March 18, 1986
OP-ED
Crucial Steps in Combating the Aids Epidemic; Identify All the Carriers
By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
have read and listened, and I think now that I can
convincingly crystallize the thoughts chasing about in the
minds of, first, those whose concern with AIDS victims is
based primarily on a concern for them and for the
maintenance of the most rigid standards of civil liberties
and personal privacy, and, second, those whose anxiety to
protect the public impels them to give subordinate
attention to the civil amenities of those who suffer from
AIDS and primary attention to the safety of those who do
not.
Arguments used by both sides are sometimes utilitarian,
sometimes moral, sometimes a little of each -and almost
always a little elusive. Most readers will locate their own
inclinations and priorities somewhere other than in the
polar positions here put forward by design.
School A suspects, in the array of arguments of School B, a
venture in ethical opportunism. Look, they say, we have
made enormous headway in the matter of civil rights for
all, dislodging the straight-laced from mummified positions
they inherited through eclectic superstitions ranging from
the Bible's to Freud's. A generation ago, homosexuals lived
mostly in the closet. Nowadays they take over cities and
parade on Halloween and demand equal rights for themselves
qua homosexuals, not merely as apparently disinterested
civil libertarians.
Along comes AIDS, School A continues, and even though it is
well known that the virus can be communicated by infected
needles, known also that heterosexuals can transmit the
virus, still it is both a fact and the popular perception
that AIDS is the special curse of the homosexual,
transmitted through anal sex between males. And if you look
hard, you will discern that little smirk on the face of the
man oh-so-concerned about public health. He is looking for
ways to safeguard the public, sure, but he is by no means
reluctant, in the course of doing so, to sound an invidious
tocsin whose clamor is a call to undo all the understanding
so painfully cultivated over a generation by those who have
fought for the privacy of their bedroom. What School B is
really complaining about is the extension of civil rights
to homosexuals.
School A will not say all that in words quite so jut-jawed,
but it plainly feels that no laws or regulations should be
passed that have the effect of identifying the AIDS
carrier. It isn't, School A concedes, as if AIDS were
transmitted via public drinking fountains. But any attempt
to segregate the AIDS carrier is primarily an act of moral
ostracism.
School B does in fact tend to disapprove forcefully of
homosexuality, but tends to approach the problem of AIDS
empirically. It argues that acquired immune deficiency
syndrome is potentially the most serious epidemic to have
shown its face in this century. Summarizing currently
accepted statistics, the Economist recently raised the
possibility ''that the AIDS virus will have killed more
than 250,000 Americans in eight years' time.'' Moreover, if
the epidemic extended to that point, it would burst through
existing boundaries. There would then be ''no guarantee
that the disease will remain largely confined to groups at
special risk, such as homosexuals, hemophiliacs and people
who inject drugs intravenously. If AIDS were to spread
through the general population, it would become a
catastrophe.'' Accordingly, School B says, we face a
utilitarian imperative, and this requires absolutely
nothing less than the identification of the million-odd
people who, the doctors estimate, are carriers. How? Well,
the military has taken the first concrete step. Two million
soldiers will be given the blood test, and those who have
AIDS will be discreetly discharged Discreetly, you say!
Hold on. I'm coming to that. You have the military making
the first massive move designed to identify AIDS sufferers
- and, bear in mind, an AIDS carrier today is an AIDS
carrier on the day of his death, which day, depending on
the viral strain, will be two years from now or when he is
threescore and 10. The next logical step would be to
require of anyone who seeks a marriage license that he
present himself not only with a Wassermann test but also an
AIDS test.
But if he has AIDS, should he then be free to marry?
Only after the intended spouse is advised that her intended
husband has AIDS, and agrees to sterilization. We know
already of children born with the disease, transmitted by
the mother, who contracted it from the father.
What then would School B suggest for those who are not in
the military and who do not set out to get a marriage
license? Universal testing?
Yes, in stages. But in rapid stages. The next logical
enforcer is the insurance company. Blue Cross, for
instance, can reasonably require of those who wish to join
it a physical examination that requires tests. Almost every
American, making his way from infancy to maturity, needs to
pass by one or another institutional turnstile. Here the
lady will spring out, her right hand on a needle, her left
on a computer, to capture a blood specimen.
Is it then proposed by School B that AIDS carriers should
be publicly identified as such?
The evidence is not completely in as to the communicability
of the disease. But while much has been said that is
reassuring, the moment has not yet come when men and women
of science are unanimously agreed that AIDS cannot be
casually communicated. Let us be patient on that score,
pending any tilt in the evidence: If the news is
progressively reassuring, public identification would not
be necessary. If it turns in the other direction and AIDS
develops among, say, children who have merely roughhoused
with other children who suffer from AIDS, then more drastic
segregation measures would be called for.
But if the time has not come, and may never come, for
public identification, what then of private identification?
Everyone detected with AIDS should be tatooed in the upper
forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the
buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other
homosexuals.
You have got to be kidding! That's exactly what we
suspected all along! You are calling for the return of the
Scarlet Letter, but only for homosexuals!
Answer: The Scarlet Letter was designed to stimulate public
obloquy. The AIDS tattoo is designed for private
protection. And the whole point of this is that we are not
talking about a kidding matter. Our society is generally
threatened, and in order to fight AIDS, we need the civil
equivalent of universal military training.
William F. Buckley Jr., editor
of the National Review, is author, most recently, of
''Right Reason.'' His syndicated column appears locally in
The New York Daily News.
Return to the Books Home Page
