Listening to SAFM this morning, I was alerted to the advert below, showing in the most stunningly visual and moving manner that those who question(ed) the link between HIV and AIDS and the potential benefits of anti-retroviral treatment have a lot to answer for. Wonder what former President Thabo Mbeki would make of it.
Writing to then leader of the opposition, Tony Leon, Mbeki said the following in 2000:
In your letter to me of June 19, you make the extraordinary statement that AZT boosts the immune system. Not even the manufacturer of this drug makes this profoundly unscientific claim. The reality is the precise opposite of what you say, this being that AZT is immuno-suppressive. Contrary to the claims you make in promotion of AZT, all responsible medical authorities repeatedly issue serious warnings about the toxicity of antiretroviral drugs, which include AZT.
On 28 October 1999, Mbeki told the members of the National Council of Provinces:
Two matters in this regard [the demand to make AZT available in the public health service] have been brought to our attention. One of these is that there are legal cases pending in this country, the United Kingdom and the United States against AZT on the basis that this drug is harmful to health. [This claim was untrue.] There also exists a large volume of scientific literature alleging that, among other things, the toxicity of this drug is such that it is in fact a danger to health. These are matters of great concern to the Government as it would be irresponsible for us not to heed the dire warnings which medical researchers have been making. I have therefore asked the Minister of Health, as a matter of urgency, to go into all these matters so that, to the extent that is possible, we ourselves, including our country’s medical authorities, are certain of where the truth lies.
And of course the later Minister of Health also had rather dangerous and bizarre views on the matter. Dr Tshabalala-Msimang, launching an anti-TB campaign on 15 March 2003 said the following:
In my heart I believe it is not right to hand them [AZT and other ARV drugs] out to my people.
The late Peter Mokaba, who died tragically under the influence of this denialism told The Star the following on 4 April 2002:
We have seen colonization, we have seen imperialism, we have seen apartheid … and all of them used against us as a people. [Africans have] won their liberation and now they are fighting another war and they are being psychologically terrorised once more because people want to sell [ARV drugs] and make profits. And there is no benefit in those products. The only thing that can really happen is that once you touch the antiretrovirals you can go one way.
This is the story behind the advert.
° What Would Mbeki say.
I posted the Selina post on my blog (fully credited). Please let me know if it is OK – if not I’ll remove it.
http://bbbee.typepad.com/paul_janisch/2010/07/constitutionally-speaking-pierre-de-vos.html
I posted the Selinah post on my blog (fully credited). Please let me know if it is OK – if not I’ll remove it.
http://bbbee.typepad.com/paul_janisch/2010/07/constitutionally-speaking-pierre-de-vos.html
I have often wondered whether the “denialists” in Mbeki Administration felt that they had no obligation to extend state assistance to people who were HIV positive and / or had full blown AIDS. Could it be that they simply lacked the political courage to take a bold stance predicated on the notion that HIV / AIDS was (is) a self infliced problem arising from irresponsible personal behaviour.
It can be argued that it is unfair to burden state medical services (and private medical aid schemes) with the cost of providing expensive care where the vast majority of those afflicetd contracted a medical condition because they took unacceptable personal risks.
In the context of the broad community are HIV / AIDS sufferers receiving undue preference in the manner which they are being cared for. Is the amount being spent to deal with this particular health issue fairly balanced against other societal woes.
It’s not only what Mbeki would say (he won’t say anything), but what will Mandela say? Also nothing. Healthy enough to be shaking hands with the world, but not healthy enough to speak up on important issues.
“Outcomes-Based Education to be scrapped ”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article533312.ece/Outcomes-Based-Education-to-be-scrapped
What would Prof Asmal say?
Anton Kleinschmidt, you say: “It can be argued that it is unfair to burden state medical services (and private medical aid schemes) with the cost of providing expensive care where the vast majority of those afflicetd contracted a medical condition because they took unacceptable personal risks.”
Really? I must say I profoundly disagree with this approach and think it is a rather unfortunate view. Then it can also be argued that it is unfair for the state or private medical aid schemes to carry the cost of providing expensive care for people who negligently get injured in car accidents or people who take risks with knives and cut off their fingers preparing food, or anyone who gets a heart disease because they eat too much meat. If you cause an accident and lie bleeing next to the side of the road, well, just bleed to death because it would be “unfair” to spend money to save your life. If you get drunk and start a fight and get stabbed, well let us just let you bleed to death because you were looking for that knife in your back. If you eat a lot of meat and drink a lot of beer and have a hgeart attack, well die sucker, because you asked for it! People – ALL people – sometimes act in ways that are less than perfect and take risks. As a society we accept that and care for those who are harmed because of it. But somehow because sex is involved people want to make an exception for HIV. It seems to me illogical and heartless and based on a very narrow and religiously inspired moralistic view of life in which sex is the touchstone of morality (and not whether somebody lives or dies, go hungry, is cold and thirsty, is abused etc).
The Mbeki/Mokaba/Msimang point of departure [for their views] has not been fathomed yet. It’s from somewhere deep inside the centre of Africanism – and it spews out from time to time like a volcanoe. But where it’s really from has not been honestly spelled out yet.
But we know Zuma doesn’t suffer from that problem.
I suspect the real reason for Mbeki’s “denialism” may be more cynical – and sinister than one may imagine – something on the lines of
-The state could not afford the cost of providing ARV’s and tending for the very sick HIV patients (Trevor Manuel said as much more than once)
-The majority of those that were afflicted with HIV were non-productive and therefore “expendable’
-Mbeki was obsessed with race and had a major problem with the fact that black people were contracting HIV and aids in numbers disporportionate to the demographics of the world and the country.
Mbeki was an Economist and Economics is all about the apllication and allocation of scarce resources to meet unlimited needs and wants – to Pierre’s point in response to Anton, the issues become a bit less clear-cut when the state has to choose between either 10 heart transplants for patients that will die next month without them or 100 heart operations that will vastly improve the quality of life for patients that are very sick but not termninally ill.
As far as Peter Mokaba is concerned, many will find it difficult to sympathise with his early demise – he was kind of almost nominating himself for a Darwin award.
Mbeki was also a politician given to political sophistry and BS – his statement that AZT is toxic is quite true – MOST compounds taken in excess are toxic, including WATER (yep -you can die from drinking too much water).
However, to abstain from drinking any water in order to prevent death by over-consumption might not be a great idea.
At the time economists quite convincingly showed that providing treatment would save the state money. Not providing treatment causes more hospitalisations, more opportunistic infections, more job losses, more family structures to be messed up, etc. The economic excuse was used, but it was invalid.
Also, the notion that people are simply being irresponsible by having risky sex shows very little awareness for the realities faced by many South Africans in relation to gender roles, gender-based violence and the lack of economic independence for many women.
That said, even if someone was knowingly taken risks and had no social pressures pushing them into such risk behaviour, i would argue that the state would still have a responsibility to treat that person. The alternative is simply inhuman.
This is the latest truth according to Hellen Zille with regards to the toilet saga:
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Zille-Truth-behind-toilet-saga-20100705
Makes for interesting reading if what she says is true.
Pierre, does this change your view of the whole matter?
I tend to agree with her on the score of the independance of the Human Rights Commission.
@Max
Agreed – I did not express myself well – what I was trying to put across is the possible thinking – right or wrong – behind Mbeki’s statements and actions.
Hence my reference to political sophistry.
If our government made decisions based on sound Economic criteria rather than political and other considerations, we would never have had an arms deal.
@ Pierre……lets look at the three examples you use.
In any modern society it is almost impossible to survive without some reliance on vehicular transport for almost all activities outside of the home. Many accident victims are not negligent. I simply cannot see any valid argument for comparing this with unsafe sex.
Eating is also an activity which simply cannot be avoided and the preparation of food involves the use of sharp instruments. Where is the connection with unsafe sex.
If you drink too much and get stabbed in a fight or eat / drink unwisely or smoke and suffer from poor health as a result, then you should accept any misfortune which may befall you. Like unsafe sex these are all high risk life CHOICES and I would have no problem with a tough line in circumstances such as these. My high cholestrol is MY problem and I have given up drinking and smoking because they were damaging my health. How could this ever become someone else’s responsibility
My viewpoint is most emphatically not based on a “religiously inspired moralistic view of life” as I have no time for organised religion or its dogma. Maybe the human race would take a positive step up the evolutionary ladder if we moved away from the notion that the state or society at large must save us from our own stupidity. No matter how you slice the cake, irresponsible sexual behaviou is stupid. If the state or medical aids want to pander to stupidity I would rather that they do not use my money.
In fact I will nail my colours unequivocally to the mast.
I f had could have my way I would refuse to allow my money to be used to treat people who become HIV positive because they practiced unsafe sex. I would have no problem if this money is used to house, feed and educate AIDS orhans. These unfortunate children are left to struggle for survival because society does not take a tougher line as regards the stupid sexual behaviour of their dead parents. You tell me which is worse…..sexually promiscuous HIV / AIDS parents or the resultant AIDS orphans.
@ Deloris……you beat me to it. Drat!
“Some Chapter Nine institutions allow themselves to be abused and, unfortunately, the SA Human Rights Commission is one of them,”
Tik?
Eish!
anton kleinschmidt: I will take it that you would not want your money spent on drunk drivers involved in accidents, smokers with cancer of the lungs, drinkers with liver problems. What about drivers involved in accidents who have no driving licence?
By The way do you believe STD’s should be treated by the state?
How do you determine if someone was reckless in their sexual life. If one is raped what happens? What happens to the spouse that is HIV positive because a partner cheating? Did they indulge in unsafe acts.
Thomas says:
July 5, 2010 at 15:45 pm
You are being very harsh in response to Anton who rather generously says “I would have no problem if this money is used to house, feed and educate AIDS orhans”.
Here’s the thing, to have orphans the parents have to be dead.
And the way to do that is to stop state sponsored medication.
Get it?
@anton kleinschmidt
you clearly live in a dream world… wake up!
@ Thomas…….you are correct about my attitude towards drunken drivers, smokers, drinkers and unlicenced drivers. I was incensed recently when I witnessed an innocent driver on his way to work at 6am being forced to wait for treatment for nearly an hour in great agony whilst paramedics treated the blind drunk driver who caused the accident because his injuries were worse. The driver was not only drunk he was not strapped in.
Depends on whether or not STDs are a result of reckless sexual behaviour.
How is a rape victim or cheated partner guilty of unsafe (reckless) sexual behaviour.
The real problem is that so many people seem to be unable to differentiate bewteen responsible and irresponsible behaviour
@ George…no argument.
I dream of a world where we all take absolute responsibility for our behaviour. The awful part is in fact waking up and finding that we live in a world where anything goes.
Have a look at this site which is one of many with a very distressing message.
http://www.avert.org/aidsorphans.htm
As you will see, in 2007 the estimated number of AIDS orphans was 1400000 or 49% of all orphans in South Africa. I have not tried to validate these numbers but the message is clear. This has probably grown dramatically since then and it is a horifying situation.
I think I have “got it” Maggs when I say that the humane approach to this problem is to care for these orphans rather than pander to the sexual hooliganism of the parents. We have a problem which requires some tough love and it is time to send out a message that if you choose to indulge yourself you are on your own.
In any event there is simply no way that the state can treat all those who are HIV positive let alone look after the resultant orphans.
Enough already, Anton. Tonight, I should like to dream of a world totally devoid of humans. And to not wake up in the morning.
Clara says:
July 5, 2010 at 19:51 pm
“Tonight, I should like to dream of a world totally devoid of humans.”
Poor Brett, he’s gonna be all by his lonesome!
anton,
so what you’re saying is:
let those dastardly guilty HIV/AIDS patients die and once they’re dead and gone we, as a society will see after their, now, parentless children’s every need
besides the harrowing moral implications of your self-righteous argument, i wonder whether you have considered the practical implications of discerning between “the guilty” & “the innocent”
etienne…
No that is not what I am saying
What I am trying to say is that we need to change tack on the manner in which we deal with HIV / AIDS.
Our first priority should be to deal effectively with the innocent victims of the pandemic in the form of the AIDS orphans. I have not suggested that we wait until all the AIDS sufferers die and we have even more orphans before we tackle this problem. It needs to be dealt with now as a first priority
Our second priority is to try and change a mindset which says that if I get into trouble as a result of my inappropriate behaviour then the State and Civil Society will help me. If we continue to create the impression that their is no personal penalty for bad behaviour then the bad behaviour will simply continue with crippling national cost and MORAL implications. I am comfortable with my self righteous stance that reckless unsafe sex is inappropriate behaviour. I respect your right to feel otherwise
By the way, most of the solutions to the worlds great problems have harrowing moral implications. People like us will still be arguing about the issues in 10 years time and the situation will have deteriorated because nobody is prepared to challenge perceived wisdom
anton,
the logic is simple:
first patients die, then only do their children become orphans…that is when the real tragedy starts
so, to counteract this vicious cycle, we treat patients (we know it works), they convalesce, they remain parents, we don’t have orphans
in the meantime, we educate, educate, educate: for risk-averse lifestyles, a better rights regime for powerless woman, and very importantly, less bigoted attitudes towards patients
if we had only started doing this ten years ago, there would be significantly fewer orphans today
it makes economical sense, but, even better, it makes moral sense
the good news though, is that we are turning the tide
(precisely because we have at last found moral compass on the issue)
Anton, lets just gas chamber the reckless immoral fuckers as and when they test positive…
Etienne……..
How do we deal with the 1400000 plus million orphans who already exist given that resources are finite and shrinking. I am with you 100% on the educate , educate , educate but the message has to be conveyed with far greater impact and effect then is presently the case.
Hugh……..
Very erudite contribution delivered with such personal courage from the anonymous safety of your keyboard.
@ anton,
“Johannesburg — South Africa’s HIV/AIDS epidemic may finally be slowing, according to a new study which found a 35 percent decline in the rate of new HIV infections between 2002 and 2008. …
The decline in incidence among young women appears to correspond with significant changes in their behaviour relating to condom use and HIV testing. In 2008, 73 percent of young women reported using a condom at last sex compared to 46 percent in 2002, and more than half had tested for HIV compared with only 13 percent six years earlier.”
http://allafrica.com/stories/201006211393.html
I commend you, Anton for your candid, brave and obviously unpalatable (to many) contributions here. It seems as if some of the responders are deliberately misinterpreting what you are saying, which is, in many respects, eminently reasonable. As I see it, many people will not object to an element of cross-subsidization where the better-off assist the less fortunate. What is needed concomitantly with this is an element of balance – a quid pro quo if you like. In other words, in return for my spending my hard-earned pay on your wellbeing, you try and moderate your reckless lifestyle excesses – sexual or otherwise so as to mitigate the monetary outlay required of me.
The problem however is compounded by the smug and self-righteous do-gooders like Pierre whose remedies almost without exception involve spending or wasting someone else’s money.
Thanks Graham
But [and I'm totally under correction] apparently there is another harrowing Aids/ARV story out there which might to a certain extent vindicate Mbeki on ARV : Something about the condition [ found in Uganda or somewhere] of the children born from hiv mothers treated with arv during pregnancy….
Maybe someone knows more about it than me……
@ Henri
If the ARV can extend life expectancy by 12 to 15yrs average and kids born from these mothers have a minimal condition that allows them to lead a normal life then it does not matter. Many live with conditions such as Asthma, Eczema, diabetes etc and are having a good life.