Is HIV / AIDS Overfunded ?

Just like we all instantly know the pink ribbon is the symbol for the fight against breast cancer, we automatically think of the global fight against AIDS when we see the red ribbon on lapels, hanging from buildings and on the bottom corner of AIDS/HIV campaign posters. Countries and organizations funnel millions upon millions of dollars a year into the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic which currently afflicts approximately 33 million people around the globe. In fact, according to data provided by the Global Health Council, about 80% of America’s aid earmarked for population issues and health issues goes towards the fight against AIDS. Now, what some researchers, scientists and politicians are asking is whether too much aid is being provided for this one global disease. Especially when the disease can be prevented 99.9% of the time by simply wearing condoms.
Researchers and critics have begun asking this question as they worry that AIDS is sucking money away from other pressing, but less publicly exposed, health issues around the world. With the exclusion of Africa, AIDS/HIV has become a manageable disease as some experts point out. One critic of the money being spent for AIDS/HIV is Jeremy Shiffman from Syracuse University whose studies focus on health spending, “AIDS is a terrible humanitarian tragedy, but it's just one of many terrible humanitarian tragedies.” Even more vocal on the subject is Roger England from the Health Systems Workshop. England is calling for UNAIDS to be disbanded and states, “The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake... too many relatively well paid HIV staff in affected countries, and too many rock stars with AIDS support as a fashion accessory."
Responding to England’s statements is Paul de Lay from UNAIDS, “We have an epidemic that has caused between 55 million and 60 million infections. To suddenly pull the rug out from underneath that would be disastrous." De Lay insists that while it may appear the epidemic has been managed with drugs and multiple HIV campaigns around the world, this line of thinking could not be further from the truth. England feels that the annual budget of $200 million for UNAIDS would be better suited to address more pressing health issues like pneumonia which claims more children’s lives each year than AIDS, measles and malaria altogether. England states, "By putting more money into AIDS, we are implicitly saying it's OK for more kids to die of pneumonia."
Many critics also cite the fact that health and financial resources often get misallocated. One example is demonstrated in the country of Rwanda where, in 2006, close to $50 million was allocated for the fight against HIV/AIDS, $18 million was allocated to the fight against malaria (the number one killer in Rwanda) and only $1 million was allocated to fight various childhood diseases. Activists and researchers for health issues other than AIDS fight to get any financial resources but often have a hard time drawing attention away from the popular AIDS/HIV global battle. John Oldfield from Water Advocates (an agency that campaigns for clean sanitation and water) states, “Diarrhea kills five times as many kids as AIDS. Everybody talks about AIDS at cocktail parties. But nobody wants to hear about diarrhea." With a recession currently in place, the focus of correctly allocating money for various health issues is even more pressing. States Shiffman, “I do not want to see the cause of AIDS harmed. For AIDS to crowd out other issues is ethically unjust." More money should be spent on the prevention of HIV/AIDS through safe sex education and promoting the use of condoms.