections).

do we let drug users destroy themselves, and bring others down with them?

 

[80sU2isBest]

i think the idea of personal responsibility can be both delusional as well as a great way to absolve yourself of social responsibility. when i was in college, there was a very interesting art project that went on my senior year: huge pictures of starving children, drug addicts, the poorest of the poor, real examples of human failure were placed all along the library with the words "WHO'S RESPONSIBILITY IS IT?"

To place drug addicts in that same exhibit as the starving children is a disgrace. Children can't help if they're starving. They have no way to do anything about it. Drug addicts choose to do drugs; no matter what may have influenced them, ultimately it's their own responsibility. That's why I give money to organizations that feed hungry children, it helps then. No way I'm gonna give needles to a drug addict; it sends the message that to stop is hopeless, so they might as well continue killing themselves, because their lives are worthless. It's a defeatist attitude.

 

[popsadie]

Look, I'm not advocating abdication of social responsiblity. I do think that safety nets are important...not everyone is born with equal resources. However, I do think that American society has a bit of a 'victim' complex. We have labeled seemingly every struggle as a disease or disorder and sometimes I wonder if our society doesn't over do it.
Personally, I believe that individual actions arise from a combination of circumstances and personal beliefs. On one hand I think that we, as a society, should work at creating a society that levels the educational and monetary resources. One the other hand, I believe that basing expectations of a person's behavior primarily on their background disrespects the power that choice and beliefs play in their life.

 

[BVS]

or like some loony conservatives, we can blame the liberal media...

 

[Irvine511]

To place drug addicts in that same exhibit as the starving children is a disgrace. Children can't help if they're starving. They have no way to do anything about it. Drug addicts choose to do drugs; no matter what may have influenced them, ultimately it's their own responsibility. That's why I give money to organizations that feed hungry children, it helps then. No way I'm gonna give needles to a drug addict; it sends the message that to stop is hopeless, so they might as well continue killing themselves, because their lives are worthless. It's a defeatist attitude.

do you think anyone wants to be a drug addict? do you think anyone actively chooses to be a drug addict, or might it be a combination of circumstance? might they grow up under rather hopeless conditions where drug use starts as an escape and then spirals into something worse?

again, i'm not disagreeing with you, but i do think it's a very interesting question: do people who make bad choices deserve our support, compassion, sympathy, and even our charity?

or do we cut them off, make them an example of what not to do?

how far should our compassion extend?

my personal opinion is that no one should take too much credit for their decisions, the good ones and the bad ones. no one is every completely to blame, and no one is every totally innocent. i see a very complex, interconnected world where i have an attachment to the drug user in Moscow and the prostitute in Tanzania and the spoiled overweight princess who eats chocolate cake in her Beverly Hills mansion and wants to down a bottle of sleeping pills and a fifth of vodka.

my heart bleeds for them all. and i want to help them all.

but that's impossible, isn't it?

so what do we do?

what is our responsibility?