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 medication 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.
Join The Community