Should AIDS drugs be available for lower cost to developing nations?

This is for a medical ethics debate in my Anatomy Class, please tell the reason for your opinion and stance. My stance is PRO so please help with that.

thanks

I think that people with AIDS should not receive medication, period. The world is overpopulated and AIDS is Nature's way of saying, "Enough is enough." Virtually all of the world's problems 鈥?pathogens such as swine flu, overconsumption, environmental destruction, disease and depression due to crowded urban areas, and global climate change 鈥?are caused by overpopulation. When other animals, including higher mammals, experience overpopulation, a disease sets in that restores the population to a sustainable level. That is exactly what AIDS is doing right now.

An advisor to the Prime Minister of England suggested recently that the country would have to cut its population to half in order to achieve any semblance of sustainability. Now, sustainability is a shiny happy buzz word these days, but don't look at it that way. It simply means that life can be "sustained" and people can be healthy. The population of the developing world is increasing much faster than the so-called First World. The people who live in the so-called Third World simply cannot reach the level of affluence experienced by people in Europe, the US, Japan, and so on. They cannot do this because there simply aren't enough natural resources to go around. Not enough food, not enough metal, not enough wood, not enough oil/gas.

When people in the Third World who are "saved" by AIDS drugs/vaccines, they will continue to exist in a world that is voraciously consuming natural resources beyond the world's carrying capacity. For the sake of anyone remaining healthy and life as we know it becoming sustainable, people simply have to die off. If you have seven billion people driving around in cars, eating food, charging cellphones, watching television, do you have any idea what a brutal, toxic death we all face?

Therefore, the only truly ethical thing to do is to allow people with AIDS to die.

We only live for a short time. Those with AIDS will simply live for an even shorter time. It's no different than someone who acquires any other fatal illness. We cannot change the fundamental laws of Nature, and therefore, we cannot realistically expect to keep everyone on the planet alive forever, while continuing to add new people to the world's population. And for what it's worth, people in the developing world have many more children, on average, than people in industrialized nations. That further compounds the problem. Do you want to give AIDS medication to someone in the Third World in order for them to procreate and give birth to five, six, seven, ten or more children that will be born with AIDS and live a miserable life in a filthy sewage drainage ditch somewhere in India?

In short, don't prolong life 鈥?and misery 鈥?by trying to save the world with AIDS drugs. If you think it through, you will realize that doing so actually runs counter to your goal of preserving life and helping people around the world maintain their health.

they shoud lbe available to poor people everywhere--US and developing!

why shoudl people in developing countries get meds when people in the US can't

yea they have more AIDS so they need the drug more

Yes