tions has gone to extreme measures to help out countries where this is the case, but the problem is that there are too many places where this is the case. Many of these nations feel that it is the United States responsibility to help out in the funding for these drugs, and that they should be providing them at a lower cost, to nations that can't afford them. The world is supposed to be one nation, and Sub-Saharan Africa needs help. The other issues that come with these drugs that are being developed in the West are the differences in the standard of living. Most Americans don't worry about food supply, and can manage to get most of there nutrient that are required a day. Where as in Africa, life isn't as easy. Most people fight in order to get one decent meal a day. They rely on the little money that they make in order to get food. But because of the cost of the drugs that the West is providing for these countries people are being forced to choose between two items that are necessary for them to live. They can chose between having these drugs that will prolong their life, but after paying the cost of them, will no longer have money for food, or have food, and live with out the drugs. (Dido) Where is the Justus in this situation? There is no point of having one without the other, both of these options have to be made available to people who are infected with HIV/AIDS. Some countries have promised to supply these drugs to Women who are pregnant, or who have survived being raped, but that is not good enough. We live in a material world, and the least the west and rich nations can do is help provide life-prolonging drugs to those who can't afford them. Another aspect of this issue is whether it is better to help those who are affected, or create more awareness so that less people become affected with the virus. It's a toss up. Life is important, but if the UN and other organizations continue to provide funds for those who are i...
