Bush Asks for Action on HIV/AIDS

[Sava]

However, we cannot stand by and not try! I mean, yes, totally selling our pharma companies up the river without a paddle is a piss poor, idiotic idea, but we should do everything else we can.

Sorry, I think millions of lives are more important than millions of dollars, but hey, I'm not a capitalist.

Anyways, considering the insane amount of money those companies make, I think they'll survive.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by skywalker
You're talking about those drugs that are supposed to keep AIDS at bay, right? THOSE are extremely expensive, toxic, and don't work too well. I don't think it would help to 'let them make generic versions', because we haven't been stopping them. Also, I read a few science magazines (I'm also in Biology right now), and it seems that to combat AIDS once you're infected that's all we'll ever be able to do, as it's a virus.

These are yet more baseless assertions. "Don't work too well?" I can introduce you to several friends of mine who are alive today because those drugs work very well. The drug cocktails are crucial for people staying alive, since we don't have a cure. The virus has mutated, making some new cases less responsive to the known cocktails, but new treatments are arising for those cases that are effective.

I'd strongly urge you to check out the work done by the International AIDs Vaccine Initiative:

http://www.iavi.org/science/possible.htm

Reading a few science mags and being in a biology class doesn't qualify you as an expert. I'd take Dr. Seth Berkley's expertise over BAMs any day.

There are several drugs that are effectively used to treat viral infections; however, they work in a different manner than anti-bacterial drugs. The main target of anti-virals is DNA or RNA intracellular replication. For instance, the drug acyclovir is a purine analog which when incorporated into a growing viral DNA strand halts further replication. This drug has been shown to stop viral growth both in vitro and in vivo. There are many more types of anti-virals, each attacking a different step in viral replication, from uncoating and cell invasion, to packaging of the completed virus particle.

[Sava]

I'd take Dr. Seth Berkley's expertise over BAMs any day.

BTW, Fez is back

[GePap]

This is one of the Few Bush porgrams I complely agree with and I am glad it will go forward, regardless of the moralizing atittudes of some in congress and here.

As for mismagement, if we wanted to avoid much, we could give the money to tried and tested orgs instead of as direct grants to governments.

[Al B. Sure!]

I support this and am disturbed by David Floyd's problems with this issue. Africans are not idiots who are bringing AIDS onto themselves. they simply do not realize the full implications of having sex. What good does it do to have them die by the millions when this problem could at least partially be corrected through education...

Are you against AIDS education in America, Floyd?

I do think there should be provisions that force organizations that recieve this money to stress abstinence but as far as I can understand, abstinence is part of the ABC concept so it's all good.


thanks

[Sandman]

If a dictator had killed 30 million people, the world would unite to stop him.

The fight against AIDS is a war, and should be fought as such.

[David Floyd]

Boris,

Study some history of Africa, particularly the relation of the current quality of governments to the history of European colonialism. The people have the governments that Europeans thought they deserved, and that wealthy Western countries like the U.S. have a vested interest in keeping in power to suit economic aims. Tell me, does Mugabe rule by the will of his people?

This may be so, but African colonialism did not really involve the US, so even if you think SOMEONE should pay for it, it certainly shouldn't be the US, and no matter where I live, I wasn't involved in it, so it certainly shouldn't be me personally either.

monolith,

Rulers are expected to show empathy.

And they can do so by donating their own money, if they so desire.

monkspider,

Wow, do you really think this is a bad idea Dave? That's not cool man.

It's a horrible idea. I have nothing against charity or helping others - I have a major problem being forced to help others, and forced to correct a health issue I didn't create, and, not only that, but forced to correct a health issue that, in many cases, is the fault of the people involved.

obiwan,

No, because buying kidneys on the black market is illegal.

Yes, this is a problem.

I'm thinking more along the lines of providing shelter to someone out in the cold, who comes to your door.

Great - so I should have to let bums into my house, by law, on the basis that they're bums?

Sorry, but that would probably drive the crime rate WAY up.

Menlas,

Shame on you.

Fool me once shame on....fool me once shame on you, fool me twice....uh, wait a second....

AS,

are not idiots who are bringing AIDS onto themselves.

The ones who are having casual sex with multiple partners certainly are. I'm not paying for their ignorance.

they simply do not realize the full implications of having sex.

So now I'm responsible for making sure everyone is aware of the full implications of their actions? Mind boggling.

What good does it do to have them die by the millions when this problem could at least partially be corrected through education...

What good? Gosh, I dunno - that's not really the point, though. The point is that it isn't RIGHT to make me pay to fix a situation that isn't my own fault, and is, in fact, the fault of many of the people afflicted with AIDs.

Are you against AIDS education in America, Floyd?

If I have to pay for it for other people, and have no choice in the matter, absolutely.

Sandman,

If a dictator had killed 30 million people, the world would unite to stop him.

Obviously, I would oppose this too. I might volunteer, or I might not - but I certainly won't be forced.

[Ben Kenobi]

Great - so I should have to let bums into my house, by law, on the basis that they're bums?

So only bums get caught outside on a cold winter's day?

That does not follow from the premise, DF.

Why don't we just shoot all the homeless since they may steal from the richer people in society?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry, I think millions of lives are more important than millions of dollars

I'll take billions of lives over generations than millions of lives today, thank you very much.

You just away patents of pharma companies and there is no incentive for them to do jack or **** when the next big epidemic comes up. Research and Development cost an utter load of money (averaging $1 billion for a new pill), and there are plenty of drugs that end up not catching on or working ($1 bill down the drain).

You can kind of see it now. Pharma companies aren't really focusing on AIDS too much because, Hell, the government will just try to take it away and make the company eat millions of dollars of losses, so it is much better to make drugs like Viagra and hair loss pills, because no one is taking that away.

If I owned a pharma company, I wouldn't waste my time with AIDS either. Let some other sucker do the work, and then have all that research cost get wasted because the government thinks that your patent rights don't matter.

[David Floyd]

So only bums get caught outside on a cold winter's day?

I never said that - the bum comment was simply an obvious hypothetical from your example. What you said is that I must give shelter, food, and clothing to people
I don't know. This is obviously dangerous, not to mention a gross violation of my rights.

Why don't we just shoot all the homeless since they may steal from the richer people in society?

How about not, but the good news is you've touched on what the right to life actually means! Your right to life doesn't mean I have to take every possible measure to prevent your death. It simply means I can't kill you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If I have to pay for it for other people, and have no choice in the matter, absolutely.

You do/did have a choice in the matter. You voted (or at least I hope you did).

[Ben Kenobi]

must give shelter, food, and clothing to people

Your right to life doesn't mean I have to take every possible measure to prevent your death. It simply means I can't kill you.

Good. Precisely the point that I hoped for. What cost is it to you to provide food and shelter for someone out in the cold who comes to your door asking for help?

Minimal. You touched on the big question, does the right to life imply a standard to basic care or does it mean the right to not be killed? I would argue that the right to life implies basic care, food and shelter alongside the right not to be killed. In this, a small loss of property realises a very great benefit in sustaining a person's life.

Flip the situation around, DFloyd. Suppose you were outside in the cold, seeking shelter? How would you want to be done by?

[David Floyd]

Imran,

You do/did have a choice in the matter. You voted (or at least I hope you did).

That's pretty silly. If a dictator were elected, who used the military to eliminate freedom, etc., etc., would it be my choice just because I voted against him?

obiwan,

Minimal. You touched on the big question, does the right to life imply a standard to basic care or does it mean the right to not be killed? I would argue that the right to life implies basic care, food and shelter alongside the right not to be killed. In this, a small loss of property realises a very great benefit in sustaining a person's life.

Why would the right to life imply any such thing? First of all, if you grant the right to property, and also grant that my right to life can't violate your right to property, and vice versa, that position is indefensible.

Secondly, the phrase "right to life" simply states that you have a right to your own life. Would you argue that the right to property says that one MUST own property? Hopefully not - that would be a silly argument. All the right to property means is that you have the right to any property you can legitimately (morally) acquire. Similarly, the right to life simply means you have the right to your own life, not that you have the right to prolong your life at the expense of another.

And the level of expense doesn't matter. Drawing those lines are totally arbitrary, and are a personal determination one must make for themselves.

[David Floyd]

Flip the situation around, DFloyd. Suppose you were outside in the cold, seeking shelter? How would you want to be done by?

Relevance?

All you're doing is arguing for the Golden Rule. Yes, maybe it would be nice if everyone lived by it, but there is certainly no imperative written into natural law that one MUST live by the Golden Rule.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's pretty silly. If a dictator were elected, who used the military to eliminate freedom, etc., etc., would it be my choice just because I voted against him?

It wouldn't be YOUR choice, but you DID have a choice in the matter.