Gann, Dues Bitterly Paid, Gains Moral Clout on AIDS

Whatever in the world did the fates intend by infecting Paul Gann with AIDS?

Was it to show us all that this terrible disease may strike anyone, even a model of decency such as he?

Perhaps. But, if so, it’s a lesson that most of us did not need. Few doubt anymore that AIDS is a threat to everyone.

But there could have been another purpose involved. By infecting this man of popular causes, who is neither a homosexual nor a drug user, the fates have given him a moral authority over this issue that no lesser-known person could ever achieve.

In other words, this 74-year-old man with the air of sexual innocence still about him has nevertheless paid the terrible dues, contracting the disease from blood transfusions. Whether we heed him or not, he has a special right now to tell us what to think of AIDS.

And his basic message seems to be that those who would protect victims by assuring their privacy are dead wrong. Victims of acquired immune deficiency syndrome must be identified through testing and disclosure so that others can be saved. Indeed, Gann says, victims have a duty to others that requires that their condition be disclosed.

During his news conference on Tuesday, Gann described his own wonderings about whether or not to tell his dentist of his infection. Eventually, of course, he decided to tell him. “I have no right to think only of myself and risk that man’s life to make my remaining time a little easier.”

Furthermore, he says, others have a right to protect themselves from AIDS victims however they will. According to Gann, if all AIDS victims were ordered off to an isolated island, he would unhesitatingly pack up and go.

But there is another side to his message as well. While declaring that non-victims have a right to combat AIDS much as they see fit, he made clear that his own life and behavior will challenge the need for draconian rules.

Rather than seclude himself because of possible (and perhaps even likely) rejections, Gann promises to continue the public life that has engaged him so thoroughly since 1978, when he and the late Howard Jarvis successfully co-authored Proposition 13.

One can see him entering a room as he always has, sticking out his hand for a handshake, and drawing close to others for the friendly conversation that he enjoys. Will they draw back, silently declaring that he has become something loathsome because of AIDS?

Probably not. And as they stand there making conversation, each of his companions will be learning that victims of AIDS are still fully human and are worthy of help.

Thus the more he travels and continues his appearances, the more Gann will help generate the sympathies and compassions that all AIDS victims need.

At the moment, there’s no shortage of causes for Gann to take on, even without his new effort to encourage more testing and reporting of AIDS. He said, for instance, that he will be campaigning to protect Proposition 4, the state government spending limit that he sponsored and that voters approved back in 1979.

Aware of efforts by California Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig to redraw the spending limit, Gann indicated at his news conference that he is working on a proposal to make Proposition 4 more secure.

Although he looks terribly frail, Gann says that he has been eating well lately and no longer suffers from the depression that engulfed him last month when he learned of his disease. Nevertheless, the anger and frustration that he felt occasionally flash forth.

At his news conference, for instance, he said that he vehemently supports the death penalty for any person who knowingly gives AIDS-tainted blood to a blood bank.

But, as with his reaction to the disease, he also said that he had already forgiven whoever it was who gave the AIDS-tainted blood to him.

Whether Gann’s message on AIDS will have any immediate effect is impossible to say. Although he hopes that other victims will see their duty as he does and join him in seeking more testing and disclosure, it seems doubtful that they will. Since many are gays, they undoubtedly see more risks in exposure than does Gann.

As a result, gays, civil libertarians and others probably will continue to oppose widespread AIDS testing and disclosure. And the political struggle over the disease will continue on the same ground as before.

But the longer-term effects of his action could be immense. Although Gann himself says that he plans no initiative campaign, and is not endorsing a second AIDS-control initiative by supporters of Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., the entire issue could wind up on the ballot nonetheless.

If that happens, the words and actions of this man of the people, Paul Gann, could be all that some tough control measure needs for success.