Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, July 13, 1995                   TAG: 9507140025
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

HEALTH FUNDING

We can't disagree with these reactions. But we find a couple of other, perhaps less obvious points worth adding to the discussion.

Of course, many Americans share with the senator from North Carolina the view that homosexual acts are distasteful. That's all the more reason to worry about hateful rhetoric, especially when broadcasted by an elected official and with reference to people who suffer an incurable, fatal disease.

Helms' comment that federal AIDS funding should be slashed because the disease is contracted through "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct" was itself deliberate, disgusting and revolting. In other words, what we've grown to expect from Sen. Helms.

Of course, too, the tobacco problem has been cited as evidence of his hypocrisy. Helms isn't recommending funding cuts for heart disease and lung cancer, despite their links with the deliberate and disgusting behavior of smoking. North Carolina itself produces about 600,000 pounds of tobacco a year. That helps kill a lot of people.

Having made these obligatory points, however, we should not ignore two other, somewhat complicated issues raised by Helms' remarks.

AIDS, unlike cancer or heart disease, is both new and epidemic. So more research and funding are critical in fighting this public-health menace. But, whether one believes AIDS funding is too high, too low or just right, legitimate questions can be raised, in general, about the influence of politics on the allocation of federal research dollars.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich was on target this week in suggesting that scientific peer review ought to carry more weight in funding decisions.

The second point is that it's becoming more difficult every day to sustain unquestioningly the notion that risky behavior should never influence costly medical decisions. A former heavy smoker and consumer of North Carolina barbecue, Helms no doubt helped bring on his own quadruple heart bypass and valve replacement three years ago.

Of course, not all AIDS sufferers are gay. And as President Clinton observed the other day: "The gay people who have AIDS are still our sons, our brothers, our cousins, our citizens. They're entitled to be treated like everybody else." Life is precious in any case, and people who are suffering for whatever reason need help - not condemnation. Surely, we're not about to offer health care for ``innocent'' diabetics while denying it to those who can't stick to a diet.

Still, the rising abilities and costs of health care must force us, sooner or later, to confront the question of medical rationing. And in the context of rationing, some people are bound to argue that risky behavior ought to be a factor in spending decisions.

These are points to ponder even as we lament, as we should, the senator's characteristic ignorance and malice.