Some health experts are questioning whether the global resources allocated to fight HIV/AIDS take away from more pressing health needs. "AIDS is a terrible humanitarian tragedy, but it's just one of many terrible humanitarian tragedies," said Jeremy Shiffman, who studies health spending at Syracuse University.

According to the Global Health Council, by 2006, funding for HIV/AIDS accounted for 80 percent of all US health and population assistance. "There needs to be a rational system for how to apportion scarce funds," said Helen Epstein, an AIDS expert who has consulted for UNICEF, the World Bank, and other organizations.

Some wonder if it makes sense to have UNAIDS, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, plus numerous other AIDS organizations all serving the same cause.

"The global HIV industry is too big and out of control," said Roger England of the Grenada-based think-tank Health Systems Workshop. "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."

Approximately 33 million people worldwide have HIV, according to UN estimates. Scientists say global infections peaked in the late 1990s. Disbanding UNAIDS would free up $200 million for other health issues such as pneumonia, which kills more children annually than AIDS, malaria, and measles combined, England argues.

While it is valid to question AIDS' place in the world's priorities, it would be very wrong to consider the epidemic under control, said Paul de Lay of 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," he said.

Back to other news for December 2008

Search the Newsroom archive