James W. Adams & Ruth Massingill-Pate

UCLA/Sam Houston State University

HIV/AIDS has killed at least 28 million people since 1982. The number of HIV/AIDS infected now surpasses 50 million (USAID), and this figure may be underreported. HIV/AIDS is worse than a terrible pandemic; its debilitating effects upon a country’s work force and limited national health resources are a macro-economic disaster. To most of the world, an HIV/AIDS diagnosis is tantamount to a death sentence. This is both tragic and unnecessary. Physician-led clinics in Uganda, Kenya, and South Africa, for example, have demonstrated clinical successes in treating HIV/AIDS. 

Since successful treatments exist and Mexico has an AIDS problem (an official prevalence rate of 0.4 percent is considered by many to be very optimistic), why doesn't Mexico allow AIDS treatment clinics? Mexico has been loath to approve and promote establishment of such clinics for a number of reasons, including the Free Trade Zone (FTZ) agreement between the U.S. and Mexico that precludes infectious clinics in the FTZ. Also, the Mexican pharmaceutical industry, valued at US $11.3 billion in 2005, is the leading Latin American market and the tenth largest worldwide--that industry stands to lose financially if alternative and highly successful therapies were to be used. 

Further, the focus of social marketing campaigns is typically on prevention, not treatment. Mexican marketing campaigns are no exception, being designed to motivate low-income and high-risk people to adopt healthy behaviors, but giving little to no information about innovative treatment choices. 

Other considerations include [1] the stigma of HIV/AIDS in a predominately Roman Catholic country, [2] the unavailability of state-sponsored healthcare for AIDS, and [3] the instability of donor funds (which make up almost half of Mexico's expenditures on treatment and prevention of AIDS). The authors of this paper pose the question: What are the benefits to Mexico of allowing AIDS clinics to operate in the country? The authors also invite dialogue about the advantages to Mexico’s citizens for new, previously unavailable, HIV/AIDS healthcare in addition to the financial boon new HIV/AIDS clinics would provide. 

Summary Thesis: 

Successful HIV/AIDS treatments exist and have been clinically proven; therefore, utilizing progressive Mexican health laws will provide both social and financial benefits to Mexican citizens. HIV/AIDS has killed at least 28 million people since 1982. The number of HIV/AIDS infected now surpasses 50 million (USAID), and this figure may be underreported. HIV/AIDS is worse than a terrible pandemic; its debilitating effects upon a country’s work force and limited national health resources are a macro-economic disaster. 

To most of the world, an HIV/AIDS diagnosis is tantamount to a death sentence. This is both tragic and unnecessary. Physician-led clinics in Uganda, Kenya, and South Africa, for example, have demonstrated clinical successes in treating HIV/AIDS. Since successful treatments exist and Mexico has an AIDS problem (an official prevalence rate of 0.4 percent is considered by many to be very optimistic), why doesn't Mexico allow AIDS treatment clinics? Mexico has been loath to approve and promote establishment of such clinics for a number of reasons, including the Free Trade Zone (FTZ) agreement between the U.S. and Mexico that precludes infectious clinics in the FTZ. Also, the Mexican pharmaceutical industry, valued at US $11.3 billion in 2005, is the leading Latin American market and the tenth largest worldwide--that industry stands to lose financially if alternative and highly successful therapies were to be used. Further, the focus of social marketing campaigns is typically on prevention, not treatment. Mexican marketing campaigns are no exception, being designed to motivate low-income and high-risk people to adopt healthy behaviors, but giving little to no information about innovative treatment choices. 

Other considerations include [1] the stigma of HIV/AIDS in a predominately Roman Catholic country, [2] the unavailability of state-sponsored healthcare for AIDS, and [3] the instability of donor funds (which make up almost half of Mexico's expenditures on treatment and prevention of AIDS). The authors of this paper pose the question: What are the benefits to Mexico of allowing AIDS clinics to operate in the country? The authors also invite dialogue about the advantages to Mexico’s citizens for new, previously unavailable, HIV/AIDS healthcare in addition to the financial boon new HIV/AIDS clinics would provide. 

Summary Thesis: Successful HIV/AIDS treatments exist and have been clinically proven; therefore, utilizing progressive Mexican health laws will provide both social and financial benefits to Mexican citizens. Curing AIDS in Mexico