Wow, now I do feel bad because I thought it's been only about a month since I've written here in "Luctor Et Emergo" but in reality it's been over a month! I realize that shouldn't matter either way for it is my blog but I'm one of those people who prefers to keep on with keeping on as they say. I realize there are gonna be times when I'm just not gonna have time to write as much as I'd like to and this past month or so of dealing with my new job and my new home was one of those times butchy'all know what I mean, I'm always gonna do my best as much as I can.
With all that being said, I've been wanting to write about this very subject - changing the name of AIDS, as in literally changing it's actual name - for almost 2 months now because of an article I read online on the Huffington Post website. However, as is usually the case with the Huffington Post, you can read anything on that site your little heart desires but cross-reference the subject title over and over again afterwards and you will more than likely NEVER come across the article ever again. That bothers me because although this is a blog and I am not required to supply all my sources to my readers, I'd still like to do so whenever I can. Oh well, lesson learned, for any of us who read anything from the HP website, let us all save or email it to ourselves from here on out, just to be on the safe side.
I personally am AGAINST changing the actual name, the actual meaning of AIDS as a disease, as it being the 2nd phase of being Hiv+ and so on and so on and I'll tell you why.
I think that everyone in the world should respond to this issue by simply asking the following question - who in their right frame of mind should even consider giving two-rats-asses about this subject in the first place, especially when there still are millions of people dying from AIDS itself, as well as millions more becoming infected with the Hiv virus on a daily basis? This issue totally deflects from what the real focuses of the battle against AIDS should be. I mean, if putting this issue above the importance of human lives is a priority then people who dream up such irrelevent trifle as this need to reorganize their priorities. It doesn't matter how much AIDS has evolved over the years, both as a disease/medical condition or how people describe/discuss it in the written word - it's not gonna change the fact that it's a killer disease that still needs to be stopped dead in its tracks. Doesn't get anymore uncomplicated than that folks.
Another facet that concerns me regarding all of this is that hypothetically if all the political terminologists out there do indeed get their way and actually do find a way to change the meaning and concept of AIDS, what will that say about the millions of people who have died during the first 30 years of this horrible epidemic? Does that mean we all should think of their deaths in a lesser degree because now magically the harsh realities of AIDS as defined by the new terminology would no longer exist? No, diminishing what the majority of us have gone through with this disease ever since it raised its hoary head back in '80/'81 (I say the latter but "experts" state the former figure) by changing the public's entire perception of AIDS does the deceased, their survirors and those of us who are still battling this awful disease a great disservice because it's like saying "Well, it's not all that bad." Trust me, unless you yourself are Hiv+ or have full-blown AIDS, it IS all that bad, and in a lotta cases, even worse.
In addition, by intentionally downgrading the severity of the AIDS epidemic, these Hiv- politically correct terminologists and theorists automatically divert the focus on research and finding a cure for AIDS, which in turn affects the quality of life for those of us still battling the disease. Think about it. If any group of persons approached you with the concept of "Well, you know that disease you have, the one that's eventually gonna rob you of your life? We've decided to re-classify it because we're so bored with it that we simply don't know what else to do with ourselves!!" you'd be pretty damn fired up and outraged too.
Look, many of us Hiv'ers, as well as our medical teams and caregivers, know all too well how extremely frustrating and disheartening it is to deal with a disease where 4 or 5 steps backwards for every 1 to 2 steps forward is generally the norm, but by attempting to change the entire definition of AIDS, both as a disease and a terminological phrase just because people are so damn frustrated by not being able to deal with it does NOT make it any better, let alone easier, for the rest of us to deal with. We all need to keep our focuses on the straight-n-arrow on working on improving research possibilies, even more effective (and more affordable, mind you) medication possibilities and even better care options for those who are very sick and dying versus being worried about something as buttmunchish as how people who look up the term AIDS in their dictionaries and medical terminology textbooks 20 years from now will comprehend what this disease is/was really all about in the first place.
Priorities, it's all about priorities people and regardless of what any of us may or may not believe from a theological and/or spiritual context, as far as any of us knows we only get one shot at this lifetime and I dunno about the rest of you but I plan to secure and preserve my opportunities at makling this life last as long and as fully as I possibly can. So although changing the name of AIDS and what it means to the world in general is not a top priority of mine by any means, I definitely do not agree that it should be a top priority for anyone else on this planet either. Research, more affordable better drugs, better care options and a cure, those are the goals we need to keep our sights set on. Thank you for reading.
