NEEDLE-EXCHANGE PROGRAMS CHRISTIAN THING TO DO

The Texas Legislature is currently considering bills that would allow
the establishment of programs to enable injecting drug users to
exchange used syringes for sterile ones, as a proven means of
reducing the spread of blood-borne diseases. The Senate version of
the bill has already passed, by a vote of 23-6. An almost identical
bill is under consideration by the House Public Health Committee,
where its future is uncertain. Texas is the only state in the Union
that still prohibits the purchase or possession of syringes for
purpose of injecting illegal drugs. As the state with the
fourth-highest HIV/AIDS rate in the nation, this is not a lone star
of which we can be proud.

Consider the following relevant facts:

. The sharing of needles by injecting drug users contributes
significantly to the spread of blood-borne diseases, most notably
HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C.

. Treatment of these widespread diseases is enormously expensive -
more than $300,000 in lifetime costs for a single case of either
disease - much of which is covered by taxpayer funds. Between
2001-2005, Texas Medicaid paid more than $300 million for the
treatment of HIV/AIDS alone.

. Extensive worldwide and long-term experience with needle-exchange
programs has demonstrated conclusively that they reduce the spread of
disease without increasing or encouraging drug abuse and, in
addition, serve as a bridge to treatment for a substantial proportion
of participants.

Supported by repeated scientific research, American medical and
public health personnel overwhelmingly support making sterile
syringes available to injecting drug users.

Despite the evidence, many politicians, often reflecting the
sentiments of their constituents, oppose the establishment or public
funding of needle-exchange programs. Conservative Christians have
been among the most resistant to these programs.

Though some sincerely question the scientific evidence supporting
various forms of needle exchange, the major opposing argument
continues to be, "It sends the wrong message."

Before we accept that rationale, we need to think about the message
we currently send: "We know a way to dramatically cut your chances of
contracting a deadly disease, then spreading it to others, including
your unborn children. It would also dramatically cut the amount of
money society is going to have to spend on you and those you infect.
But because we believe what you are doing is illegal, immoral and
sinful, we are not going to do what we know works. You are social
lepers and, as upright, moral, sincerely religious people, we prefer
that you and others in your social orbit die."

Less than a decade ago, this was the attitude most churches
manifested toward people afflicted with HIV/AIDS. If people were
determined to engage in sinful behavior, they should expect to reap
the full terrible harvest of their actions. God might be merciful
toward sinners, but we were not.

Then, in 2002, Franklin Graham hosted Prescription for Hope, a global
conference attended by more than 800 Christians from many countries
and denominations. PBS Frontline pointed to that gathering as the
moment at which Christians got involved in confronting HIV/AIDS. Soon
afterward, Rick (author of The Purpose Driven Life) and Kay Warren
launched a major HIV/AIDS initiative. Today, many other churches,
large and small, minister to people stricken with this disease. These
ministries do not screen the people they serve to make sure they were
infected through no fault of their own. They meet them at the point
of their need and offer what help they can.

Suppose we worked in such a ministry and were confronted by a person
who had contracted the virus from a contaminated needle. While we may
rightly decry drug addiction and find injecting drug use abhorrent,
what defense could we offer if that person said, "You knew that, by
using a sterile syringe, I could lessen my chance of getting this
disease, and yet you refused to support programs that would make
those available to me. What kind of neighbor are you?"

How can we justify saying it is permissible, even laudable, to help
people after they have contracted HIV/AIDS, but wrong to approve of
measures that significantly reduce their chances of contracting that
disease? Jesus had nothing to say about needles, but we do know how
he treated social outcasts and sinners, and he had a great deal to
say about people who let prim concern with their own righteousness
interfere with offering needed assistance to those in peril.

Needle-exchange programs save money, demonstrate compassion, preserve
lives, and offer a helping hand to people in desperate need. These
are criteria for public policy that thoughtful religious people can
support with a clear conscience.