
Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
Walking skeletons, stacks of bodies in morgues, mountains of newly turned earth in cemeteries.
According to a recent New York Times article, “At Front Lines, AIDS War is Falling Apart,” this will soon be the reality in most of Africa and other countries like Haiti, Guyana and Cambodia.
For those of us in developed nations, AIDS often seems like a thing of the past; a challenge that we’ve overcome. (However, the reality, here too, is that it’s not. Did you know that every 35 minutes an American woman tests positive for HIV? Women and girls of color—especially black women and girls—bear a disproportionately heavy burden of HIV/AIDS in the United States.)
Globally, HIV/AIDS is still an epidemic of unsettling proportions. There are currently 33 million people infected with HIV/AIDS; 14 million are immuno-compromised enough to need drugs yet fewer than four million are on treatment. Globally, 7,400 people are infected every day.
As the global AIDS crisis persists, there is an increasing shift among donors to focus health initiatives on “cost effective interventions.” For example, under its new Global Health Initiative, the Obama administration has announced plans to shift its focus to mother-and-child health—emphasizing investment in “diseases that cost less to fight, including pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria and fatal birth complications” rather than “expensive” AIDS interventions.
I, like other feminists, have been thrilled to witness more and more attention on global maternal and reproductive health in the past year. However, I can’t help but question the motivations. Is a mathematical “bigger bang for our buck” approach valid when we are considering human lives? Furthermore, human beings—and the diseases that impact them—don’t exist in isolation from one another, or from their societal context. Is it effective to confront health initiatives as if they do? Read the rest of this entry →