While much of the debate
concerning the treatment and prevention of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa has recently
centered on cultural and educational perspectives, I believe effective strategy
in tackling this epidemic rests significantly- if not solely- in an economic discussion.
While I do think theories resting on how current social structures in
sub-Saharan work to perpetuate the spread of HIV are interesting, I believe the
implementation of strategy based on such theories waste time and money.
Given today’s
sexual landscape in Africa, preventative measures spending millions on abstinence
programs and similar avenues toward progress seem misguided, if not pointless.
Slum sex has become a means of survival for orphaned children and single
mothers (The Economist). What is the use in denying such realities by throwing
up more “ABC” posters in hopes they will do more than the “abstain” posters? [Unfortunately]
we must ask ourselves what do institutional leaders across the developed world
care most about? Because while conversations on social stigma, faulty education
and the like definitely generate new theories of why AIDS has an increasing and overwhelming presence in sub-Saharan
Africa (i.e. the impact of western ad campaigns)- I think an in-depth economic
impact of the virus on the international community holds the power to actually
set the political agenda.
Due to the wide effectiveness of HAART (highly active
antiretroviral therapy) in halting the AIDS epidemic in the western world, most
conversation concerning the virus in these countries has logically shifted to that
of prevention. This further lends toward my belief that treatment should be of
first and foremost concern in Africa, much less money should be spent on preventative
measures and the latter, as history has shown, will follow. I honestly believe the true solution to the
AIDS epidemic in Africa rests solely on what has worked for the rest of the
world, and any discussion denying this by stating economic differences between
the two “worlds” is misleading.
Even in
the late 80’s thousands of Americans accused the makers of the new ARV drugs of
profit gouging and profiteering (Avert) because they couldn’t afford them, so
it’s not as if the problem of cost has not impacted western nations as well. This is where I believe pharmaceutical
companies and the groups who exert pressure on them need to step up. While the
immediate cost may be difficult to stomach in cutting the prices of these drugs
substantially for sub-Saharan Africa, a sound economic impact is what I believe
will put things in perspective for these institutional leaders. Some of the many
highlights I envision in such a report would include HIV/AIDS effects on direct
foreign investment, global trade, agriculture, workforce costs, etc.
*sidenote- I apologize for not posting this by Monday's lecture, I had my due date mistaken for this coming Friday.
I think that you have a really interesting point of view on the AIDS topic and I agree with you 100%. After doing the readings for class on AIDS and in particular the case of Uganda, I also believe the massive amount of money that is put into preventing AIDS by abstinence is ineffective. I never really thought about how many different viewpoints there are in attacking the AIDS problem until we did the AIDS exercise in class. The group who held up our class was the pharmaceutical companies because their main focus was profit above all else. This problem we had in class seems to be rearing its head in the real world, in highlighting this problem in your post you hit it on the head. I agree with the point you make about economics, that if the west takes a hit in their profit by lowering drug price, they will make up for it with the improving African economies. The AIDS epidemic is a serious problem that has no easy solution and I do not know if there is a realistic answer on the horizon.
ReplyDeleteUsing economic means to combat the spread of HIV is completely essential to the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. The problem with making it the only avenue of relief for the countries of the region is that it only helps with one side of the problem. While anti-retrovirals would help people with the disease live longer and therefore help the economies through more time in the workforce, they can still spread the disease to others. The other problem is that athough some may do better as a whole if Africa is healthier, this does not mean the pharmaceutical companies will make a higher profit or be able to stay competitive in the foreseeable future if they make their ARVs basically free for all of the affected countries (there are a lot of them). There is no present incentive for them to give their drugs away. I believe education is one of the biggest things the region lacks that could potentially create communities that are able to effectively battle the spread of the disease.
ReplyDeleteEmily I think you're correct in taking the position that the AIDs epidemic in Africa is largely one based on economics. Further, I think this points to a broader issue in American politics which is the extremely low amount of foreign AID we donate. The U.S. along with the other developed and wealthy nations could give far more financial assistance to combat AIDs as well other diseases in Africa. Regarding AIDs specifically, I agree with you that the money invested should be used towards sex-education and the practice of safe sex rather than simply handed over to churches and other religious organizations that promote abstinence.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you mean about first helping those who are HIV positive then working with prevention but I don't know if that makes sense for sub-Saharan Africa. First, because the amount of people living with the disease currently is incomprehensible and of that number, many do not have easy and regular access to medical clinics. And as you said, "slum sex" is a reality so that means that the number will just keep increasing; pregnancy from those sexual encounters is a chance and those children have a high probability of getting the disease from birth. I agree, there needs to be way more work with treating those who are suffering right now but I also think that working for prevention cannot wait because the sex that is aiding to the spread is not going to stop.
ReplyDeleteFrom the readings I really think that what is happening with the disease is strongly linked to culture and history, it simply was not pc for a long time to discuss sex or condoms, which is why so many of the programs failed. Plus there was a distrust of the west because of the terror we caused with colonialism and the Cold War. But that is changing, and I think it would be most effective for western medical clinics because those resources are our strength. But, Africa and Africans voices are getting louder, those working to change their culture to discuss the realities of sex and AIDs should be supported by us but their dialogue should not be dictated by us. Treatment is necessary but it is not feasible to ignore prevention and acceptance. It will not be the west who solves the AIDs crisis but I think we can be useful in helping to prolong the lives of those with the disease.