Je me vois souvent contraint de commencer mes billets sur le travail du sexe en parlant du Grand Prix de F1 de Montréal.
Chaque année, dans la foulée du Grand Prix – et particulièrement l’année dernière, en juin – les médias se font un plaisir, sinon un devoir, de prendre d’assaut ce qu’ils perçoivent comme une violente augmentation de l’exploitation sexuelle et de la traite des femmes dans le cadre de ces évènements sportifs. Cette médiatisation s’inscrit dans une approche abolitionniste aux effets néfastes, ceux-ci incluant une surveillance accrue, des arrestations plus fréquentes et des risques de déportation plus élevés pour les travailleuse(-eur)s du sexe.
In an era where sometimes difficult, science-based decisions are routinely required of both positive and negative individuals− think when to start treatment, or the relative benefits of PrEP vs condoms− are we doing enough to steer people away from bad decisions?
First we need to acknowledge that even in a non-judgmental environment such as ours, some decisions just aren’t wise. Charlie Sheen and the allure of the goat’s milk cure proved that quite publicly. So did this Facebook commenter opining recently when to start treatment: “It’s best to wait until there is a patch, a spray or a cure.” In fact I suspect there is a fairly large faction (I call them “treatment denialists” ) who aren’t persuaded by START that early treatment works best. Or by PARTNER that it can all but eliminate the risk of transmission.
Hepatitis C is curable, reads the script; time and time again I hear this said, have read it, and say it myself. This is great news and a reality for more people than ever before.
Does this mean that the job is done? I suppose it depends on one’s perspective. As I listened to members of the science research community speak recently, it is “done and dusted.” “Problem solved,” the headlines will read. Okay, maybe no headlines but a mention on page 4 with a minor piece in the late evening news, even though this may be the biggest news in medical science in decades.
There is a quiet tension that exists surrounding HIV and infant feeding. Although practices and recommendations vary around the world, breastfeeding is not recommended for infants born to an HIV-positive woman or trans man in Canada. Instead, HIV-positive parents are counselled to feed their infants with formula.
But I don’t think it is by any means a closed case, even in Canada. The truth is, the debate about HIV and infant feeding (particularly in Canada) has never been more complex. Like so many discussions related to HIV today, scientific advances are changing the way we talk about and consider possibilities. New questions about treatment as prevention, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and even levels of ‘risk’ seem to emerge every day.
A test is a test, right? I’ve struggled with the issues of why HIV testing matters over the last 25 years, and over that time I’ve seen the ebb and flow of debates and discussions on why testing is still an important issue for Canada. I’ve also seen the frustration among those who do not have access to testing and why that matters. Yes, knowing your HIV status is still an important health issue for Canadians. However, with the complex array of debates on the pros and cons of testing, including the very real concerns about confidentiality; the need for pre- and post-test counselling; limited access to testing innovations such as point-of-care testing (POCT); the gendered nature of testing along with some popular misconceptions about it, there is definitely room for improvement moving forward. Simply put: We can and must do better in our national leadership around HIV testing issues in this country.
The CATIE Blog hosts the views and opinions of people and organizations working and volunteering in Canada’s response to HIV and hepatitis C.