The Frontline videos that I watched talked about the beginning of the AIDS and HIV epidemic. It looked at how the lack of knowledge and acceptance lead to the wide spread of HIV. Many leaders did not want to recognize that AIDS and HIV was a problem in their country. One stuck out to me and that was the president of Africa who said that a Virus does not create a syndrom and thus HIV cannot cause AIDS that it was all do to the economic status and how it was a poor gay desease. This outraged me a little. How could someone in charge of so many lives and who can make such a difference be so uneducated that they do not understand what is going on in their country. It is true that not much was known of the desease but enough was known to understand how it spread and how it developed.
I was also impacted by how such a big stigma surrounded AIDS people who had AIDS did not want there family to know that they were sick and thus got picked up for treatment around the corner or on a different street. There is still a little stigma behind it however no anywhere as bad as it used to be. The other thing that struck me was how we could have a "Cure" but not be able to get it to everyone because they could not afford the drugs. It became the rich mans cure and that to me is wrong. Yes it is a problem in our economic that if you cannot afford it you may not get the treatment you need however i do not agree with it. It also go to me that we know that AZT can help stop the transfer of AIDS from mother to child during child birth however it was ban in Africa because the president thought that it was to toxic. I just dont know how someone could have so many resources to be educated however denies the whole situation.
This brings up some questions. Would it be ethical for another country to sit by who has the resources to not help with an epidemic that is on such a global scale. Should the president of the US try and convince other presidents that they need to take action. Should the whole world try and help together or just take care of their own? Should we be allowed to give drugs to those who can afford it and not those who cant . should we try and make it available to all?
These are some interesting questions. Obama's foreign policy is definitely more intentional in providing aid to countries that are poverty-stricken and plagued with disease. In today's age, providing aid and treatment for disease to other nations basically translates to dollars and cents. Should a developed country such as America help fight diseases such as AIDS when we are deep in the pit of a recession? Although we have the resources to help these people, don't we have our own problems to worry about right here in the US without having to provide aid to developing countries? In a perfect world, the United States would provide medical care to each and every person with AIDS across the globe. And I do think they should provide at least some help, but you have to choose your battles. AIDS is not the only problem the world has right now, the United States also has their hand in fighting hunger, providing clean water, and preventing violence in other nations. Although the United States could provide more medical care to people with AIDS, they aren't obligated to, but they are obligated to do something. As far as the whole world coming together to help developing nations, there is something called the Development Assistance Committee, which consists of 24 nations, and it provides most assistance to poverty-stricken nations. So in a general sense, the world is coming together to provide aid to the poor nations, although I'm not sure how much of this goes to fighting the AIDS epidemic. I think there should be a balance between each nation fending for themselves, and the whole world coming together to help. Certainly, I think the United States should put their own wellbeing above the wellbeing of all other nations. I definitely agree that we should try to make drugs available to all, but you have to realize what you're sacrificing when you do so. If it is not practical to provide health care to everyone (which it usually isn't), you should make the drugs available to those who can afford it. This way, the profit can be used to provide health care to more individuals, and a larger number will receive treatment.
The Frontline videos that I watched talked about the beginning of the AIDS and HIV epidemic. It looked at how the lack of knowledge and acceptance lead to the wide spread of HIV. Many leaders did not want to recognize that AIDS and HIV was a problem in their country. One stuck out to me and that was the president of Africa who said that a Virus does not create a syndrom and thus HIV cannot cause AIDS that it was all do to the economic status and how it was a poor gay desease. This outraged me a little. How could someone in charge of so many lives and who can make such a difference be so uneducated that they do not understand what is going on in their country. It is true that not much was known of the desease but enough was known to understand how it spread and how it developed.
ReplyDeleteI was also impacted by how such a big stigma surrounded AIDS people who had AIDS did not want there family to know that they were sick and thus got picked up for treatment around the corner or on a different street. There is still a little stigma behind it however no anywhere as bad as it used to be. The other thing that struck me was how we could have a "Cure" but not be able to get it to everyone because they could not afford the drugs. It became the rich mans cure and that to me is wrong. Yes it is a problem in our economic that if you cannot afford it you may not get the treatment you need however i do not agree with it. It also go to me that we know that AZT can help stop the transfer of AIDS from mother to child during child birth however it was ban in Africa because the president thought that it was to toxic. I just dont know how someone could have so many resources to be educated however denies the whole situation.
This brings up some questions. Would it be ethical for another country to sit by who has the resources to not help with an epidemic that is on such a global scale. Should the president of the US try and convince other presidents that they need to take action. Should the whole world try and help together or just take care of their own? Should we be allowed to give drugs to those who can afford it and not those who cant . should we try and make it available to all?
These are some interesting questions. Obama's foreign policy is definitely more intentional in providing aid to countries that are poverty-stricken and plagued with disease. In today's age, providing aid and treatment for disease to other nations basically translates to dollars and cents. Should a developed country such as America help fight diseases such as AIDS when we are deep in the pit of a recession? Although we have the resources to help these people, don't we have our own problems to worry about right here in the US without having to provide aid to developing countries? In a perfect world, the United States would provide medical care to each and every person with AIDS across the globe. And I do think they should provide at least some help, but you have to choose your battles. AIDS is not the only problem the world has right now, the United States also has their hand in fighting hunger, providing clean water, and preventing violence in other nations. Although the United States could provide more medical care to people with AIDS, they aren't obligated to, but they are obligated to do something. As far as the whole world coming together to help developing nations, there is something called the Development Assistance Committee, which consists of 24 nations, and it provides most assistance to poverty-stricken nations. So in a general sense, the world is coming together to provide aid to the poor nations, although I'm not sure how much of this goes to fighting the AIDS epidemic. I think there should be a balance between each nation fending for themselves, and the whole world coming together to help. Certainly, I think the United States should put their own wellbeing above the wellbeing of all other nations.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that we should try to make drugs available to all, but you have to realize what you're sacrificing when you do so. If it is not practical to provide health care to everyone (which it usually isn't), you should make the drugs available to those who can afford it. This way, the profit can be used to provide health care to more individuals, and a larger number will receive treatment.