HIV/AIDS and the UK

Emma Davis writes on why she thinks the UK's response to HIV/AIDS needs to be up-scaled

Drugs are out of reach for many and communities have no way of accessing medicine to help patients The loss of people impairs the ability of local communities to deliver education and prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS photo: Abbie Trayler-Smith

The UK government is currently in the process of updating its official global response to HIV/AIDS, and there is no question that this needs to be significantly up-scaled.

With 8,000 people dying daily of AIDS, this global epidemic is not merely a humanitarian crisis in itself, but is inextricably linked to poverty and underdevelopment. AIDS has and is wiping out generations of people who are vital for a healthy economy and social stability of local communities. The loss of teachers in schools is particularly damaging, as is the loss of nurses in hospitals that are already struggling to care for their intake of HIV/AIDS patients. This loss of people impairs the ability of local communities to deliver education and prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. Average life expectancy is diminished, (in South Africa over half of 15 year olds are not expected to reach the age of 60) and stigma left from affected communities is destroying, lasting and perpetuating.

Antiretroviral drugs do exist, working significantly to slow the development of HIV into full-blown AIDS, however, access to treatment is often prevented by a number of barriers. Pharmaceuticals companies prevent cheaper and affordable generics of the Anti-Retroviral drugs being produced through the Trade Related Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). This means that, quite simply, the drugs are out of reach for many and that communities which are hit hardest by the disease have no way of accessing medicine to help patients. Apart from a realistic solution to the provision of antiretroviral drugs, more needs to be invested in health systems and heath workers in areas so that where antiretroviral drugs are available, communities also have the staff and provisions necessary to implement treatment.

Having led the G8 pledge to guarantee universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment by 2010, the government has an urgent responsibility to confront the barriers to reaching this target. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, (UNAIDS ) have estimated that the resources available to fight AIDS must quadruple by 2010 to achieve universal access.

Local MP for Leamington Spa, James Plaskit was adamant that the UK is doing all it can claiming that 'just because the media chooses to ignore the issue does not mean that it is not a top developmental priority for the UK government'. He indicated a report from the UK Department for International Development (DFID), which states that since 2001 the UK has provided over one billion condoms for use in developing countries. Without sufficient investment in education, teachers and health workers across communities vulnerable to HIV/AIDS, however, is an enormous supply of condoms really tackling the problem?

Plaskit made the point that the Universal Access 2010 target for HIV/AIDS will not be reached without the commitment and resources of other governments, particularly those with decidedly larger budgets such as the USA. He also pointed to worries that, due to a lack of resources, money, international political power, and in some cases, political corruption, governments of countries who are most affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic are not prioritising HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in their own entities.

For me, this only highlights the all-important role of the UK in not just amassing the greatest funds possible but also in finding a more fair and effective solution for the TRIPS agreement and putting pressure on other governments to put HIV/AIDS high up on their priorities.