2007-04-13 03:34:42 · 9 answers · asked by barnaby_362003 3 in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Other - Diseases
Such an interesting question that You pose, here.
Of course, we are talking money and that is really what evreything is reduced to( it seems).
The World Health Organization just released the info that the life expectancy with AIDS/HIV has doubled from 10 to 20 years: This is at a cost of medical treatment of $112,000/yr/individual. So, there are being great strides here but who is getting the treatment is so very important and to what extent is it being distributed on an affordableility basis: Ultimately who profits by it.
"Cancer" on the other hand, is much more difficult to evaluate.
Of course, "cancer" is really a broad spectrum of diseases with entirely different demographics and has far reaching genetic and environmental influences.
It is like comparing apples and oranges, literally, except in the final analysis, who profits and who/what determines the availablilty of the treatment/treatments.
"Cancers" have been with us for centuries and we have come to find that we, infact are contributing to its progression
visa via poisoning our own environement: To place your fiancial confidence in addressing this side of the problem may be as effective(or more so) in effectually reucing the impact of cancer, on the whole planet, irrespective of the availability/profits issues.
HIV/AIDS, on the other hand, have demographic centers, is a highly infectiouse disease and there is a thourough understanding of transmission:To invest in the education and ecio/social infrastucture that effects transmission may be a far better investment than ultimatley, filling a pharmeceutical company's coffers.
Every time that we visit our Pharmacy and open our wallets, we are reminded of the mega bucks that research costs to develope them. These producers are smart...they well know the money trail and spend a huge amount of money to influence our spending habits. These treatments will be developed because there is profit there and they know just who has the purchasing power to buy and benefit from their products. Does it realy matter wether you finance them or not? These miraculouse treatments still have to get to those that need them: We still face the imperative to intelligently and responsibly reduce/illiminate the contribution that we make to poisoning ourselves and others.Do other parts of the planet have an equal right to access to a healthy lifestyle and a future not doomed to poverty, war , and finacial disadvantage ?
No apple or oranges here: Just one big sphere we call home.
2007-04-13 04:52:13 · answer #1 · answered by dougie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cancer, because Aids can be controlled by the people who contract it, in so much as there are ways it can be passed on. Cancer is different.
2007-04-13 08:38:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely cancer.
2007-04-13 03:43:18 · answer #3 · answered by just me 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cancer. You can generally avoid getting AIDS.
2007-04-13 04:41:56 · answer #4 · answered by marchhare57 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no antidote for Aids. Auto immune deficiency syndrome is what happens to your body after you have contracted HIV, ie your immune system shuts down and you die from those effects.
2007-04-13 10:14:31 · answer #5 · answered by spiritofthenight 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cancer.
If you have a cure for AIDS it would cause more promiscuity.
That's why I chose cancer.
2007-04-13 11:43:14 · answer #6 · answered by ajkoolkats 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since AIDS and HIV are cancer of the blood, I would not need to choose. Cure Cancer, and you cure AIDS and HIV.
2007-04-13 03:59:10 · answer #7 · answered by laurel g 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
cancer
2007-04-13 03:41:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cancer for sure...
2007-04-13 03:40:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋