FREE ESSAY ON AIDS FUNDING..TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE?

AIDS FUNDING..TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE?

Each author explains their views on the AIDS debate; they discuss the importance of AIDS
research, the numbers of AIDS patients and their cost, and benefits of research to other
fields. Freundlich and Fumento agree that it is important to study AIDS, because it is a
threat to young and old alike, opposed to cancer and heart disease being mainly targeted
at older people. But Fumento thinks that AIDS spending should be realistic, not just
tailored to fit the needs of protesters and demanding organizations, simply to keep them
quiet. They also both agree that AIDS is a new and upcoming epidemic that is becoming
more of a problem with each passing year. Each realizes that the disease is no longer
only confined to drug users and homosexuals. Thurman states that, Frequently they are in
poverty and have abusive relationships, and often have mental problems on to of that-the
list goes on and on. So our clients today are much more complicated to treat (Thurman 1).
However, they do not agree on its importance compared to other diseases and medical
problems in the United States. I feel that AIDS is a very important disease to be
worrying about in today's society, because it is hurting all ages not just the older
groups of people.
Fumento makes a point of explaining how heart disease and cancer consume more lives on
average in a year than AIDS ever has. He states that AIDS cases diagnosed would be but a
fourth of all 1993 cancer deaths, heart disease would be even more than that, yet heart
disease funding is only two-thirds of that of AIDS (529). Fumento also points out that
cancer and heart disease pose a far greater health threat than AIDS. Heart disease kills
over 750,000 Americans a year(529). Freundlich, on the other hand, says that AIDS is far
too unstable to be neglected. She states that even though the death count of heart
disease and cancer are very high, they are extremely predictable and have leveled out
year after year because of current medical technology. The death count of AIDS, however,
is almost never the same each year; some years it may be low, and others very high. This
causes researchers to question if they are making decent progress in the AIDS field. At
the rate of which AIDS is spreading, in the next decade alone, doctors will be treating a
million or more people who are already infected with HIV, the disease which leads to
AIDS(Freundlich 534). Thurman says that The rate of AIDS death is decreasing
dramatically, which simply means that we're going to have more sick people.(Thurman 1)
This shows that AIDS is still a problem, and people are going to think that because
people are not dying from AIDS itself, then the problem is over. I think that even though
the death counts of heart disease and cancers are larger, it still effects people that
are coming to the end of an average life span anyway. AIDS on the other hand, is killing
people that still have her or his whole life left to live. I think they shouldn't worry
about how many its killing, but whom it's killing.
Death count is not the only thing to worry about in this issue, but the loss of
researchers from other fields is taken into consideration as well. Let's face it-there
are not enough people qualified to study medicine and disease, or this whole issue would
not be a problem. Fumento explains that the number of scientists and researchers used in
AIDS research is far too large, and to fill that quota researchers are taken from other
fields, like heart disease and cancer, and put them into the AIDS field. This once again
leaves other things short handed, while AIDS gets whatever it needs. Also, he points out
that the ratio of patient cost alone is extremely out of proportion to other diseases.
For example, cancer and heart disease expenditures will be equal to under 5 percent of
patient cost, and AIDS research funding will be about 230 percent greater than patient
costs this year(Fumento 530). This basically means that they are spending a great deal of
unnecessary money on AIDS. Freundlich, on the other hand, says that not only does the
added AIDS research help AIDS patients and technology, but also provides valuable
benefits in public health, epidemiology, and basic science. AIDS research helps us learn
about the body's immune system, which plays an important part in cancer treatment. I
agree with Freundlich here, but the extremely large amount that is spent is not
necessary, and could be toned down a little.
So why not balance the money evenly so everyone gets her or his own equal share? Well,
it's not that simple; first of all, there is not enough money to go around to maintain
all of the current studies in each field. Secondly, Freundlich mentions that William F.
Raub, director or the NIH, says that the money may not go where it will be evenly
distributed if it is re-allocated; the government may put the money to another use
altogether (Freundlich 535). Both Freundlich and Fumento agree that there is not enough
money spent on health care in the first place, and research is becoming more and more
expensive. Thurman, however, says that Congress is doing the best it can to keep money
going to where it is needed most, but with AIDS being only one third in the United
States, it is hard to keep track of what is needed worldwide. (Thurman 1) I feel that
both Freundlich and Fumento are trying to blame government spending on small funding for
disease, but I have to side with Thurman. The government has more to worry about that a
couple of diseases that we know a great deal about and a new one that we are slowly
taking control of. Plus, even if we do get it under control here, it doesn't stop the
rest of the world from battling the epidemic.
All in all, each writer brings up good points defending their argument. AIDS is an
important topic and should not be looked over, but it should not be blown out of
proportion, as Fumento believes. Money, research, and death counts are all very important
subjects to be considered when discussing federal budgeting for medical research.
Scientists should be prepared however, for new and upcoming diseases such as AIDS, so our
society does not have to face another deadly epidemic like we had to do so long ago when
there was not much medical research.
I believe that each author has provided sufficient evidence to pursuade a reader to side
with her or his view, however I feel that Fumento is correct that AIDS research is
slightly out of control and needs to be somewhat tamed. Although Fumento thinks that the
money needs to be spent on research to heart disease and cancer, I feel that heart
disease and cancer should not be so heavily studied as much as we used to. We already
have many new technologies to fight these diseases. I think that diseases such as these,
which come into people during the later years, are just nature's way of renewing life,
just like the savanna fires in Africa. Instead of focusing on keeping the older alive
longer, we should try to keep the younger healthier. Because lets face it, as much as we
want it, people will never live forever. 
Bibliography
Perspectives on Contemporary Issues: Readings Across the Disciplines. 
Fort Worth: Hartcourt, 1997. 528-533. 
Freundlich, Naomi. No, Spending more on AIDS isn't unfair.
Perspectives on Contemporary Issues: Readings Across the Disciplines. 


  
    
      Can`t find essay here? Order custom written term paper. We offer high quality
      and quick writing for only $12.95 per page!
    
  





Archimedes
Archimedes was born in 287 BC in Syracuse, a Greek seaport colony in Sicily. Archimedes'
father was Phidias. He was an astronomer; this is all we know about his father and we
learn this from Archimedes' work, The Sandreckoner. Archimedes was educated in
Alexandria, Egypt. Archimedes' friend, Heracleides, wrote a biography about him, but this
work was lost. Some authors report that he visited Egypt and there invented a tool known
as Archimedes' screw. This is a pump, still used today in parts of the world. It is
likely that, when he was a young man, Archimedes studied with the followers of Euclid.
Many of his ideas seem to correspond with the mathematics developed there. This
speculation is much more certain because he sent his results to Alexandria with personal
messages. He considered Conon of Samos, one of the greatest achieving mathematicians at
Alexandria, both for his abilities as a mathematician and he also respected him as a
close friend. Archimedes spent most of his life in Sicily, near Syracuse except for his
journeys to Alexandria. He never held any public office but he was faithful to his
lifetime of research and experiment. At times, Archimedes became so immersed in his work
that he would forget to eat. He used every surface available to do his work on, including
oil on his skin to ashes from a fire. Many of Archimedes' discoveries were put to the
test during the Roman conquest of Sicily. His mechanical tools and machines were used,
including the legendary catapult which he is credited for making. This was all for the
protection of Syracuse. Despite the use of Archimedes' inventions, Syracuse was captured
during the Second Punic war. A Roman soldier who found him drawing a mathematical diagram
in the sand killed Archimedes. It is said that Archimedes was so preoccupied in his
calculation that he simply said to the intruder, Do not disturb my diagrams. Aside from
the fame Archimedes earned from his work on the Archimedes' screw, he was also famous for
his relationship with the king, Hiero. Hiero often had complicated problems to solve, and
Archimedes solved them causing surprise among the town. The king often challenged
Archimedes. One of Archimedes' quotes is "Give me a place to stand and I will move the
Earth." The king took him up on this challenge and invited him to move a ship that even
all the men in Syracuse. With his knowledge of levers and pulleys, Archimedes was able to
create a machine that could move the ship. Archimedes was far beyond his time. With his
discoveries in mathematics, he was able to predict and imitate