A proposal before Congress to permanently ban federal funding or endorsement of clean-needle programs as an AIDS-prevention strategy puts politics and rhetoric ahead of science and common sense. It should be defeated.
Five years ago Congress imposed a provisional ban on clean-needle programs, pending certification and assurances by the Health and Human Services secretary that first, such programs were helpful in reducing HIV infections among intravenous drug users, and second, that they did not foster addiction.
In February of this year, HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala did just that: She submitted to Congress a compendium of all the major scientific evaluations of needle exchanges–which unanimously indicated that they help reduce the rate of HIV infections without promoting drug use.
The next logical step would have been for the Clinton administration to lift the ban on federal funding of clean-needle programs. And that’s probably why Republican Reps. Tom A. Coburn of Oklahoma and J. Dennis Hastert of suburban Aurora attached an amendment to a House appropriations bill that would make the funding ban permanent, regardless of proof of their usefulness.
The latest round of opposition relies partly on two recent Canadian studies that seem to run counter to the flood of research supporting the needle exchanges. Or do they? The Vancouver researchers, for example, do not advocate elimination of the exchanges but instead argue for a more comprehensive set of measures, including drug counseling. And nowhere does either of the studies suggest that needle exchanges encourage drug addiction–one of Hastert’s chief concerns.
Other facts, however, remain indisputable. Today in Illinois, 41 percent of the HIV infections are directly or indirectly attributable to contaminated needles. Saddest of all are the infected babies, 90 percent of whom inherited the virus from their drug-addicted mothers.
AIDS is a monster that won’t be slain by any one bullet. But needle-exchange programs, combined with counseling and rehabilitation programs, have been proven time and again to be a key part of an effective AIDS prevention strategy.
The Coburn-Hastert amendment was approved by the House but failed in the Senate. It’s now headed for a conference committee–which is as far as it deserves to go.
