This is a extract from a debate that i was involved in about the issue of giving free aids medication to africa. THe first part was written by Marcia Ashong who was for the motion and i respondede against the motion:
"This house believes we should give unconditional free AIDS medicines to Africa"
To all those who attended the debate earlier this evening, thanks for coming. There was a lot I wanted to say but time did not permit. I have thought about the implications of this particular proposition for many years now and have came to the conclusion that due to Africa's current state of affairs free antiretroviral drugs would be the easiest solution to sustaining life, lives that are so vital to the development of the continent. Now, there are those who will claim that anti-aids drugs do not prevent hiv/aids and I will have to agree BUT who said that providing free health care and access to education need be mutually exclusive?
I voted for the proposition for many reasons but I suppose the most fundamental being that as a human being of African descent I cannot possibly sit aimlessly debating politics while I watch my continents workforce wasted away by this unwanted enemy.
Those who argue that free drugs to Africa is impractical obviously do not know that some countries in Africa have already started offering free health care to its citizens and the failure or success of these programs have been with regards to how they are implemented and not their pure existence. During the debate I was quite amazed at the flawed argument given by my Zimbabwean friend, arguing for the opposition, and using ZIM and Botswana as his ONLY examples, he gave two similar numbers of hiv/aids prevalence in these two countries, with Botswana offering HIV/AIDS medication to its citizens and ZIM not. He argued that because of this offering free medication to Africa is in his words "frankly a waste of money". My Zim friend on the other hand, failed to take into account that while Botswana had given free medication to its citizenry, it failed to combine this with adequate preventative education thereby making the situation worse, so while on one hand you have individuals living longer with the disease because of medication more and more people are contracting the disease because of lack of adequate education. My Zim friend also conveniently left out (perhaps for lack of knowledge) the fact that Uganda is also another country which has offered free antiretroviral drugs to its citizens and this program combined with adequate preventative educational system has seen drastic decreases in the numbers of newly infected and the number of deaths in that country. More recently however, Uganda’s shift in prevention policy away from the former "ABC" process towards a US-backed abstinence only program has been responsible for an increase in risky behaviour, why is this? Well, because the lack of comprehensive sex education and condom promotion are no longer preached in the mainstream, so since the ABSTINENCE program HIV/AIDS rate in Uganda has actually increased but not due to access to free medication. There has been no proven link between giving access to free medication, to the increase in the prevalence of the virus, there has however, been a link to the this and longer life among those already living with the virus.
Why is it important that these people live? Well, because those dying are the working force of their respective countries, they are the mothers and fathers of children and they are the ones that sustain the economies of their countries. When they die children are left orphaned, the very few jobs available are lost, hence, worsening the already burdened economies of these countries.
Those who claim that providing free medication is some sort of ideal (one you that can only be found in a perfect world) are obviously wrong as proven by extremely poor countries who have tried this method. Contrary to popular belief, drug companies are not going to go bankrupt should that happen. The German drug company Boehringer Ingelheim has offered to provide free of charge the anti-retroviral drug neviraphine to countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and so far only two countries have taken the company up on this offer, going to show that some drug companies are willing to cooperate BUT that the lack of political will from some African governments is what makes the notion of the universality of drugs in Africa seem so unattainable. This is what the opposition perhaps got right, (the lack of political will) but they refused to link, how lack of political will of African leaders can translate to their opposition against offering free medication to its citizens. If there is lack of political will then surely the debate should be on finding ways to get these bastards overthrown or perhaps , educating them, BUT not necessarily give up on the whole idea of saving lives altogether.
The opposition also mentioned lack of adequate infrastructure, citing that before we can offer free medication to Africa there must be reasonable infrastructure. Is he saying that by merely introducing free drugs to Africa somehow our healthcare system is so fragile that it would come crumbling down?? The problem with Africa is not lack of infrastructure, it is rather lack of the resources to run and make use of the infrastructure already in place. How can Uganda and several other countries make it work, Uganda is certainly not on the richest country list.
The opposition also mentioned that there is currently medication developed to stop mother to baby transmission BUT they seem to think it helped their argument. If this medication is available (and it is) then surely it should be given away freely in Africa to stop the vast numbers children being born with HIV/AIDS. Mother to child transmission accounts for the vast majority of children who are infected with HIV. If this can be stopped then WHY NOT? Why the politics? In the U.S alone nearly all mother to child transmission have been eradicated the only instances where they occur is when a mother is unaware that she had the virus. WHY ARE WE DEBATING on this point? Surely there should be no price attached to saving a child who did not ask to be born.
Before we make such broad generalisations of a vast continent we should perhaps do some research and see exactly what impact AIDS is having on a continent already beleaguered with troubles. Surely, there are problems on the continent that seem more hopeless than others but HIV/AIDS should certainly not be one of them. I am from Ghana, West Africa a country which has been able to control this disease and trust me we are not a rich country, on the same token there is not a reason why Kenya, Zim, SA, Malawi and all others cannot follow suit. We can sit and debate all day because after all when we are sick we only need to go to the NHS free of charge and buy drugs for less than 10pounds.
Access to free health care is on the agenda for me because I realise that I don't live in a fair world, the world I live in is where 66% of people living with HIV/AIDS are in Sub-Saharan Africa, the world I live in is where 75% of deaths from AIDS are in Sub-Saharan Africa, this cannot be fair in any estimation. I believe that I have been given the position to be privileged because I am expected to then advocate for those who would otherwise not have a voice, and do you know what I think those people in Africa living with AIDS are telling me to tell you? They are saying "Please find a way to convince these people that we are worth it, please convince them that our lives matter, please convince them that you cannot attach money to our right to live and please convince them to fight for our cause"
Free medication, free education and free access to information are all the various ways we can stop the virus right in its track. It is a formidable force but since when did mankind ever shy away from its challenges? I watched a documentary recently and I was struck by a particular quote, that our generation would be judged for its actions or inactions, you choose.
Thank you!
MY RESPONSE:
"This house believes we should give unconditional free AIDS medicines to Africa"
As The "Zim Friend" I feel almost obliged to respond to this note, I must make it clear that all that my honourable friend has written here is noble and I agree with the spirit behind most of it, I must however bring the discussion into context. The topic of this evening's debate was not discussing whether or not Africans should receive treatment for HIV or AIDS... neither was the opposition lobbying for the abandonment of all those who have been ravaged by the pandemic. The motion was to discuss whether or not we should give UNCONDITIONAL, FREE AIDS treatment to the African continent and it was in that respect that I was respectfully opposed to the motion.
I would like to now step away from the ad hominem argument that ensued after the debate and attempt to argue the reasons why giving the African continent a blank cheque for HIV treatment will not only do more harm than good but is neither realistic nor fair on those who continue to suffer from this pandemic. May I begin by clearly stating that all members of audience and speakers included were in agreement that something must be done to address the issue of HIV and AIDS. May I also state that I come from a family that has borne the scars of the struggle against aids like many of my brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe. AIDS has not discriminated against others and left my family untouched and my heart breaks for every single life lost as a result of this catastrophe. I have buried countless relatives and close friends and when I speak against this motion, I am not speaking against those who need treatment, because if I could have had it my way, my friends and family would have been spared, they would have got the treatment that could have saved their lives, but my role in this case is not to argue from an emotional point of view, but to look at the facts of the matter, and from that make an informed decision about the best way forward.
Let us debate the topic and stick to what was being debated and not use the debate as a cover story in attempt to bring one’s personal opinions to light. The first hurdle that the proposition failed to jump is this: IT COSTS MONEY TO PROVIDE HEALTHCARE. It costs even more to try and provide FREE healthcare to over 20 million people not including the 700 people that have been infected in the hour it has taken me to write this. Make no mistake about this, if it was possible to give free drugs i would happily concede to the proposition and support the motion, but it is not, and the time of having meaningless debate about things that will never has is gone. At the moment the best we can hope for is that drugs are provided at a discount, even this has flaws. Is it right that third world sufferers should get huge discounts, whilst first world sufferers pay the full price? First world nations may even have to pay more, if the drug companies decide to subsidise their “charity sales” by charging the developed countries more. Are the poorer countries not using the sufferers as hostages themselves? Many of the developing nations would in fact make huge long term savings by buying and using preventive medicines to stop mother to child transmission, etc.
Even at the bare minimum price at which the drug companies would break even, the majority of the third world would be unable to afford the drugs. One-off treatments to prevent mother to child transmission and for rape victims, etc. would be expensive enough. The cost prices for complex drug cocktails would still be exorbitant, and way out of the budget of the developing nations, so no matter how much the drug companies sell, they would still be making a loss.
No matter how low the drug companies can sell their product, it is unlikely to ever be cheap enough, as the number of HIV infected people in Africa grows, the strain on the national health spending of governments will become unbearable. These countries are better off pursuing preventative measures and education with the money they have to spend for health. Because of this, they will need to save money in other areas of healthcare, and the greatest savings can still be made by producing cheap, generic medicines.
These points deal with the issue of directing large amount of funding towards a cause that may not yield the best results for the people we are trying to help. It is not only my belief but my deeper understanding that if we give unconditional free aids medication we will have simply wasted resources and not actually the major issues behind the spread of HIV and AIDS. The kind of thinking that leads us to believe that flooding the continent with drugs is utopian at best and lazy at worst. It refuses to confront the fact that in countries like Botswana, which does provide these drugs, AIDS is on the rise in terms of infection and continuing to spread. It also makes the supposition that simply because people live longer having taken the drugs then that is better than dying at an earlier age from the illness. This is fundamentally untrue. There is no known cure for AIDS and these drugs that the proposition was fighting so hard for will only serve to delay the inevitable but also tragically give people the false image that they can go about indulging in reckless behaviour because AIDS is no longer a death sentence.
I would like to now address the issue of UNCONDITIONAL AID. This concept is ridiculous. If we are to expect funding for the fight against the most clinical serial killer in history we cannot just ask for a blank cheque. There must be measures put in place to prevent the abuse of those funds and to ensure that those being targeted are actually getting the funding. The reason why I bring this up is because it is not without precedent that government officials in certain African countries, Zimbabwe being one of them, has in times past abused the “free” antiretroviral drugs as a political tool. Only those belonging to the right political party were granted access to treatment, and even then, there was a hierarchy in place such that government ministers would receive treatment first and anyone not as important would come second or die waiting. To put UNCONDITIONAL and FREE in the same sentence when it comes to aid to make a mockery of the people actually in need of the aid. If we are going to win this fight against aids, we need to bring the discussion back down to earth because the more time we waste discussing whether we should get unconditional free aid the more lives we are sacrificing at the altar of small-mindedness.
I am optimistic that there is a way forward but we must not now rush to come up with solutions that can never be implemented and then blame the west. We owe it not only to the citizens of the African continent to take more time understand the reasons behind why Africa is home to 60% of the world’s HIV infected population, why even though some countries have free drugs their infection rates continue to spiral, why we suppose that there is a bottomless jar of funds just sitting there waiting to be thrown at Africa, why we refuse to discuss the role culture has played in this catastrophe and why we label anyone who rejects the notion that Africa will always need a blank cheque to solve its problems as some unpatriotic and disingenuous.
The global HIV/AIDS epidemic is an unprecedented crisis that requires an unprecedented response. In particular it requires solidarity -- between the healthy and the sick, between rich and poor, and above all, between richer and poorer nations. We have 30 million orphans already. How many more do we have to get, to wake up?"
Kofi Annan
