August 30, 2005
THE HEART OF THE MATTER
Bush accused of Aids damage to Africa (Jeevan Vasagar, The Guardian, August 30th, 2005)
A senior United Nations official has accused President George Bush of "doing damage to Africa" by cutting funding for condoms, a move which may jeopardise the successful fight against HIV/Aids in Uganda.Stephen Lewis, the UN secretary general's special envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa, said US cuts in funding for condoms and an emphasis on promoting abstinence had contributed to a shortage of condoms in Uganda, one of the few African countries which has succeeded in reducing its infection rate.
"There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by [US policies]," Mr Lewis said yesterday. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."
The condom shortage has developed because both the Ugandan government and the US, which is the main donor for HIV/Aids prevention, have allowed supplies to dwindle, according to an American pressure group, the Centre for Health and Gender Equity (Change).[...]
Campaigners accuse Uganda's first lady, Janet Museveni, of being instrumental in the switch towards a policy of abstinence. Ugandan government officials say that her religious beliefs, stemming from being a born-again Christian, are central to her promotion of the message of abstinence. In one poster campaign, signed by the office of the first lady, the slogan alongside the picture of a smiling young woman says: "She's saving herself for marriage - how about you?"
While Uganda needs between 120m and 150m condoms a year, only 32m have been distributed since last October, Change said in a report published yesterday.[...]
Uganda has had extraordinary success in reducing adult infection rates from 30% in the early 1990s to below 6% last year. This success is largely credited to its president, Yoweri Museveni, who spoke out about what was considered a shameful disease and told people how to combat it.
Got that, everyone? Thanks to President Bush and Uganda’s wacky first couple, Uganda has a condom crisis. It doesn’t seem to have an AIDS crisis anymore, but the condom crisis is a catastrophe.
Sounds to me like they actually have a recycling crisis.
Where are Greenpeace and Oxfam when you really need them?
Posted by: Barry Meislin at August 30, 2005 6:48 AMWouldn't abstinence allieviate the condom crisis?
Posted by: RC at August 30, 2005 7:44 AMAbstinence doesn't work; it's like saying wouldn't peace solve the problem of war.
Posted by: TP at August 30, 2005 8:59 AMTo the contrary, abstinence works perfectly.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 30, 2005 9:07 AMIts like saying Marxism works perfectly; it sounds good, but in reality people are going to continue screwing each other.
Posted by: TP at August 30, 2005 9:48 AMExpecting them to use condoms is an equally far-fetched idea. Are they truly so poor that they cannot afford condoms? I bet they can find the money to buy cigarettes.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 30, 2005 10:10 AMTP: Those who summarily rule out the most obvious and effective method for curbing the disease - which is abstinence - have forfeited the opportunity to pretend the result of such a position is a "crisis."
Meanwhile the phrase is catchy but the analogy flawed: War ain't Sex.
Posted by: John Resnick at August 30, 2005 10:27 AMJohn - Abstinence ain't effective; like I said, it sounds good in theory, but in practice, people have sex, and in many of the more patriarchal areas of Africa, women are the victims of the ignorant philandering of men who spread AIDS.
Robert - If Philip Morris was in the condom business, they'd probably be selling a condom with every pack of cigarettes; right now they arent profitable, and arent available.
Are you guys of the belief that advocating abstinence is the best policy for sexually educating America's youth? Because if you are, I'm not sure its worth even discussing this with you. It just doesn't work.
Posted by: TP at August 30, 2005 10:53 AMIf we haven't even made a substantial effort to educate and supply Africa with condoms, do you think that the message of abstinence would go over any better? For a lot of the Africans, the connection is never made that sex is causing HIV/AIDS.
Posted by: TP at August 30, 2005 10:58 AMTP:
Are you trying to make the rather obvious point that abstinence alone will not eradicate STDs completely or are you saying promoting abstinence (which includes fidelity within committed monogamy)will have no discernible effect and isn't worth the bother because man is an animal that will rut uncontrollably whatever anyone teaches or tells him? If it's the latter, you must think this is very profound.
Posted by: Peter B at August 30, 2005 11:04 AMTP: OK, I guess you're right. Abstinence doesn't work afterall. Whew! AIDS crisis solved. Next issue.
Your position is flawed. Abstinence, by its very definition, works absolutely. That people have convinced themselves they're incapable of adhering to it is another matter entirely. When they DON'T practice abstinence, is when "abstinence doesn't work" because THAT AIN'T ABSTINENCE. And, when compounded with philandering (as you suggest) the cause/effect is magnified.
Our human nature tends to gravitate toward doing things that are potentially harmful (perhaps deadly) to us (see also: smoking, over-eating, excessive alcohol consumption, etc.). Deciding in advance that complete avoidance or cessation of a harmful behavior isn't a valid method for reducing or eliminating the risks associated with participating in the behaviour. It is a disservice to the truth. If there is an obvious best way to combat a disease, should that not be the focus of any attempt to triumph over it?
Posted by: John Resn ick at August 30, 2005 11:12 AMAs David Cohen quite rightly made clear: "To the contrary, abstinence works perfectly."
Now, if one chooses not to abstain (Heaven forbid we should ask anyone to do that!), then obviously "abstinence won't work."
Posted by: Wyck at August 30, 2005 11:14 AMTP:
Ah, now I see what you are saying from that last post. Africans can't make the connection between sex and STDs without the white man's mojo.
Posted by: Peter B at August 30, 2005 11:15 AMSince we are not "just another primate" and we are in control of our actions--when we choose not to be we are going to be subject to the consequences, whether out of ignorance or will. Sorry to impose morality here, TP, but having sex with just anyone because we want to is wrong. NOT having a monogomous sexual relationship increases the risk of contracting them. It's almost like you are saying the African people are too ignorant to understand that. I think, that like Americans, many do understand, but they don't care. It's more important to feel good for a little while than it is to not come home and infect one's entire family.
The U.S. has pumped billions into Africa in HIV/AIDS education, birth control, medicines, etc. to no avail. There may come a point when it becomes necessary to seperate the sick from the healthy in order for them to save their country. The greater good may have to outweigh the will of the individual in this case...
Posted by: Lyndsey at August 30, 2005 11:26 AMUh, TP, did you not read the final paragraph in the excerpt? Let me quote it for you again:
Uganda has had extraordinary success in reducing adult infection rates from 30% in the early 1990s to below 6% last year.So your view is that abstinence doesn't work as a measure to reduce the spread of AIDS despite empirically observed success in Uganda. Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at August 30, 2005 11:56 AM
I suspect that it would be better if "abstinence" programs were instead referred to as "monogamy" programs. It would be quite humorous to see TP and his(?) like protest "Monogamy doesn't work!" since you would have to change his above comment to read "...it sounds good, but in reality people are going to continue screwing as many partners as they can." It's all about branding, as they say, and manuevering your opponent into an indefensible position...
Posted by: b at August 30, 2005 12:13 PMMarxism sounds good in theory? Have you ever read Marx? It sounds infantile in theory.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 30, 2005 12:42 PMTPM: you're right that in the real world people will still have sex even if official policy is to promote abstinence. But you should also realize that people will have sex without condoms even if official policy is that you should always use a condom. The same people who are most likely to be promiscuous in the first place are the least likely to use condoms consistently and correctly. The best a public morality (abstinence) program will do is deter some ordinary people (ordinary women, actually, since it is women who set the parameters) from promiscuity who might otherwise be more active. The public-health question is whether it's better to focus on this, or to try to protect everyone from everyone else, which is what condom promotion tries to do. I would suggest to you that you're better off with option 1, and that this is sound, basic epidemiology. AIDS is a hard disease for a healthy person to catch, which means there's a big difference in risk between high- and low-risk groups. You prevent AIDS from becoming pandemic by preventing its spread from one to the other. That's largely been accomplished already in the developed world: here AIDS is mostly a disease of people who (1) have a lot of partners, or have one partner who is promiscuous and/or an IV drug abuser, and (2) are already immune-compromised, whether by drug abuse, other STDs, or just generally poor health. Now, Africa starts out with poorer nutrition and more disease than the west, so they have one strike against them, but there are still relatively high and low risk groups. There will always be people who are promiscuous no matter what the risk (traditionally, for a man, the risk was getting killed by in irate cuckolded husband -- if that didn't stop us, AIDS won't either) which is probably why Uganda appears to be focusing their efforts on women rather than on men. Dry up the supply of women for the randiest men and you confine the disease to a portion of the population, just as we have done here.
Posted by: joe shropshire at August 30, 2005 12:58 PMMuch of the spread of Aids in Africa is due to truck drivers who frequent prostitutes on the road and then infect their wives/girlfriends when they get home.
This mantra of "education" is downright silly. There isn't a person in America that doesn't know what Aids is or how it is transmitted, yet you still see the high risk individuals ignoring the warnings and acting riskily. There are people who act rationally in their own interest, and people who do not. It has nothing to do with education or intelligence, everything to do with personal character. Look at Andrew Sullivan.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 30, 2005 1:10 PMThe Ugandan plan (called ABC) has worked because it emphasized not just abstinence but faithfulness (not necessarily faith) and condom use, a system of maximum coverage: yes, some folks may choose to abstain, but not all will; some folks will choose to be faithful to a single partner, but not all will; some folks will choose to use a condom, but not all will.
The decline in infection rates over the course of the last 15 years has at least something to do with condom distribution; thus, condom crisis equals potential AIDS crisis. Why risk setbacks in a successful program for the sake of promoting a specific moral agenda?
When did the United States government become the world's only source of condoms?
Posted by: carter at August 30, 2005 3:09 PMCarter: Concurrent with when we became the primary source of global warming.
Posted by: John Resnick at August 30, 2005 4:19 PM I find it funny that the people telling us that
abstinence doesn't work are the same people telling
us that all we have to do is eat less and move more. No sex is easy. Everyone has to eat.....