It Something happened this week on AIDS. We became aware of the latest figures of InVS on new cases of gonococcal (hot piss) which rose 52% in just one year, from 2008 to 2009. Not only do these figures are impressive lately, but they give an idea almost in real time what happens in 2010. We can already assume that the trivialization of the Treatment as Prevention will contribute to the increase of STIs that are seen for ten years. The TASP, which proposes to reduce transmission of HIV through intensive campaigns and targeted screening and providing treatment for HIV to reduce their viral load and make them less polluting, that gays are less likely hood and they are less afraid of semen during oral sex. The "cover" expected the TASP will necessarily increase of STIs since the TASP for HIV prevention (theoretically) but not STIs.
As usual, the webzines gay, yet these figures also relate to gays are announced without comment from , and some sites do not mention it at all. And God knows that when one learns that a straight actor is on the cover of a gay magazine at the other end of the world, news travels.
So we do not talk much of STIs among gay and we do not talk much either much of the recent case juridicialisation of transmission of HIV, while everyone spoke there an AFP dispatch, Doug Ireland relayed section of Edwn J Bernard in the Guardian , etc.. Already, it seems that some editors are keen to make a deadlock info on these cases of intentional contamination (or not). This is a subject on which there has been cut to pieces and there may be the idea that if we do not talk about the phenomenon takes less important. The problem is that there are two important forces at play
First, some of these cases have an international impact, as the case the 3 poz Dutch had drugged and infected 12 partners orgy by inoculating them with infected blood (one of the accused was a nurse, practice). Another example is the recent case of Nadja Benaissa, a German singer who spoke last week at the trial to apologize. She had contaminated one of its partners by not telling her that she was HIV positive, something she now considered stupid. So it is a matter that takes a new turn. The accused is not, as is often the case, an average person, the lower classes. It is a famous artist.
Therefore, the force Media trial is ethical and emotional. Secondly, we must not underestimate the strength of views expressed by users who read (or not) news related to these trials. We have seen with other cases in other media and not the worst as Liberation when gays speak out on these trials is not always the argument pre-recorded, that the found in the section of the Guardian . No, they do not believe that these cases make the game of the increase of AIDS cases in the commonly acquired (by whom? Where? Studies?) That people does not track for fear of these trials. First, these trials are rare: several hundred cases worldwide, millions of infected people. Then, screening has big delays in our country, especially among gay men, largely because of the slow adaptation of associations fighting against AIDS and the government about early detection. This is not the case that scare the gay point of refusing to be tested. They did not detect because, for now, neither the association nor the government have decided to launch a major operation in the early identification of incentive to really support the concept of TASP. Put poz all under treatment without seeking the 40% of gay men who are HIV without knowing it, is flawed, it will not work. It's like if you turn off a fire continues to burn unimpeded a kilometer away. The 40% who do not know poz will continue to circulate the virus, whereas prevention practices will be relaxed even more than today (that's a euphemism).
When gays speak out on this subject, it is far from the rehashed speeches at international conferences. And it is better than the site moderator is there to bring order. Much of the readers is ulcerated because they take it personally. A force feed these websites gay miscellaneous, they do not understand that it ignores the sometimes shocking stories. They see that the risk of HIV and STIs is closer to them, even when they are safe. Remember, 52% increase in hot piss in a year, that's a lot of people who are treating a emmerdées bléno, warts or syphilis. And I'm not talking about the explosion of hepatitis C among gays.
So homosexuals have a passionate relationship and moral face of these trials. Because sex is not as ass, he is everything that surrounds it, the behavior of partners, politeness, correctness, morality, call it what you want, but when we kiss, we did not want to meet someone who will hurt us all in the knowing. These are the right words to say about these stories. There are trial or not (and this is my adamant position ever), it is not for me to decide, but I refuse publicly that it is a taboo subject in the sense that people are trials for next to nothing today and I do not understand that association leaders are for the entire judicial system to request not to investigate these cases because it takes stifle the very idea of a trial if it was affected in a particularly despicable. If we had the case of the 3 Dutch gay poz, how we react? He seems not to do a trial?
The third force at play in these trials, the international lobby against the jurdicialisation of HIV infection. Since the famous call Edwin J. Cameron in South Africa, Laurent Chambon and I met in 2007 Tetu, there is this idea that these trials have an even more serious in countries developing. It reminds us that the article in the Guardian . And yes, it's a fact. So there is a strong pressure to stifle these trials in Western countries (rich) because it affects developing countries. Again, we are asked to adjust our Western ethics in relation to what is happening in the south. OK. My point of view, gay gay, is that Cameron's appeal is entirely justified. We do not live in Europe and America, as if we were in Soweto. We are in the country obsessed with the protection, as everyone knows, and it is a legitimate right to appeal to justice when one considers that it has suffered an injury that can not be placated by obscurity. We are in moral cases are very close to rape. In short, very deep feelings that require, sometimes a court decision out of respect for what one is, not necessarily to punish the accused. We must stop thinking of AIDS as a disease that has its own laws. Especially when you live in a rich country, where screening tests are everywhere, the tops and frost as well as emergency treatment and HAART that poor countries have not yet. On this subject, ethics can not be the same everywhere because it's been ten years since we HAART in our country (not in the south) and we all know that it changes the essence of what AIDS.
I repeat: I never said we should imprison people who contaminate. We can not find anywhere an expression of me going in this direction. I'm not a crazy safe, I did not particularly trust in the justice of my country. And I do not think these laws were introduced across the world have a direct relationship with the hope of reducing the epidemic. So all the arguments being presented in more level international conferences and so well summed up by Edwin Cameron misses the central element: although the vast majority of trials around the world does not involve voluntary transfers, what happens when we really are, with will harm? We move on? We forget?
What I have always said, is that there are court judgments that do not necessarily incarceration. There may be decisions symbolic. We can not, either, stick to the cliché "You can not put a cop behind every homosexual." It is a response profoundly stupid, because it does not understand the evolution of this epidemic in wealthy nations, fueled by the rise of HIV infections among gay men who have everything to protect themselves, this has nothing to do with this happens in countries in the developing world. Each therapeutic advance as TASP us away a little more than standard care in poor countries. The TASP is a therapeutic strategy for prevention of rich countries and it is far to introduce it in Africa where there is not even able to provide antiretrovirals to those who are sick. We just finished a dogma of 30 years where the canopy was Central and we enter a new era where gays are told: "You can forget about the hood if you do this or that." This is hardly the message of prevention is offered in South Africa, I assure you.
What would we do if we were one of 12 gay men asleep asleep under GHB and medically contaminated by three poz who said "there are more HIV-positives among gay is better"? What would we do? What would we do if we were in a gay couple of 60 years, who have vowed to stay safe outside the couple for not having to use the hood together and then one day, one of the two becomes seropositivity, and infects its partner of 40 years because he is afraid to tell him he has broken the pact? After struggling together for 30 years not to infect the other? What's going on there if there is a common heritage? What would you do if your partner is Poz and he knows and he does not tell you when you have, on numerous occasions, reports contaminants? Let me remind you that the idea of TASP, precisely, is also said to his partner: "You know, we're not going to put on condoms even though I am because I'm Poz HAART and my turn is dependent undetectable for 5 years so there's no problem. " At one point the TASP, it must be said that seropositivity is not it? Or you want us to stop altogether to mention AIDS in sexual negotiations at a time when the hot piss increase of 52% in one year? As if these were not gonorrhea risk aggravating catch the HIV? Mama mia
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment