Exhausted practical sovereignty and lateral agency: Non-uptake of treatment for hepatitis C in the antiviral era

Countering 'the moral science of biopolitics': Understanding hepatitis C treatment 'non-compliance' in the antiviral era

Although new hepatitis C treatments are a vast improvement on older, interferon-based regimens, there are those who have not taken up treatment, as well as those who have begun but not completed treatment. In this article, we analyse 50 interviews conducted for an Australian research project on treatment uptake. We draw on Berlant's (2007, Critical Inquiry, 33) work on 'slow death' to analyse so-called 'non-compliant' cases, that is, those who begin but do not complete treatment or who do not take antiviral treatment as directed. Approached from a biomedical perspective, such activity does not align with the neoliberal values of progress, self-improvement and rational accumulation that pervade health discourses. However, we argue that it is more illuminating to understand them as cases in which sovereignty and agency are neither simplistically individualised nor denied, and where 'modes of incoherence, distractedness, and habituation' are understood to co-exist alongside 'deliberate and deliberative activity […] in the reproduction of predictable life' (Berlant, 2007, p. 754). The analysed accounts highlight multiple direct and indirect forces of attrition and powerfully demonstrate the socially produced character of agency, a capacity that takes shape through the constraining and exhausting dynamics of life in conditions of significant disadvantage.

Exhausting care: On the collateral realities of caring in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic

We explore care as a site of multiplicity and tension. Working with the qualitative interview accounts of nineteen health care workers in Colombia, we trace a narrative of 'exhausting care' in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. Accounts relate exhausting care to working without break in response to extraordinary demand, heightened contagion concern, the pressures of caring in the face of anticipated death, and efforts to carry on caring in the face of constraint. We bring together the work of John Law (2010, 2011) on 'collateral realities' with Lauren Berlant's (2011) thesis of 'cruel optimism' to explore care as a site of practice in which the promise of the good can also become materialised as harm, given structural conditions. Through the reflexive narrative of 'carrying on' in the face of being 'worn down' by care, a narrative which runs through health care worker accounts, we draw attention to the collateral realities of exhausting care as personal and political, at once a practice of endurance and extraction. We argue that the exhausting care that relates to the extraordinariness of the Covid-19 pandemic also resides in the ordinariness, and slower violence, of the everyday. The cruel optimism of care is a relation in which the labour of care reproduces a harmful situation.

'I'm not hep C free': afterlives of hepatitis C in the era of cure

Since the advent of more effective, new-generation treatment for hepatitis C, immense resources have been devoted to delivering cure to as many people with the virus as possible. The scale-up of treatment aims to prevent liver disease, liver cancer and onward transmission of hepatitis C, but social research shows that people also approach treatment with its social promises in mind, including the hope that it might reduce or eradicate stigma from their lives. Such hopes reflect broader ideas about medical cure, which is seen as an end point to illness and its effects, and capable of restoring the self to a (previous) state of health and well-being. But what does cure mean among people for whom treatment does not produce an end to the social effects of a heavily stigmatised disease? While new treatments promise to eliminate hepatitis C, accounts of post-cure life suggest that hepatitis C can linger in various ways. This article draws on interviews with people who have undergone treatment with direct-acting antivirals (n=30) in Australia to explore the meanings they attach to cure and their experiences of post-cure life. We argue that dominant biomedical understandings of cure as an 'ending' and a 'restoration' can foreclose insight into the social and other effects of illness that linger after medical cure, and how individuals grapple with those afterlives. Drawing on recent conceptual re-framings of cure from medical anthropology and disability studies, we suggest that thinking at the limits of 'curative reason' helps to better address the afterlives of chronic illness. In the case of hepatitis C, reconceptualising cure could inform improved and less stigmatising ways of addressing people's post-cure needs. And in the era of hepatitis C elimination, such reconceptualisation is increasingly important as the cohort of people undergoing treatment and cure expands worldwide.

The trouble with normalisation: Transformations to hepatitis C health care and stigma in an era of viral elimination

Modern health-care systems have customarily approached hepatitis C in ways that resemble the public health approach to HIV/AIDS known as 'HIV exceptionalism'. HIV exceptionalism describes the unusual emphasis on privacy, confidentiality and consent in approaches to HIV and was partly developed to address HIV/AIDS-related stigma. In the case of hepatitis C, exceptionalist approaches have included diagnosis and treatment by specialist physicians and other 'boutique' public health strategies. The recent availability of highly effective, direct-acting antivirals alongside goals to eliminate hepatitis C have heralded dramatic changes to hepatitis C health care, including calls for its 'normalisation'. The corollary to exceptionalism, normalisation aims to bring hepatitis C into routine, mainstream health care. This article draws on interviews with stakeholders (n = 30) who work with hepatitis C-affected communities in policy, community, legal and advocacy settings in Australia, alongside Fraser et al.'s (2017, International Journal of Drug Policy, 44, 192-201) theorisation of stigma, and Rosenbrock et al.'s (1999, The AIDS policy cycle in Western Europe: from exceptionalism to normalisation. WZB Discussion Paper, No. P 99-202) critique of normalisation to consider the perceived effects of hepatitis C normalisation. Stakeholders described normalisation as a stigma-reducing process. However, they also expressed concerns about the ongoing stigma and discrimination that is not ameliorated by normalisation. We suggest that in centring normalisation, changes in health care may exaggerate the power of technological solutions to transform the meanings of hepatitis C.

Optimism and eternal vigilance: Gathering disease, responsible subjects and the hope of elimination in the new hepatitis C treatment era

The advent of direct-acting antiviral hepatitis C medications has reshaped experiences of hepatitis C treatment and cure. Positioned as a treatment revolution, the new medications mean a world without hepatitis C has become imaginable, and this optimism is reflected in Australia's commitment to the WHO's target of 'eliminating' the virus as a public health threat by 2030. Alongside optimism about new treatments, Australia's current National Hepatitis C Strategy also emphasises the importance of partnerships with, and the 'meaningful involvement' of, priority populations for elimination to be achieved. We draw on Fraser and Seear's (2011) work on hepatitis C as a 'gathering' to examine these developments, and to approach hepatitis C as a disease in-the-making. Analysing 50 interviews conducted with people affected by the virus, we identify three key articulations that combine to trouble the distinction between old and new treatments: (1) the new treatment constitutes the disease as readily curable; (2) nevertheless, those who have been cured are responsibilised against acquiring it again by managing and monitoring their conduct; and (3) in the process, hepatitis C becomes re-constituted as an ongoing threat requiring continual post-cure medical and other monitoring. We argue that while treatment experiences have dramatically improved, responsibilising people affected by hepatitis C to attain cure in the context of an elimination agenda constitutes cure as valuable as much for the greater good as for self-care. This raises pressing ethical and political questions. Overall, we shed light on how, even in a context shaped by the availability of highly effective treatment, the hepatitis C-free body is never hepatitis C-free, but must be continually reproduced through regulatory practices.