Dear Mrs Helen Zille,
I refer to your SA Today newsletter of 20 November 2011, “Tackling the new AIDS denialism.”
In closing your article, you reiterate your view and you write:
"Lest there is any misunderstanding, I have said it before and I will say it again: the Democratic Alliance will continue, where we govern, to provide the most advanced, free treatment to everyone who tests positive for HIV/AIDS" (yes, even the Twits quoted above.)
In other words, those who choose not to have unprotected sex with multiple, inter-generational concurrent sexual partners, and stay HIV/AIDS free, are forced to support the treatment of those who get the disease. The moral and prudent people will subsidise the reckless people whose actions lead to what you say “wreaks social devastation.”
Do HIV infected people have some sort of special claim that those who are not infected must pay for their treatment? Don’t uninfected people have a right to keep their incomes and not to pay for those infected? How do the uninfected people fit into what you call a "rights-based society?" I get the sense they have less "rights" than infected people, in this instance.
Which leads me to my next point: as you should well know, “providing [sic] the most advanced, free treatment to everyone who tests positive for HIV/AIDS,” reduces the incentive for people to stay HIV/AIDS-free.
It is analogous to the state offering “the most advanced, free treatment” to anyone who is injured in a car accident while driving under the influence of alcohol. That would have a very predictable outcome, yet no-one seems to question the same logic for HIV/AIDS treatment.
Providing this “free” world-class HIV/AIDS treatment to everyone affected by HIV/AIDS will create moral hazard and result in even more HIV/AIDS infections. A better policy to try and stop HIV/AIDS infections would be to provide the worst type of treatment to only certain people infected with HIV/AIDS.
You continue:
"But I also believe it is fair to require everyone to take a regular HIV test (free) and accept responsibility for preventing risk to others. If they do so, they are entitled to live a stigma-free life as valued contributors and role-models in our society. If they don’t, they must be prepared to face criminal charges. "
What will the criminal charge be for? 1) For not taking free regular HIV tests, or 2) for not preventing risks to others, or 3) both? Please clarify as your position is not clear.
You also haven't touched on the responsibility of the other, initially HIV-uninfected party. I believe your policy will remove a layer of responsibility from this person to do his or her background checks on prospective partner(s), should they believe this legislation is effective. It will result in more nannying by the state, and less responsibility for self.
In closing, note that no publicly provided HIV/AIDS test or treatment can ever be “free,” as you say. To provide HIV tests, nurses will be employed, test centres will be set up and maintained, HIV test kits will be used, and records will be kept and maintained. “Free” treatments will cost even more as they will be more longer-term in nature.
These will all cost the taxpayer real, hard earned money, and can only be described as "expensive."
I fear your policy of providing “free” (read: expensive) HIV treatment and tests will achieve the exact opposite of what you intend. I look forward to hearing from you what the “criminal charges” will be for, though.
:wtf:
