Last week Toronto played host to the 16th International AIDS conference, a biennial summit that brings together HIV professionals, philanthropists, politicians, artists, writers and victims from all walks of life. It was a week of solidarity, hope and action through future thought for the 30, 000 participants representing the close to 40 million living with the infection/disease today and those 25 million who have died as a result of it. The theme for AIDS 06 was “Time to Deliver”, they should have added a “Now” at the end of that…
Two news items relating to the twin weapons of prevention and cure require mention here while at least two G-8 governments require a duo of tight slaps.
First up, courtesy of a great post on Pass the Roti (Thanks, Ennis!) we have details of a Bangladeshi group ‘Durjoy Nari Shangha’ having to close down sex-worker aid and education centers in Dhaka in order to keep in accord with US funding conditions:
The sex workers collective — its name translates roughly as “organization of women who are hard to repress” — had 20 drop-in centers before December, offering sex and literacy education as well as moral support, toilets and a place to wash and rest for up to 5,000 women. It closed them after signing what aid groups call the “prostitution loyalty oath” that requires groups receiving USAID funding to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. The group now has just four centers, geared to children and children’s rights. Bagum said that before the centers closed, the group sold 73,000 condoms a month. That has fallen to 30,000, even though health experts agree that condoms are the best way of stopping the spread of AIDS.[Link]
A PEPFAR spokesperson had this to say:
“Our office has not received information that drop-in centers have closed, or that there has been any interruption in services that target sex workers as a result of our anti-prostitution policy,” she said. “Critics who continue to spread misinformation about (the plan’s) policies are causing fear and confusion.”
USAID HIV/AIDS funding is overseen by the directives outlined in the “United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003”. The act clearly states that:
“No funds made available to carry out this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, may be used to provide assistance to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.” [Link]
Here’s the kicker:
In May 2006, two American judges ruled in two separate cases that this funding restriction violated the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution – the right to free speech – and so could not be applied to the U.S.-based organisations that brought the cases. This probably means that all U.S.-based organisations will be exempted from the clause. However, all overseas groups wishing to receive U.S. Government funding, whether directly or indirectly, must still comply. Numerous non-governmental organisations and public health experts believe that the clause is harmful and should be removed.
I have a generally sunny disposition but I hope the sick geezers who fought to include this clause and its cousins “preach abstinence and being faithful for a third of the total prevention budget” and “no funds for syringe exchange programs anywhere” rot in Mordor.
On the other hand, here in Cuh-nay-da we have a stubborn Prime Minister who chose not to attend the conference at all, even though it took place less than a four hour drive from his official residence. This has been bugging me for days, how does a Prime Minister who has less than stellar popular support in foreign and environmental policy refuse to recognize an international AIDS conference in the one city that didn’t vote a single member of his party into parliament? Stubborn ass or scared of the past? Though tempted to go former I will take the latter. PM Harper would have had to answer some uncomfortable questions about a pledge made by the Canadian government to provide cheap generic drugs for underdeveloped nations and how a single pill has yet to leave the country.
The Access to Medicines Regime was to export generically produced drugs at a lower cost to countries in need. However, manufacture was limited to Canadian generic drug companies. More than two years later Canadian-made generic drugs are having a hard time getting through the red tape. Once on the other side, they find themselves lagging in price value to Indian-made drugs. This coupled with anxieties about trade rules among eligible nations who refuse to identify themselves for compulsory licensing is turning a decent deed into a complete dud. Time to wake up and come to work, Mr. Harper.
An ending quote then, from South African activist Mark Heywood:
“We have the means, so what stops us from acting?” he said. “And what should be done about those in power who refuse to act? These are the most pertinent questions facing the next stage of the AIDS epidemic.” [Link]
Hard to know why Harper would distance himself form this – possibly because the uneasy questions about abstinence vs. protection might have had his conservative popular base once again looking for reassurance that they had chosen the “right” man. Any idea where Ignatieff was during the conference?
Still, a joint study by (of all places) the Univ. of Toronto and a Medical Institute in Chandigarh recently demonstrated that increased condom usage drastically reduced the number of HIV infections in South India. It works – and innocent people (spouses, exploited women) need not suffer even more for actions they are not responsible for. I don’t know how much longer some people are going to keep their heads in the sand.
while i agree that the principle of linking aid to abstinence is heinous – their is a subtle point here that i find that gets trodden under by some social activists.
abstinence has worked very well in uganda. the impact has been dramatic and President Bush’s PEPFAR initiative has been an important driver in this. Stephanie Nolen in the Globe and Mail has covered the conference very well ovr the pat few weeks. Here’s her article from this past Saturday.
i am a huge fan of grassroots movement in driving social change. the reason the abstinence principle worked in uganda is because the people got behind it en masse – virginity is cool and accepted by the masses. i also liked the simplicity of the ABC principle (read the article ). such education is vastly more potent than all the magic bullets that are being chased after in the labs imo.
That being said, the article also goes on to say that the pharma lobby has such a stranglehold on PEPFAR that they’ve successfully kept generics out of the program. one of the lines was particularly poignant, that because the drugs are twice as costly as generics, the program can save only half as many people for the amount of funds they have.
i am totall behind the Gates Foundation because they seem to be stressing the same principles to go after the root causes – grassroots activism, education, drugs to infected mothers.
here’s a relevant excerpt
Hairy_D,
I actually disagree with that pretty strongly. ABC worked well in Uganda, but once they switch to abstinance only (when I was there a year ago the only condom billboard I found was an old one in a rural area) HIV infection rates have come back up quite strongly. Furthermore, it’s not clear if it was actually ever that low – there have some contrary reports arguing that the figures may have been fudged. In any case, I spent a lot of time talking to doctors, nurses and pharmacists about this and I guess I disagree.
There’s actually a ton I’d like to say about this topic, but I’ve got too little time right now.
And I’ll welcome your thoughts on this when you have the time – and I’m pretty sure I speak for a lot of us.
me got to work to. An RFP to kill tonite. 🙂
I agree with you that in principle, without the “B” and the “C”, this will not work. One of the highlights of the Toronto Aids conference was the paraphernalia linked to condoms – basically geared to bring it out into the public and purge the smutty associations from it – i forget the exhibits – but this is another one of those simple ideas that has had great impact either in S America or Africa – would love to hear from others.
Neha, Nice to hear some news from North of the Border for a change.
And as for the case in Uganda: the New York Times reported on the Ugandan case over a year ago and there was more to their campaign than just the “ABC”. There seemed to be a concensus that what really helped (even a little) was the change to publically addressing AIDS and sexual health. Apparently, Uganda used to be quite a closed society (much like India) where nobody talked about sex and people definitly didn’t talk about contraception. Once the government and health societies started pushing the ABC approach, they brought the issue up in the public conscious and people talked about it more than they had previously. It’s likely that a similar approach needs to be taken in India. How can people know what the risks are if nobody even talks about the issues? I don’t know what sort of sex education they have now, but I know that my awareness of sexual health and sexual issues is much greater than that of my cousins who are the same age as me. They’re taught almost nothing at school and the conversations they have with friends are simply not as informed. This in a culture that’s getting more and more promiscuous in its attempt to imitate a western society (at least in larger cities like New Delhi). It’s frustrating to see that there’s a definite change in society but policies don’t change! Perhaps one way to tackle this sort of problem would be a sexual health class in secondary schools though I suspect that parents would revolt and claim that schools were corrupting their innocent children. And this from a country that has not only the most people with AIDS in the world, but where the increase in AIDS cases is growing at an alarming rate.
Sorry for such a long comment, but it’s an issue that really frustrates me. How can you let people DIE in the name of preserving archaic and close-minded beliefs?
I dunno about that last bit, hairy_d. The Ugandan government and people deserve all the credit for acting together in the 90s to save their society from an epidemic. However, their efforts were not limited to abstinence education as they seem to be now. I doubt virginity was as cool as getting infected was uncool.
When I read of things like condom shortages due to increased funding for abstinence-only programs in a country as rare an example in the fight as Uganda, it scares me witless. Preaching abstinence is not even close to being a surefire method of preventing infection.
For one, it doesn’t take into consideration the large numbers of wives who have no choice but to have sex with husbands who may have visited a certain house of ill repute where no condoms were used (probably because PEPFAR wouldn’t fund them!).
Two, abstinence linked with morality is causing more harm than good by making people who use condoms look like sinners where they should actually be praised.
This is absolutely ridiculous. But, what else can we expect from this administration and Congress? This is only increases the need for sane people to actually mobilize and actively participate in the upcoming elections.
I heard this second hand, so forgive me if I’m wrong, but I heard that the bill squared (Gates and Clinton) panel was pretty awesome. They kind of dodged the PEPFAR question, and instead choose to praise it somewhat for what it IS doing (I have my own opinions on that). The also talked about how, when faced with a situation like this, instead of crying over what was bad, it was up to outside forces (like their own organizations) to step in and fill the gaps.
I think it is available on the C-span website