I AGREE with Sophie Bridge (Sunday Morning Post, January 31) that we should have compassion for all AIDS victims, whatever the source of their infection.
But I find it hard to agree with her that we should not make any distinction among AIDS victims with regard to how they contracted the disease.
AIDS was identified more than 10 years ago. Almost from the beginning it was known certain behaviour made people more susceptible.
I am sure most people would feel greater pity for the innocent bystander who was accidentally shot by gun-wielding robbers than for someone who finally shot him/herself after playing Russian roulette.
Why is it wrong to make some kind of distinction among AIDS sufferers? Why should we not use some word, such as ''innocent'', to distinguish the children and the haemophiliacs from others who, even if not ''deserving'' of such a ghastly disease, did knowingly engage in risky behaviour that led to their catching it? BENJAMIN A. REES Mei Foo