DATA JABS PERCEPTIONS ABOUT NEEDLES

FURTHER to the discussion on needle distribution for intravenous drug
users, I would like to add the following data.

The annual surveillance report of the National Centre for Epidemiology
and Clinical Research, HIV/AIDS and Related Diseases in Australia
1997, does not show any evidence that the free needle distribution
program has offered any benefits in the reduction of HIV infection in
Australia.

To back this up, overall trends show that HIV diagnoses fell rapidly
from 2600 in 1985 to 1700 in 1988, in the era before free needle
distribution, but thereafter more slowly to 1400 in 1991, 950 in 1994
and 850 in 1996.

These figures seem to show that the introduction of the free needle
program has had little effect on the reduction of HIV infection.

Eight per cent of all HIV cases have occurred in injecting drug users,
but half of these have also engaged in homosexual or bisexual activity.

Diagnosis of newly-acquired HIV infection in homosexual men fell from
a peak in the mid-1980s but has neither risen nor fallen in the last
decade.

This puts into question the validity of continuing the needle
distribution program.

The rapid and exceptional spread of Hepatitis C (a blood-borne
disease) among intravenous drug users indicates that the needle
campaign has also been ineffectual in this regard.

Indeed the increase in the incidence of Hepatitis C with the growth of
needle distribution appears an odd coincidence.

Hepatitis C is specific to shared needle use amongst intravenous drug
users, so the theory that free needle distribution would provide
intravenous drug users with a ready supply of clean needles, and thus
reduce the spread of bloodborne diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C
is unfounded.

The case for this program does not seem to be supported by these
statistics, and the community is now paying the price of cleaning up
the debris.

The needle distribution program is little more than public funding for
the continuation of an illegal activity which in itself has many
social and public health repercussions.

JULIANNE WHYTE,
Lowesdale