By the time you finish reading this column, 10 more people will be infected with HIV. That adds up to 5 million people every year. And despite years of research and billions of dollars, there is no vaccine on the horizon. But that doesn't mean this epidemic can't be curbed.
Last month, the Centers for Disease Control reported that they have developed a combination of pills - tenofovir and emtricitabine - that could fully prevent the reproduction of the HIV virus.
It has already worked in monkeys and human testing is well underway.
This should be good news for people who have been devastated by this pandemic. It has the potential to finally bring this horrible disease under control. However, for some, this potentially life-saving treatment is being met with a controversy that has health experts and community leaders worried. They fear that if it's possible to prevent HIV/AIDS infection, then people will have an excuse to engage in risky sexual behavior by taking away the inherent danger we were all taught in health class.
This bias could be detrimental to the further development of a breakthrough that could potentially save millions of lives. And because of what? It'll give people more freedom to have sex without the threat of disease? Such a belief is an insult to the millions who have died of this horrible disease. In Africa alone, AIDS has left 9 million children orphaned.
And without pushing advancements like this, another 9 million all over the world could face the same fate.
I remember the message they gave me in sex education back in high school. It was always “Don't have sex until marriage” and “Having sex can lead to unwanted pregnancy and disease.” They showed us disturbing videos and images of people who had AIDS and emphasized how easily the disease could spread. I don't remember them spending much time talking about how condoms can effectively guard against these diseases. The only time they talked about them was when they discussed how often they fail.
It was a lecture based on fear and if they didn't want us to have sex, they took the logical route. It's no secret that if you're afraid to do something, then chances are you'll think twice about it. The ultimate scare tactic is death, and AIDS fills this role perfectly. But now with breakthroughs like this new drug combination, a day may come when health teachers won't be able to say that sex can kill you. What will that do to the youth of America?
According to the Centers for Disease Control, America's adolescents are having less sex now than they were in the mid-70s, before AIDS came along. Back then, 51 percent of America's youth were sexually active. Now that number is down to 47 percent. In the past 30 years, youth in general has become less deviant. The divorce rate has leveled off, crime has dropped and the teen pregnancy rate has fallen. Condom use is up significantly. So what will happen to these statistics if AIDS is taken out of the equation?
Realistically speaking, living in a world without AIDS could indeed increase the level of sexual activity among people. If teachers can't threaten us with death by disease, how else are they going to scare us? Pregnancy alone isn't enough, and diseases like herpes don't kill like AIDS. But you must look at it in terms of context. Is saving millions of lives worth people having more sex?
This new breakthrough is still in the future. Health experts are only at the testing phase and issues over distribution haven't even begun. In addition, the treatment is pretty expensive. The full combination drug is currently costs $650 for a months supplies, which is significantly greater than the price of a condom. And if you happen to already be infected, there really isn't much these pills can do for you.
But with hopes for a vaccine distant at best, this could be the weapon that health officials have been looking for. By distributing this preventative treatment in high-risk areas where infection rates are high, such as poor inner-city communities, the epidemic could be slowed significantly. And we shouldn't hold ourselves back just because it could change the sexual landscape of society.
AIDS is a horrible disease that has killed millions. It is not a scare tactic meant to keep kids abstinent or a punishment for choosing to have sex. One day, a scientist may finally synthesize a real cure for this disease, but because of irrational fears over sexual deviance, we may hesitate to use it.
And that hesitation could potentially cost millions of lives. And in the case of death versus sex, is that really a price we want to pay?
|
|
|
