intellectual vanities… about close to everything

what i read, and what i don’t… tue, 8 may 2007: Human Rights in Sweden

leave a comment »

HIV Prevention or Smashed Human Rights in Sweden?

On Tuesday, 08 May 2007, 12:12, I read:

“…Stockhom, i am living in, so it is great time, a beautiful stockholm’s summer.
…I am hivpoz… so swedish STD-law is terrible. They use trader’s contact.. so we have to leave informations about sexpartners to write down form-papers.. how, what, when, telnr?, anal? without or with condom? oral? it is a form per partner.
People with hivpoz are using coercitive funds, we are without rights in legal.

I tell can more if u want more know..

I need to move from sweden :)”

On Thursday, 10 May 2007, 02:33, I read further:

“….Few things to many don’t know what coercitive funds incl. are… for ex. doctor can use coercitive medicins to feed patient if he/she refused to eat pilles, and ofcourse to use covered in the badding to keep still this…It is very badly care then psychosic patients, who are cared mostly diplomatic.

police can fetch suspected person with hiv+ too. It can be possible to fetch person if he is in the abroad too, if police wants, but STD-doctor desired first before.

One thing is it good to have coercitive fund – it is teamtment, only medicins. if he want to eat, so okey totally, and if doesn’t want to eat so respect him! But it doesn’t so here in Sweden…

When it is hiv care – yellow house, they are pressed and wahsed brains.. and they sit in the isolering cells. If he care badly what doctor like…it is not as cat and mouse, only as a shake who surprices easy…
———–

2th thing.

It has a awful method to report/give information. It calls “Angiveri” in swedish, (=reporter, in bad style to say). That when he is hiv-neg, so he knows 100% that partner has hiv and to know how to use with condom and so.. as usually, but next day, he can call to police and report to police about partner hivpoz. The this hivpoz guy got directly without rights legal, and he are fetched of police and put him in isolering. It becomes more terrible situtition, he with hivpoz can be judged for a serious phsical assault, while gives maxium 3 years’ jail and he is liable for damages for 30 000 € and pays court costs.
So “Angiveri”-hivneg enjoys for fat money.

This the Swedish law is using to use method-sweets for them.

I can not have sex with hivneg-guys here – never in my life – when I am national registration in Sweden. I want not take risk for Angiverier. You never know if he is serious or faked who smells money… But if he would get forged hiv, so it befalls evil circus while take never fininshing. It is so dangerous and sickly system. As Borderline-liking.
And it is as GULAG-system in Sovjetic time, and mixed of STAAS in DDR and NAZI.

This are so mostly problem in socialpsychologic things.

I can NOT understand personals who work in HIV care in the hopitals LOVE to work with trader’s contacts and they are mostly psychologists, but they work normally in 20 % of time to work as psychologists and 80% of time to work with trader’s contacts.
I call them often “Nazi-kurator”.”

On the same day I read, that one of the first and certainly the most dramatic and higher profile actions the Swedish overnment took as a means of AIDS prevention, was the inclusion of HIV in the existing STD Law in 1985. Under this law, anyone who has been diagnosed as HIV-positive is under a duty to follow certain rules, including practising safer sex, informing sexual partners of his or her HIV status, co-operating generally and attending his or her doctor’s regularly for appointments and check ups. If the patient fails to abide by these rules and the doctor suspects for one reason or another that he or she is running the risk of spreading HIV (through prostitution, irresponsible sexual activity or sharing needles), this could result in the doctor reporting the matter to the County Medical Officer and, ultimately to incarceration for an indefinite period. In 1987, a further change to the law was made whereby, if a patient does not follow the rules established by his (treating) doctor, the County Medical Officer is obliged to inform the police and the local social authorities. The latter authorities are themselves obliged to report back to the County Medical Officer if they detect that the person is not following the doctor’s instructions.
In practice, most doctors are likely to do all they can to help the patient modify his or her behaviour before the ultimate sanction is applied, when the patient is reported to the County Medical Officer, who takes the necessary steps to incarcerate the offender. Concrete proof of putting lives at risk through spreading HIV is not necessary, all that is required is a suspicion that it is the case.

There is an important regulation in the Law of Infectious Diseases that states that “everybody who has reason to believe that he has been exposed to an infectious disease must without any delay seek a doctor and let the doctor do the necessary health examination to find out whether he or she has been infected or not”, including an HIV test. According to the law, anyone who does not contact a doctor
for examination, even though he or she suspects that he or she has been exposed to the virus, shall be compulsorily tested and everyone who does not comply with the regulations can be compulsorily isolated.
It is likely that most homosexual men have had the experience of, or a history of, casual sex. Many were therefore horrified by the inclusion of HIV in this law. But the majority of people including even liberals, in Swedish gay society, thought that such a draconian measure was needed, as those infected could not be expected to remain permanently vigilant. “We have to accept that on certain occasions some people risk spreading HIV more or less deliberately or feel that they could not care less.” (a gay leader). Many gay men ridiculed the idea that anyone could contemplate admitting to their HIV status during casual sex, because of the impersonality of such situations and out of fear of the sexual partner breaking confidentiality. “There is no confidentiality in a back room or a park.” (G.Bratt).

The rest of Swedish society was less critical of the law, as they took for granted that as a law existed to prevent STDs, there was even more reason to apply such a law to HIV which was actually life-threatening. Many homosexuals however, agreed that there was a big difference between ordinary STDs, of which treatment can cure a person in a matter of days, and HIV which is an incurable condition, that could last a life long with the arrival of triple therapy. They duely argue that, ironically, although the law is designed to prevent the spread of HIV, it actually weakens prevention by making it the responsibility of the HIV-positive person alone. They query why partners should not have an equal responsibility for the possible spread of infection and the fact that as an HIV-positive person is supposed to disclose his or her HIV status, there is a possibly mistaken assumption that he or she is HIV negative if nothing is said.
The desire to encapsulate HIV in a public health law is seemingly a very Swedish phenomenon. The social legitimation that allowed such a law to be dreamt up and be passed came into existence as a result of a number of social factors that structure Swedish society.

Firstly,
Swedish society has a strong state that citizens co-operate with because it is largely seen as benign and the provider of much valued welfare. Supporters point out the benignity of the law, which provides free treatment and clinical care (the first £150, normally paid by the patient is waived in this case). This is seen as the other side of the same coin the responsibility and duty of ‘society’ in return for the responsibility and duty of the HIV-positive person to abide by society’s legal requirements in order to prevent spread of the disease.

Secondly,

the law reflects a long tradition and emphasis upon public health (there has been a history of good-quality epidemiology and clinical care and prevention for STDs in Sweden), whereby the individual is secondary to the needs of ‘society’ or the community. In such a social context, the passing of the law met with little resistance in Swedish society, except that which emanated from the group most badly hit by the disease, the gay community. Drug addicts, prostitutes and immigrants are neither well organised nor politically free to object, as no-one would take any notice of such
marginalised and barely legitimate groups.

What I don’t read is that, despite fierce criticism from parts of the gay community in Sweden, in practice, not a single international gay rights fore nor human rights organisation would have stould up against a modern European society installing laws — not far from the hygiene regulations of the 3rd Reich or plague handeling in the Middle Ages — as a means of disease prevention.

It is said that no homosexual has been incarcerated in what is called the “Yellow Villa” or its annex. The majority of the 47 or so cumulative inmates are psychiatric cases, prostitutes or immigrants who, some might argue, have fallen foul of Swedish cultural mores. (Unfortunately, from the point of view of prevention, it is far from clear that much is being done at the Yellow Villa or its annex to help educate the inmates, anyway. The emphasis is upon containing and controlling the epidemic by incarcerating humans that are out of office labelled as “irresponsible or reckless HIV-positive people”. There seems to be no clear plan of rehabilitation, although inmates under lock and key are comfortably fed, watered and entertained by “being able to choose activities each day themselves, though being under the constant guard of vigilant warders when outside the walls of the Villa.)
One of the main problems with the law, next to abolishing basic human rights, is that on top of it undermines the vital relationship of trust between doctor and his patient and thereby, bitterly enough — as there is no room for irony — makes prevention itself even more difficult. Law, if applicable to health, is clearly meant to protect the community and not to punish the diseased individual.

stigma.jpg

In a modern society neither social stigma nor social concern should be allowed to degrade the dignity of a human being!

see also:

Stigma

Written by huehueteotl

May 14, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: