CBC is reporting that experts on AIDS are suggesting reducing the amount spent on combating the disease directly and instead focusing on external, indirect causes, such as cleaner water and better sanitation. AIDS activists counter by saying that progress will be lost.
Balance is the key in this issue. Money must go to prevention, education, treatment, and research of AIDS. However, if a large part could be solved by increasing the quality of life, then the money should go there--especially since an increased quality of life would also decrease other problems like malnutrition and the spread of malaria.
Alas, this argument works for any disease. If we all ate better, exercised more, drank more water, and controlled our stress levels, surely the cases of heart disease, stroke, and cancer would go down. But instead, we prefer to deal with a problem only when it's too late and funnel millions (billions?) of dollars in cures, when prevention would cost a fraction of that amount.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment