Stop the Political Posturing: AIDS Is Everybody’s Fight
AIDS is a complex, insidious disease that crosses public-health, moral and political lines. There may be a way to beat this disease. But we clearly will not win the war against AIDS if we fight among ourselves and create unnecessary, dangerous divisions. Instead, we must close ranks and work together.
The disease is spreading rapidly. No longer is its spread limited to a few segments of the population. Now we are all at risk. It is a public-health problem for all Americans. In other words, it is not confined to homosexual/bisexual men or intravenous drug users. Even if it was, it would still represent a public-health crisis that deserves everyone’s attention.
The situation is catastrophic for those who have the disease. There is no cure and no vaccine. Treatment is in its infancy, and appropriate drugs have yet to be convincingly proved to be effective. A diagnosis of AIDS, given present circumstances, may be a death sentence.
I’m the first to admit that I wish we could do more. I am frustrated, as I am sure others are, by the fact that there are no easy answers.
Of course, the critics are quick to argue that the federal government could commit more resources. But this criticism completely ignores two important facts:
First, the Reagan Administration has committed enormous resources, approximately $1.6 billion and millions of hours of research, in the six-year war that we have waged, often in tandem with heroic efforts in the private sector. The actions taken by the government have met the best standards of public-health and medical responsibility, often in the face of virtual hysteria from some quarters.
Second, there is no magic price tag for AIDS. When people ask “Are we spending enough?” my answer is “I don’t know, and neither does anyone else.” The battle cannot be measured solely in terms of money. We are pursuing promising leads, following the best scientific standards.
We currently support the most promising AIDS research projects. The peer-review process on every level of grant awards for research is conducted with a priority for the most promising research areas. We do not fund every proposal that we receive willy-nilly. But we do not ignore promising proposals, either. We are pursuing every worthwhile lead in AIDS research, hoping to find appropriate treatment, a vaccine or a cure.
Currently, our best weapon, and our only weapon, is education. My job is to disseminate information to the public in the manner that best addresses the public-health problems that we confront. To do any less would be irresponsible and immoral. Given the facts that we have, the message that we must disseminate is clear:
- Sexual abstinence is the first and best defense against sexual transmission.
- A mutually faithful, safe, monogamous relationship is a second line of defense.
- If necessary, there are other lines of defense, like the use of condoms. Even though condoms offend some people’s sensitivities, this line of defense cannot be ignored, because not everyone will abstain.
- Intravenous drug use and needle sharing must be eliminated.
- Voluntary testing is to be encouraged for any potential mother or father.
This message opens us to controversy. Some will be upset because our messages only present the facts as we know them. Others will say that the information is not factual (that is, graphic or descriptive) enough. That is the nature of any complex issue. Any resolution will have its supporters and detractors. For purposes of public policy, the standard to follow is to advocate the best public-health measures given the best information that we have.
Of course, we know that when public money is involved, or sexually transmitted diseases are the issue, political viewpoints become a factor. But there is a fine line between looking for the best solutions within the paradigm of a political philosophy and using a public-health crisis for political capital. That line is crossed when we let our reason and compassion take a back seat to our political fortunes.
Politics can be a good process of discovering consensus and working together, or it can be an ugly spectacle of rigidly balkanized opinion. The political process should be used to support and enhance the research and public-information campaigns that are under way. It must not be used to clog or derail the process of finding a vaccine or a cure.
The President has made AIDS “public-health issue No. 1.” This means that it must not be mired in the swamp of political posturing. For that, the President deserves our thanks and support. Like the President, we must respond to this crisis by a confrontation with the facts, and not with each other.
This brings me back to my point at the beginning. We have to close the divisions, stop pointing fingers at each other, keep our frustrations from clouding our vision and use the political system to help us reach a day when AIDs is only a historical curiosity.
AIDS is not, and must not become, an “us versus them” issue. It can only be an “us” issue. We can do more together to fight the disease than we can by foolishly throwing away time and energy fighting among ourselves.
It will take years to develop a vaccine or a cure. Right now our best weapon is communication and education. If we are to ever hope to contain this disease, we must forge open lines of communication, solid bonds of trust and compassionate understanding of the needs of those confronting AIDS. Anything less will unnecessarily impede our work and hasten the spread of the disease.
