A really interesting article in Slate this morning: http://www.slate.com/...
To summarize, a drug name Truvada appears to have a 99% success rate in preventing AIDS infections when taken daily. Controversy has arisen over its use and benefits, with many AIDS organizations, and such respected figures as Dan Savage, decrying its use on the grounds that it will further discourage safe sex practices and will inevitably not be taken properly, thus attenuating its supposed effectiveness.
.
I had not heard of this controversy before, and am ambivalent about it after reading the article (which is pretty strong in attacking Savage et al and the stance against Truvada use).
To me, this is a huge public health issue, and one that deserves (indeed requires) a full and robust debate I hope we can have some of that debate here.
My thinking tend to run along the lines of the Slate article. To me, any and all weapons that can be used to fight AIDS need to employed in every possible situation. Unsafe sex among gay men is far from an ideal phenomenon, but it's reality. Providing this drug doesn't appear to me inconsistent with continued public health campaigns for safe sex (though people will of course be harder to convince on the subject if such a drug is available, human nature being what it is).
I don't intend this to be a major disquisition, but an invitation to debate in the comments section. have at it, folks! I look forward to being edified.