Stephen Lewis: we need more like him

The death of Stephen Lewis brought tears to my eyes.

I have never met Lewis, I have not followed his career particularly closely, I was not even aware that he had been living with terminal cancer in hospice care. I had, however, admired his oratory for many years but more importantly his commitment to humanitarian causes, in particular to the suffering caused by HIV/AIDS in Africa.

Lewis was not somebody who just believed in alleviating the suffering he saw in the world, he was somebody who rolled up his sleeves (I recall images of him still wearing his tie, with sleeves rolled up in the heat of sub-Saharan Africa) and acted on his beliefs.

As the United Nations Ambassador for HIV/AIDS to Africa, he had a profound impact reducing the suffering caused by the lack of treatment, at the time available in high-income countries, but too expensive to be used in Africa.

The weekly Canada Letter published by the New York Times featured a tribute to Lewis and his accomplishments by Canadian journalist Stephanie Nolen. Ms. Nolen saw first-hand how Lewis’s advocacy changed the course of AIDS epidemic in Africa.

By sharing his humanity through speaking the truth to world leaders, patent regulations for antiretroviral drugs were waved to make them affordable and funding was found to buy these drugs. He also found a way to diplomatically force local community leaders to address the stigma of HIV infection.

Lewis was not unique in advocating for people infected with HIV.

The community activism that the HIV epidemic stimulated in North America was a turning point in patient and community advocacy for many other chronic illnesses.

Where Lewis differed from many other advocates was in his lack of “skin in the game.”

He was not infected with HIV. He was not speaking on behalf of a specific community to which he belonged.

He was speaking on behalf of humanity, and to what humanity should stand for.

As I reflect on my admiration for this remarkable human being, I mourn the lack of humanity in the world today.

The preponderance of visual images of death and destruction in the media has desensitized us to the suffering in the world. We see images of civilian housing destroyed by bombing on a daily basis.

I am not sure when this started but can clearly identify the Russian bombing of Ukraine’s cities and towns, joined by the Israeli bombing and destruction of almost all the housing in Gaza and now parts of Lebanon and the destruction of Iranian civilian infrastructure by the U.S.

Where are the voices of outrage at the lack of humanity in the world today?

Some may argue that the “use of force” is necessary to prevent further terrorism or remove a nuclear threat from the world. I am not a pacifist or suggesting that nations do not have the right to self-defence when their existence is threatened.

I have no interest in engaging in debate about what represents the right to self-defence.

I suspect there will always be wars in the world, but there are internationally agreed upon rules about how to conduct war in a humanitarian way.

While humanitarian conduct of war sounds like an oxymoron, I mourn the loss of those voices that make that case.

I worry about how comfortable we have become with seeing men inflicting suffering on women, children and other non-combatants. The purposeful wanton destruction of the civilian infrastructure we see daily on our screens has become accepted as the new normal.

I yearn for the example set by Stephen Lewis.

Alan Katz is a semi-retired family physician. He writes from Winnipeg.