A
recent NPR blog written by Mark Memmott drew attention to a potentially
devastating WHO error that mistakenly attributed the rise in HIV/AIDS in Greece
to self-infliction. The WHO report
explicitly stated, “HIV rates and heroin use have risen significantly, with
about half of new HIV infections being self-inflicted to enable people to
receive benefits of €700 per month and faster admission on to
drug-substitution programs.” A later
correction by WHO stated, “What is
accurate to say is that slightly more than half of the Greece's new HIV cases are
among those who inject drugs.” Despite
the retraction, the misstatement remains in the WHO’s publication: Review of
the Social Determinants and the Health Divide in the WHO European Region Final
Report.
The offending statement, according to Memmott,
appears to have resulted from the synthesis of two different reports and a
subsequent conflation of drug use and ostensible intentional
self-infection. Although intravenous
drug users do experience much higher risk for the contraction of HIV/AIDS and other
diseases transmitted through blood, it is a far stretch to presume that these
individuals would choose infection if it meant financial gain or more expedient
treatment for their drug dependency. As
disturbing as this published assumption is, it is more disturbing that it made
it past revisions and into a final report.
Rather than using this opportunity to further
raise awareness about the specific risks of intravenous drug use or the
structural factors and mental health issues that often contribute to both drug
use and STI/STD, WHO sidestepped these issues in its retraction. Insteaf of taking advantage of the
opportunity for more explicit education or even accepting responsibility for
their mistake, the WHO reiterated the fact that the new HIV cases are more
prevalent among people who choose to inject drugs. It seems rather preposterous, in my opinion,
to even entertain the notion that an individual would choose to contract a
potentially life threatening (and definitely debilitating or life altering)
disease in order to receive social service benefits.
The potential deleterious impact of an official
edict such as this is potentially devastating to the already marginalized
populations of the addicted and infected.
Yes, the WHO did issue an official statement denying the claim, but the
original claim remains in the official report.
If an average person reads a final report from the largest health
organization in the world, what is the likelihood that they will presume any
portion of it is wrong. If the statement
is taken as fact, it will lend credence to existing stereotypes about these and
other marginalized populations, thus reifying the systemic inequities and
violence to which they are already exposed.
Consider the fallout if such a report was released about infected populations
in the U.S. There is already a push to
enforce drug testing for social program beneficiaries due to the stereotype
that marginal populations in need are unilaterally abusing the system and must
be using drugs. An added association
between need, drug use, and disease necessitating long-term care funded by
taxpayers or government programs could hold the potential to encourage the
eradication of such programs via an intensive political rhetoric emphasizing
the marginal and allegedly deviant standing of these people.
Links to the NPR blog and WHO report are below:
Other discussions of the topic linked to in the original blog:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.