BMJ  2007;334:439 (3 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39136.450359.FA

Letters

Spending on HIV

HIV funding: debate misses the point

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

As one who has lost five out of 11 siblings to HIV, I cannot but be aware of the magnitude of HIV. Though the figures of England and de Lay et al differ,¹² the element of relative overspending on HIV compared with other health and social developmental sectors is obvious.

Both miss the crucial point that HIV is the only tropical disease receiving anywhere near Western rates of health funding. The reasons for this include the global nature of HIV, the wages and expenses of expatriate health workers, and the many groups working with HIV in the tropics. England could have argued that the money channelled into HIV should be spent through local national health departments. Some African non-governmental organisations and de Lay et al may argue for the status quo, which has created, in some cases to the detriment of health and governance institutions, parallel institutions as it benefits . . . [Full text of this article]

Rutherglen, Glasgow G73 3SN

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Are we spending too much on HIV?

Roger England
BMJ 2007 334: 344. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Are we spending too much on HIV?

Paul de Lay, Robert Greener, and Jose Antonio Izazola
BMJ 2007 334: 345. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]