Could someone do a critical ysis of this essay?

In June Dr. Louis Sullivan stood at the microphone, struggling to continue his speech to the Sixth International Conference on AIDS in San Francisco. The secretary of Health and Human Services had to shout to make himself heard as activists danced the aisles, hurling condoms at Sullivan and screaming for more AIDS funding. That riot at the AIDS conference made me angry, as crude and abusive behavior invariably does. But the hypocrisy—and danger—of the activists’ attitudes didn’t hit home until I heard about Doralyn, the 12-year-old daughter of a Washington-area pastor. Doralyn developed a rare form of sinus cancer last October; the malignant tumor began inexplicably and grew relentlessly. She received radiation treatments and chemotherapy, and as she lost weight and hair, her parents anguished. What hope was there for finding a cure? Little, it seemed: Doralyn’s father was quietly told that available funds for head and neck cancer in the U.S. are being funneled instead into AIDS research. “It’s ironic,” says Doralyn’s father. “On the one hand is a disease whose cause is known; on the other, an illness that strikes randomly without a traceable cause. Yet all the funds are being gobbled up by the preventable disease.” I understand that medical resources are finite and that stopping AIDS, a highly infectious virus that poses a deadly public health risk, may be considered more urgent than finding a cure for cancer. But when I pair the image of an innocent 12-year-old prayerfully struggling against cancer with that of AIDS activists throwing condoms at governmental officials, I realize something is not right. Many of us who sense this unease feel guilty, subconsciously accepting the ual lobby’s charge that we are being intolerant and narrow-minded. After all, many s portray Christians as Bible-beating bigots, hysterical moralists long on condemnation and short on compion. But I know of countless believers who befriend AIDS sufferers, reading to them, holding their hands as they die. I’ve prayed with AIDS patients in prisons across the U.S. In the Maryland Penitentiary, Christian inmates and outside volunteers refurbished an unused part of the prison to construct what’s called the Living Room, a special wing for AIDS-infected prisoners. There, in a loving and cheerful atmosphere, believers have shared the living Christ with those who are dying. There will always be more that we Christians can do to help the suffering. But one thing we must not do: allow ourselves to be manipulated by the guilt AIDS activists count on to propel their movement. We can feel free to speak the truth in love. The truth is, two things are wrong about the clamor for ual rights and more AIDS funding. First, the pressure on governmental agencies is hypocritical. Though AIDS can be transmitted by blood transfusions and accidental exposure, those are the exceptions. The primary cause for the disease is the transmission of body fluids through . Yet one study released at the AIDS conference showed that “safe” ual practice is actually on the decline among uals. While they demand that taxpayers cough up the funds to find a cure, they continue the very behaviors that perpetuate their disease. It seems logical that someone might suggest that the burden is on them to change their ways. After all, stigmas against illness-causing behaviors do exist in the medical world. Imagine if meetings of the American Lung ociation were interrupted by noisy lung-cancer victims, puffing on cigarettes and pelting the speakers with smoldering s. What if workshops of the Skin Cancer Institute were besieged by bronzed sun-worshipers-turned-melanoma-patients screaming for more research funds? In both cases, empathy for the sufferers would be coupled with an intolerance for the behaviors that produced the disease. I believe the same should apply toward ly contracted AIDS sufferers: compion, yes; funding for research and treatment, yes; but not an uncritical opening of the coffers generated by the fear of being accused intolerant. The second troublesome aspect of all this is that the bold hypocrisy of gay activists apparently is not baldly obvious to the national media. Coverage of the AIDS lobby has been overwhelmingly sympathetic. One lonely critical political cartoon, in the Arizona Republic, depicted two gay men entering a bath house while complaining about the government’s failure to invest more in research. Its creator was instantly labeled a “hate-mongerer,” the cartoon, “a crime.”