AIDS a "manageable condition"?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This morning after community morning prayer I was eating breakfast with a couple of the other brothers. One of them is a doctor who just finished his internship. He was focusing on a speciality of pediatrics.

I noticed in the newspaper, on the front page above the fold there was a picture at a local healthcare office. The headline under the picture started out “Now that AIDs is a manageable condition”.

I pointed this out to the doctor and commented that it was a bad headline. He said no. I said that the line, “manageable condition” was irresponsible. He said it wasn’t, then he said, “Yes AIDS is a manageable condition, like cancer.” That just floored me.

Everyone with AIDS dies of AIDS, everyone with cancer does not die of cancer. As a matter of fact, many cancers can be cured.

He went on to say that we need to reassure those with AIDS. How? By lieing to them? By misleading them?

I think this idea is very irresponsible as it will make some people think that their “high risk behavior” is ok because AIDS is manageable anyways, so who cares if they get it or spread it.

If this is the view of those in the healthcare community then we are in deep trouble.

 

[Aquarius]

ByzCath:

This morning after community morning prayer I was eating breakfast with a couple of the other brothers. One of them is a doctor who just finished his internship. He was focusing on a speciality of pediatrics.

I noticed in the newspaper, on the front page above the fold there was a picture at a local healthcare office. The headline under the picture started out “Now that AIDs is a manageable condition”.

I pointed this out to the doctor and commented that it was a bad headline. He said no. I said that the line, “manageable condition” was irresponsible. He said it wasn’t, then he said, “Yes AIDS is a manageable condition, like cancer.” That just floored me.

Everyone with AIDS dies of AIDS, everyone with cancer does not die of cancer. As a matter of fact, many cancers can be cured.

He went on to say that we need to reassure those with AIDS. How? By lieing to them? By misleading them?

I think this idea is very irresponsible as it will make some people think that their “high risk behavior” is ok because AIDS is manageable anyways, so who cares if they get it or spread it.

If this is the view of those in the healthcare community then we are in deep trouble.

We should let people known that the modern drug regimen does indeed make AIDs managable because it is true. People are living productive lives today with these drugs. They are managing the disease.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Aquarius:

We should let people known that the modern drug regimen does indeed make AIDs managable because it is true. People are living productive lives today with these drugs. They are managing the disease.

Ok, then we must also let them know the high cost of the drug regimen as well as the many cases of drug resistant AIDS.

This will start to occur more and more as the HIV virus gains resistance.

And lets not forget the last bit. You get AIDS you die of AIDS.

 

[jrabs]

ByzCath:

And lets not forget the last bit. You get AIDS you die of AIDS.

That’s not completely true either. You get AIDS, you still can die from a plethora of other things.

What your doctor friend said about reassuring people with AIDS is true. We need to show compassion and support to those who have this virus. Are we not called to do that as Catholics? We do not need to sugar coat the dealy virus - but for those who already have the virus, let’s not just roll over and mark them as dead already.

You stated that you would like to make sure people know the high cost of medicines for AIDS patients. Yes, the daily drug regimen is expensive. I’m not sure who you would like to remind. Those who have already contracted the disease? I think they already know. But let’s squash all hope they have? That seems cruel.

Honestly, let’s say someone down the road comes to you and confides that he has AIDS. Are you going to lecture him about the high costs of meds and tell him flat out that he is going to die or are you going to offer him your support as we are called to do?

How about children that have this? Do we offer them no words of hope?

 

[Anglican77]

Aquarius:

We should let people known that the modern drug regimen does indeed make AIDs managable because it is true. People are living productive lives today with these drugs. They are managing the disease.

Those drugs are not available to everyone. In fact, they are scarce in the countries that need them the most, such as Botswana, where the life expectancy has dropped to staggering 33 years!!! 33! Their death rate is higher than their birth rate, giving them a negative population growth.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

jrabs:

That’s not completely true either. You get AIDS, you still can die from a plethora of other things.

Yes, but if you do not die from another cause you will lose your life way before you would have without AIDS.

What your doctor friend said about reassuring people with AIDS is true. We need to show compassion and support to those who have this virus. Are we not called to do that as Catholics? We do not need to sugar coat the dealy virus - but for those who already have the virus, let’s not just roll over and mark them as dead already.

I am not advocating that. I think it is irresponsible for the media to run around acting like AIDS is not a deadly disease.

You stated that you would like to make sure people know the high cost of medicines for AIDS patients. Yes, the daily drug regimen is expensive. I’m not sure who you would like to remind.

Thought that was clear in my post. I want to remind those who participate in high risk behaviors. I seem to remember hearing stories of those groups increasing in these behaviors becuase you can “life with AIDS” now.

Those who have already contracted the disease? I think they already know. But let’s squash all hope they have? That seems cruel.

Seems you wish to apply some very bad motives those who disagree with you. I would ask, if you are unclear about something that you ask me rather than making such outrageous comments about my motives in the future.

Honestly, let’s say someone down the road comes to you and confides that he has AIDS. Are you going to lecture him about the high costs of meds and tell him flat out that he is going to die or are you going to offer him your support as we are called to do?

How about children that have this? Do we offer them no words of hope?

Again with the attacks. Is this how you sway someone to your side? By attacking them and making them appear evil?

Not to charitable and I refuse to answer you on this as you are not looking for an answer. That is unless you apologize.

 

[jrabs]

ByzCath:

Seems you wish to apply some very bad motives those who disagree with you. .

Byz, this is equally uncharitable.

I do not disagree with your post that we should not sugar coat and make the virus out to be insignificant. I do disagree that those with AIDS should be left without hope. There are many who have AIDS through no illicit actions of their own. I merely stated that we are called to be compassionate.

ByzCath:

Again with the attacks. Is this how you sway someone to your side? By attacking them and making them appear evil? .

evil? Please re-read my post as I do believe I never referred to anyone as evil. I am not asking to sway your views. I am just stating my opinion.

hmmm. Is this not an uncharitable comment on your part about me?

I am sorry if my comments offended you as they were not meant to offend.

 

[jman507]

Ackk headline writers. First off journalist don’t always make the best messangers of accurate medical information. Then you toss over to the person making headlines who probably has no clue, thought it sounded good and caughty. Its almost like a bad game of telephone.

 

[wabrams]

ByzCath:

And lets not forget the last bit. You get AIDS you die of AIDS.

For someone making a big stink saying people are lying or wrong about AIDS, you sure do have your facts messed up. To my knowledge, AIDS hasn’t killed anyone yet. Now, if you have AIDS and go untreated, something as simple as a cold will kill you.

 

[precious_roy]

wabrams:

For someone making a big stink saying people are lying or wrong about AIDS, you sure do have your facts messed up. To my knowledge, AIDS hasn’t killed anyone yet. Now, if you have AIDS and go untreated, something as simple as a cold will kill you.

Yes, this is exactly what I was going to say. No one ‘dies of AIDS’. Someone can die as a result of AIDS, but the cause of death is not AIDS, it might be a cold or whatever. It would be different from cancer because the cancerous cells themselves could shut down organs and vital functions by multiplying uncontrollably. AIDS simply restricts the immune system from doing its normal job. But anyway, a meaningless distinction.

I think that the headline could have read “AIDS is a managable condition for upper class people in America”. It is certainly not a managable condition for an average woman in Uganda.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Regardless of whether AIDS is the formal cause or the efficient cause, who cares? You get AIDS, you die. That simple.

 

[pgoings]

You get AIDS, you die. That simple.

A statement like this is meaningless rhetoric, unworthy of intelligent discourse.

In point of fact, even if you don’t get AIDS you still die. It’s like saying that “everyone who eats carrots will eventually die.” It’s a true statement, but pointless.

With the drugs that exist today, AIDS is indeed manageable. I know several individuals who have lived with it for almost thirty years. That’s far better than most cases of congestive heart failure, and that’s certainly considerable manageable by the medical community.

The drugs necessary for long-term survival with AIDS are expensive and not available to everyone, but that’s true of the drugs and other medical procedures used to manage cancer, heart failure, and many other ailments.

It’s laudable to try and convince people not to engage in the sorts of behavior that are likely to lead to contacting AIDS. But it’s imprudent (and immoral) to do this by lying to them.

 

[scriabin]

My brother has had AIDS, that’s right, AIDS (not just HIV) for more than 20 years; back in the early days when it was like a death sentence.

What’s in a “word”?

Being over-weight is “manageable.” Diabetes is “manageable.” People lead happy, productive lives.

Yes, people might say it’s been “manageable” for my brother; but only by an extreme stretch of its literal meaning.

He’s constantly in the hospital fighting this sickness or another as a complication to AIDS; emotional issues weigh down; and the cost is enormous.

Applying the neutral term “manageable” to this life is not accurate.

 

[Lazerlike42]

pgoings:

A statement like this is meaningless rhetoric, unworthy of intelligent discourse.

This is completely untrue. When a person gets AIDS, they are guaranteed to die earlier than they would have naturally. It’s that simple. Who cares if its a cold that kills a person or not? Its becuase of the AIDS that the person dies of the cold.

When a priest blesses and item, it becomes blessed. Now technically the priest doesn’t do anything to the item, it is God who makes the item blessed. But the fact is that it is blessed because and as a direct result of the priest blessing it. Whatever the formal or efficient cause may be, the priest’s blessing causes the item to become blessed.

In the same way, AIDS causes a person to die, even if it is technically a cold or something.

We don’t need to worry about finding cures for the cold (thought that would be nice), or worry about finding ways to stop the spread of the cold. We DO need to find a cure for AIDS and to stop the spread of AIDS, and THIS is what’s important. Telling people that AIDS is manageable is only going to help increase the spread of the disease. The more we downplay AIDS the more people are going to stop worrying about it and put themselves in positions to get it.

 

[pgoings]

Applying the neutral term “manageable” to this life is not accurate.

Then please define “manageable” as you would have everyone use it.

The individuals I mentioned “lead happy, productive lives.” Your brother’s case is different, and perhaps even more typical (certainly it was formerly).

What terminology would you prefer to be used?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

pgoings:

Then please define “manageable” as you would have everyone use it.

The individuals I mentioned “lead happy, productive lives.” Your brother’s case is different, and perhaps even more typical (certainly it was formerly).

What terminology would you prefer to be used?

For one thing, it is only “manageable” for those who have access to the drugs and who is not infected by the drug resistant strain.

 

[pgoings]

When a person gets AIDS, they are guaranteed to die earlier than they would have naturally. It’s that simple.

This is also generally true of other manageable conditions; and the use of words like “guaranteed” comes close to being hyperbole, especially as we develop better anti-viral drugs.

Is it the word “manageable” that you don’t like? It’s used in terms of many generally life-shortening conditions, like cancer and heart failure. Do you feel that it’s inappropriate in those cases as well?

The more we downplay AIDS the more people are going to stop worrying about it and put themselves in positions to get it.

Who’s proposing downplaying anything? I simply agreed with others who have said that AIDS is a manageable condition, in the sense that the term is used by the medical community. I’m also opposed to exaggeration and spreading falsehoods.

 

[pgoings]

For one thing, it is only “manageable” for those who have access to the drugs and who is not infected by the drug resistant strain.

This is true of all manageable conditions. At one time it was true of dysentery in this country; it still is true in others. Is dysentery therefore not a manageable condition?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

pgoings:

This is true of all manageable conditions. At one time it was true of dysentery in this country; it still is true in others. Is dysentery therefore not a manageable condition?

No, dysentery is not a manageable condition, it is a cureable condition.

No one who contracts dysentery needs to take drugs for the rest of their life.

I have worked in the healthcare field and have never heard of a “manageable condition” before. I have heard of chronic conditions though.

 

[Lazerlike42]

pgoings:

Who’s proposing downplaying anything? I simply agreed with others who have said that AIDS is a manageable condition, in the sense that the term is used by the medical community. I’m also opposed to exaggeration and spreading falsehoods.

My point is that by calling AIDS manageable we present the wrong impression to people, especially young people who are most at risk for AIDS. When a young person reads a headline calling AIDS manageable, he or she can easily the idea that AIDS isn’t a big deal any more and that he or she does not need to worry about it as much.

I will explain my point and define managable with this for instance. Diabetes is what I would call a managable condition because it is *possible * to die from it, but if managed properly it is extremely unlikely that it will cause a person to die. People are able to live their entire lives with diabetes. It is sometimes painful, it is sometimes expensive, but it is managable because proper management will prevent death resulting from it. AIDS is different. It too is sometimes painful and sometimes (actually always with AIDS) expensive, but proper management does not make it extremely unlikely to die as a result of the disease. It is not managable because no level of management will prevent death from resulting from it. The way I explain my above point is to say that when a young person sees AIDS being called managable, he or she may very easily begin to view AIDS in the same way that he or she views diabetes: a sometimes painful inconvienence, but not a threat to life.

(If anybody has diabetes, I am NOT trying to downplay it by saying it is an inconvienence, I am only using the term in the context of the perception that people tend to have of it and in the sense that it is not life threatening other than in extreme cases. My father has diabetes and I very well may have it at some point in the future.)