Sometimes I doubt the value of freedom of speech. Ethically I’d normally consider it as a basic human right. Each of us owes to the rest of mankind, in order to ensure individual identity, representation, and freedom. But I just read something that made me wonder if some things that would usually be considered basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, are actually rights that people should be earned rather than just be given. And the complication is that, at least with this case, the person who abused his freedom of speech and harmed the greater good, was, in his mind, trying to make a suggestion that would provide positive advice.
This person, a blogger posting to the “UK Coalition,” is suggesting that we apply Darwinian natural selection to those living in and suffering from HIV/AIDS in Africa. He say’s “shouldn't we let people die until only those with a greater resistance to the disease emerge?” He argues that through the current care that is provided to African populations with HIV/AIDS, does not cure them but rather lets them live so that they can continue to spread it “through ignorance.” After this statement he cites the tragic yet true problem that some Africans believe that sleeping with a virgin will cure their HIV/AIDS, which according to a Reuters’ article has vastly increased incidence of rape. This piece of evidence simply shows the additional level of commitment that the world still owes Africa. As mentioned in the Reuters article, simple education programs in Africa appear to have dispelled this belief in younger age groups. What comes through most is that to follow through with this plan of action proposed by the blogger would mean the avoidable death and suffering of millions of Africans. How this blogger thought this fact could be avoided escapes me…
Should we be concerned with the undermining spread of such an unethical argument? Is there any legitimate worry that such dangerous logic will spread enough to undermine the relief effort in anyway? I would answer my own question and say, “probably not,” but still, the very existence of such publicly projected thoughts worries me…
Sites used:
http://www.ukcoalition.org/AIDS-Cure/12538.htm
http://mobile.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/107036097535.htm?_lite_=1&via=lnav
1 comment:
From the article it seems as though the individual proposed this ridiculous solution to the AIDS problem out of ignorance. It is obviously not well thought through, but to disagree with Brody, this twisted logic could easily spread. Perhaps this individual would not be the one to spread it, but someone else with the same ideas and a little bit of power could do it. Although AIDS is much more prominent in Africa it is by no means limited to it. AIDS is a universal problem that needs to be dealt with. The idea proposed in the blog that we allow everyone who is HIV positive to die in order to prevent them from spreading this pandemic makes the generalization that everyone who is HIV positive is out to spread the disease further. This is not the case so it would be completely unethical to prevent individuals, who are living normal lives, from using their antiretrovirals under the pretext that they are spreading the disease so the faster they die the better it is for everyone.
Returning to the issue of freedom of speech, I must agree with Brody, should we all be entitled to it? Freedom of speech has negatively contributed to the AIDS problem, as individuals with some form of authority have claimed to be able to cure AIDS in the most outrageous of ways. These claims cause uneducated people who are easily swayed by news of a cure to stop taking their antiretrovirals. Such “cures” can range from showering with a special showerhead to drinking a special concoction of herbs, or worse, to having sex with a virgin, which only serves to further spread the disease. In order to help the fight against AIDS it is necessary to shut such individuals up. However, how do you do this when it is a president (e.g. Gambian President Yahya Jammeh) making such outrageous claims?
Post a Comment