Is it time to consider drastic measures now that AIDS is ravaging sub-Saharan Africa? Or should we just let the disease run its course naturally?

The Aids pandemic is ravaging countries in sub-Saharan Africa, drastically reducing life expectancy in some parts to less than 33 years, a new UN report said yesterday.

The devastating impact of the crisis can be seen most clearly in seven African countries, including Malawi and Mozambique, where babies born in 2002 are not expected to live past 40 years because of the prevalence of HIV. Children in Zambia, where 17 per cent of the population are infected with the virus, are predicted to live just 32 years. The seven countries have, between them, seen an average drop in life expectancy of 13.5 years since 1990, the UN human development report said.

If people with AIDS won't stop spreading it, do more forceful methods need to be employed to protect those who aren't yet infected?

With almost a quarter of its population infected with the virus, Zimbabwe has been the country most dramatically affected. Life expectancy there has plummeted from 57 years in 1990 to 34 in 2002.

In Swaziland, where one in three people between the ages of 15 and 49 are Aids sufferers, life expectancy has dropped by almost 20 years, and in Botswana, where the disease affects 37 per cent of the population, people can expect to live 16 years less now than in 1970.

It's terrible, and AIDS is more deadly than Saddam or Hitler were. Just because the killers kill with a disease rather than a gun doesn't make them any less guilty, does it? Or is ignorance a perfect excuse? At some point doesn't the right of self-defense kick in even against an unwitting murderer?



Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Site Info