Full Version: Twenty-Five Years of AIDS Awareness
This year marks a most melancholy anniversary.
Link
To debated:
Do you agree with Newsweek that the response to the initial discovery of AIDS was badly handled by all segments of American society? If so, how? And why? What might have been done better?
Link
QUOTE
. . .it's hard to imagine that the national response to the emergence of AIDS ranged from indifference to hostility. But that's exactly what happened when gay men in 1981 began dying of a strange array of opportunistic infections.
. . .
Fear can mobilize, but it can also paralyze—which is what AIDS did when it first appeared. And no one—not the government, not the media, not the gay community itself—reacted fast enough to head off disaster. In the fiscally and socially conservative climate of Reagan's America, politicians were loath to fund research into a new pathogen that was killing mostly gay men and intravenous drug users.
. . .
Fear can mobilize, but it can also paralyze—which is what AIDS did when it first appeared. And no one—not the government, not the media, not the gay community itself—reacted fast enough to head off disaster. In the fiscally and socially conservative climate of Reagan's America, politicians were loath to fund research into a new pathogen that was killing mostly gay men and intravenous drug users.
To debated:
Do you agree with Newsweek that the response to the initial discovery of AIDS was badly handled by all segments of American society? If so, how? And why? What might have been done better?
These are tough questions. Most folks around here were quite young in the early 1980s when the "non-response" of the government was taking place.
Do you agree with Newsweek that the response to the initial discovery of AIDS was badly handled by all segments of American society?
I believe it was handled badly, but within the context of the times what more was to be expected?
HIV/AIDS is considered an epidemic and yet is not the leading cause of death in the US in any year. Yes, it was the leading cause of death in a particular age bracket for a few years, but no longer.
What results were to be expected? Major government funding? The disease was poorly understood for years. Treatments do not spring up overnight.
Over 500,000 Americans have died from AIDS in 25 years. Consider that last year, over 70,000 died from diabetes and diabetes contributed to almost 250,000 deaths. This disease has been around since ancient times and hasn't been cured. Should we be outraged at the government's "non-response" to diabetes? President Bush has asked for $16.7 billion for AIDS research, treatment and prevention for FY 2007. Meanwhile, federal spending on diabetes research, treatment and prevention is less than $1.5 billion. Congress approved an emergency spending bill with $8 billion in funding for avian flu. There have been no cases in the US (despite ABC's upcoming movie)
Meanwhile:
link
I'm not sure why certain issues (or diseases) get greater exposure than others. I don't know why certain diseases with a much lower cost in human life are viewed as a sin of omission by the government while others go little noticed.
Was the AIDS response a tragedy in the early 1980s? Yes, but it was one of many that have occurred and will continue to occur. The government isn't going to cure or prevent disease in my view.
Do you agree with Newsweek that the response to the initial discovery of AIDS was badly handled by all segments of American society?
I believe it was handled badly, but within the context of the times what more was to be expected?
HIV/AIDS is considered an epidemic and yet is not the leading cause of death in the US in any year. Yes, it was the leading cause of death in a particular age bracket for a few years, but no longer.
What results were to be expected? Major government funding? The disease was poorly understood for years. Treatments do not spring up overnight.
Over 500,000 Americans have died from AIDS in 25 years. Consider that last year, over 70,000 died from diabetes and diabetes contributed to almost 250,000 deaths. This disease has been around since ancient times and hasn't been cured. Should we be outraged at the government's "non-response" to diabetes? President Bush has asked for $16.7 billion for AIDS research, treatment and prevention for FY 2007. Meanwhile, federal spending on diabetes research, treatment and prevention is less than $1.5 billion. Congress approved an emergency spending bill with $8 billion in funding for avian flu. There have been no cases in the US (despite ABC's upcoming movie)
Meanwhile:
QUOTE
We know, for example, that in every 24 hour period, there will be 4100 people diagnosed with diabetes, 230 amputations in people with diabetes, 120 people who enter end-stage kidney disease programs and 55 people who go blind.
All told, there will be nearly 225,000 deaths from diabetes each year. That is the ultimate cost of underfunding research and prevention programs.
All told, there will be nearly 225,000 deaths from diabetes each year. That is the ultimate cost of underfunding research and prevention programs.
link
I'm not sure why certain issues (or diseases) get greater exposure than others. I don't know why certain diseases with a much lower cost in human life are viewed as a sin of omission by the government while others go little noticed.
Was the AIDS response a tragedy in the early 1980s? Yes, but it was one of many that have occurred and will continue to occur. The government isn't going to cure or prevent disease in my view.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ May 8 2006, 12:21 AM) 
This year marks a most melancholy anniversary.
Link
<SNIP>
To debated:
Do you agree with Newsweek that the response to the initial discovery of AIDS was badly handled by all segments of American society? If so, how? And why? What might have been done better?
I will say that I feel the initial response to AIDS could have been handled better by American society. As one who was there and has lost a friend to AIDS, my recollection of that time is rather vivid.
Three factors impacted the AIDS response and overwhelmed most Americans. Those factors were ignorance, fear and stigma.
Ignorance initially as to the cause of the disease and how it was contracted. Once it was determined that the gay community was mostly at risk, ignorance led many to shun gays as never before. All gays were suspect and - as the disease and deaths progressed - people began avoiding gay friends and neighbors and cut themselves off from the gay community. It was a "gay" problem so many initially looked the other way.
Fear was the next step and it was not confined to the gay community. Once it was determined that HIV was passed in bodily fluids - specifically blood - many people began to fear both giving blood and going to the hospital for fear they may receive blood or be exposed to blood. A local radio station ran a PSA advising anyone who had received blood within the last several years should be tested for AIDS. I gave birth in 1982 and - while on the delivery table - my doctor mentioned that I may need blood. I recollect my husband asking him if he could give me his own blood. The thought of receiving blood during that time was more frightening than the possibility of bleeding to death.
The stigma of having AIDS [the term HIV did not appear until later], of knowing someone who had AIDS, of living in a community where someone had AIDS, of working with someone who had AIDS, was absolutely overwhelming. The gay community was fairly quiet and private in many regions during that time and they were suddenly outed by their disease. If one individual became ill, the sexual orientation of all of their friends was put under the community microscope. Many hid their disease - as much to protect their friends as to protect themselves.
The death of Rock Hudson put a familiar face on the disease. His face was one that most everyone had welcomed into their living room at one time or another. AIDS suddenly became personal and the average American could identify with it and feel some aspect of loss in his death. This, more than anything else, put AIDS into everyday conversation, increased awareness and - in doing so - helped dispel myths and misinformation about the disease.
The prior poster responded with regard to the government's response and I agree with his statements. I think the government responded well considering how little was initially known and in comparison to response of other diseases, such as diabetes, as was noted. However, possibly the hue and outcry over AIDS has had a positive impact on the response for future disease, such as the risk of Bird Flu.
What could have been done better? Given the times and our initial limited knowledge about the disease, I'm not sure that anything could have been done better. Much of what went wrong was caused by pure human nature. Ignorance, fear and stigma initially drove the disease underground and delayed public education about AIDS. Instead of fighting to find out how we could control the disease, we fought to avoid it with the hope that it would just run its course and go away.
The article linked above references the book "And The Band Played On". It is an excellent book and I recommend it to anyone wishing to know more about this part of our recent history.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.