Answering a challenge for eligibility

Looking at your vulnerable side

Having a sit down to talk and have a conversation with people for professional services is quite an interesting thing, especially where an assessment is being made of whether the professional or assessor can help you. The day before, I had met with a prospective buddy/mentor, we decided to meet again when it seemed there was no point of agreement or meeting of minds.

It was in a conversation with my consultant some weeks ago that we agreed that on her referral, I could avail myself of counselling rather than request it on my own pre-empting.

I think I have convinced myself that I am quite articulate, I have a disciplined or call it measured way of talking about myself that exudes qualities of clarity of mind, understanding of issues, elaboration of detail, and building relatable narratives.

Making sense of the complexities

Interestingly, for the first time, I linked together a whole range of life events walking backwards from situation to Genesis, a framework that had developed in the many blogs I had written but never laid out in a string of unintended and yet natural chain of occurrences.

The questions I was asked were supposed to elicit concepts and ideas upon which a decision could be made to put me in line for engagement, but it got to the point where it was first opined that I might not need the service and hence, I needed to assert by whatever means why I felt they could be of help.

An analogy for counsel provision

I had never thought of it before, it was like I was given utterance to address the challenge as I spoke. I started with every journey has a road to a destination, the destination sometimes is what is required and nothing else. However, consider if on that journey, you were driving and then you had a diversion or probably you had a tyre puncture that meant you had to stop to change the tyre.

That interruption to your journey is worth considering in terms of delaying you getting to your destination, bringing some new experience into view, what you might have run over to cause the puncture, how to avoid such punctures, like navigating another route, being conscious of the related hazards, and how to have a better journey.

The focus has moved from the destination to the experience in the journey which is part of the tapestry of life itself. Surely, all that is significant. I think that analogy helped considerably, he nodded, acknowledged how useful the illustration was and I think he was a bit more convinced that there was scope for me to access services.

In what I thought would be just an hour of conversation, over 90 minutes went into the chat that I found myself running late for my welcoming stint at the cathedral. Meanwhile, there is a waiting list and maybe soon, I would be getting a call.

Thought Picnic: Of friendships circumstance will not break

Roles we do not choose

There are roles that come by reason of progeny, others by reason of status, some by reason of quest and there some that fall not by election or commission but just by fate, roles you never chose that others immediately confer on you.

I was thrust into such a role today and I was honoured and blessed to stand in that role. A few weeks ago, I wrote of Dealing with sexuality and HIV stigma, an encounter at work that involved both the sharing of my sexuality and status.

The open-mindedness of my colleague blew me away that the encounter became the episode around which to give context to a statement I saw online a couple of weeks earlier - “In a perfect world, the positive would be open and the negative would be open-minded.”

Openness is a frame of reference

My colleague was presented with a dilemma, a close friend of his after a long regular matrimonial relationship with issue had decided on a different course in life, one the presented literally insurmountable challenges in the area of sexuality and sexual choices. Whilst not radical from a health perspective, it was life-changing for all concerned.

My advice was sought on how to deal with such a situation, on behalf of the friend and my colleague who confessed he had no frame of reference with which to offer counsel and support.

Unbeknownst to my colleague, he probably had the broadest frame of reference in that he was open to understanding and inquiry, accepting of a different situation in which he had no contemplative context and he was determined to continue the long-term friendship that he had with his friend, regardless of the choices the friend had made. He cherished the person over the circumstance.

Presence is humanity

In the broader scheme of things, the friend was facing isolation, ostracism, and rejection, in my view, to have someone like my colleague available to continue to offer support and friendship without judgement or accusation was an exhibition of unparalleled brotherly love and humanity.

In my colleague, I saw an openness that gave me renewed faith in our common humanity and here he was as a person exhibiting it again and having the freedom to ask for insight and advice for both himself and his friend. I suggested the use of support groups, but first and essentially tapping on professional help to review the situation for his friend better.

However, most importantly, I said to my colleague the role he had to play was of the greatest significance to his friend, having an open mind, offering an open door, being a considerate listener and keeping the friendship going strong.

Picking up the broken pieces

And though my colleague said of that the honesty of his friend and the decision to face up to his challenging circumstances by informing his spouse and offspring was one of the most courageous things he had ever seen a man do, offered the choice to maintain the status quo and live a secret double life, the consequences of such a decision are at the very least earth-shattering.

No spouse in a heretofore heterosexual relationship can compete with the situation where their partner opts for a homosexual expression of physical and emotional fulfilment. The spouse will be gravely hurt, resentful, full of questions, guilt, angry, in denial and befuddlement apart from being scandalised in the community amongst other things that could presage depression or worse. The offspring will be left confused and possibly unable to deal with the change in their parent.

It goes without saying that healing for every side of this challenging situation is not around the corner, it would take a long time to come to terms with it and the hope is that professional counsel will help ameliorate the fallout. If every person affected by this had a friend like my colleague, there would be a lot to salvage of the life that went on before and that I think is necessary, though now things are still very raw.

My colleague can also challenge other friends in that circle to see a bigger, tolerant and embracing aspect to our humanity to accommodate difference wherever it might show itself. I commend my colleague for his openness and I was honoured to be called upon to chat about it.

The UK: My Serious Concerns About HIV Home-Testing Kits

Deep concerns about this

On reading a news item HIV Home-Testing Kits: Law Change Proposed, I found myself seriously concerned about this development that there is need for a debate as what this means for the UK.

As it stands, The HIV Testing Kits and Services Regulations 1992 prohibits the sale or supply of kits to members of the public who are not in the business of providing services as regulated under the following laws - the National Health Service Act 1977(1), or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978(2) or the Health and Personal Social Services Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1972(3).

Fundamentally, I think it is a good thing that HIV testing be regulated and kept within the ambit of the law where the usage of kits will have a proper chain of custody from purveyor to deploying the tests for whosoever might need it whilst guaranteeing the elements of anonymity, privacy, secrecy and confidentiality having made the person fully aware of the implications of taking an HIV test.

One-sided views

My concerns are even more palpable when the foremost HIV/AIDS charity, the Terrence Higgins Trust celebrates this news on their Facebook Page having lobbied for this change in the law which in terms includes a possible conflict of interest by reason of the fact that they also provide HIV Postal Tests by blood sampling leveraging mobile telephony tools to provide results to gay men and Africans living in the UK.

The following quotes in that news story seem to have really good intentions but leave many questions unanswered:

“I hope that by removing the ban on self-testing kits people will be able to choose the right time and right surroundings to take a test and, if positive, help them get the best treatment available.” Public Health Minister Anna Soubry.

“People deserve to have a choice about how and where they test for HIV and proper regulation will make self-testing a safe and supported option for many more people across the country.” Lisa Power, policy director at Terrence Higgins Trust.

“We know that some people are already buying poor quality self-testing kits online from overseas which is why we have campaigned for a change in the law.” Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust.

Hardly addresses the matter fully

I can relate to the sentiments expressed by these three significant HIV/AIDS specialists but offering choices and options is just half the story, I see nothing in these statements that provide safeguards against misuse or abuse when it becomes open-season for the unregulated and the public to acquire HIV test kits and use without restraint to elicit information that would have been protected in a more professional and organised setting.

Last year, Bisi Alimi, the renowned HIV/AIDS activist and human rights campaigner touched on a significant element of self-testing that goes beyond choice and control in this piece for the Guardian - An HIV home testing kit won't give you emotional support.

If we were to be honest with ourselves, the HIV home testing kit is not the equivalent of a pregnancy test, the results of both might well be life-changing but the beyond teenaged pregnancies and pregnancies by reason of the violation of the person, society is more accepting of the news of someone expecting, it is something you announce to as many as are close to you and well-wishers, it is not something you do for an HIV test result that proves positive for the many issues that it brings into the life and the immediate community of that person.

An unsatisfactory response

I engaged a number of activists, support workers and specialists in this field on Twitter before I decided to post a comment on the Terrence Higgins Trust – Facebook Page about my concerns, which appear below.

They did respond but I found their answers unsatisfactory laden with bloated organisational speak rather than the expected nimble adaptation responsive to the serious and real concerns that should be their core competence.

I posted a second comment, clarifying the fact that I am not against self-testing per se, but if there are no safeguards against the abuse people who might be coerced, compelled or put under duress by those with influence to take such tests outside a properly regulated framework, the consequences can be dire for those concerns.

It is not enough to say there are laws that safeguard abuse and protect the abused, if there are no immediate means to prevent and challenge overreach by the unscrupulous engaged in unconscionable activity, the damage would have been done long before redress can be sought, if ever it gets to that stage, by which time criminality has gained the edge of impunity just because those we have expected to ensure protection have prioritised choice and control over the duty of care, concern and compassion to play around with HIV infection and detection rate statistics at the expense of real people.

Safeguards or nothing

The law might well be abrogated, but we must not allow for this to be done without ensuring that the least, the powerless, the defenseless, the vulnerable, the helpless, the unfortunate and the disabled are adequately protected to pre-empt egress and abuse – that in the least should be the prime directive of any self-respecting HIV/AIDS organisation in the UK that considers humanity and human rights above all else and it is not too much to expect the Terrence Higgins Trust to be the greatest advocate to safeguard and protect before control and choice.

My Facebook Comment to the Terrence Higgins Trust

Akin Akintayo >> I think there are serious social and cultural ramifications for having HIV Home-Testing Kits beyond the idea that this puts control in the hands of people to determine how and where they want to be tested.

Having a HIV diagnosis is best managed in a professional setting, whilst it might be likely that those who discover their status might seek medical attention, there is no guarantee that they will, if they do not sink into mental depression and other issues in tying to handle the result outside of counselling environments.

An HIV self-test is in no way equivalent to a pregnancy test, the social ramifications of having a pregnancy test are hardly grave apart from in socially compromised settings like in teenaged pregnancies or those resulting from abuse.

In other settings, just as virginity tests are abused to violate women, I could see instances where these tests are administered under duress by those with influence over the tested, the consequences of which might be dire and grave.

I worry that this drive is being aimed at statistics rather when this is fundamentally beyond numbers to people and the way they exist within their communities along with the social dynamics that run within those communities.

Beyond home-testing, it just fills one with trepidation that some on discovering their status outside of medical supervision might also find ways to self-medicate by importing medicines from abroad and yet not know the progression of the disease in their system - their hubris in having such control might make them even greater vectors of the disease to the unwary - that will be unacceptable.

I will say again that THT should concentrate on persuading people to go for tests where they will have control, privacy, confidentiality and full protection of the law away from undue coercion and duress exacted by those who have undue influence over the lives of the people who need to test.

It is the harder part of your job, but at the same time it is the noblest part of your charitable activities if you chart this course.

Thank you.

Their response

Terrence Higgins Trust >> Thanks for your comment, Akin. We will continue encouraging people to test for HIV in the way that is most appropriate for them - GUM, community clinics, home sampling and - once established and properly regulated - self-testing. We believe all of these approaches have a role to play, and people have the right to decide for themselves how they want to test.

My second comment – awaiting a response

Akin Akintayo >> I appreciate the seemingly overarching view that "people have the right to decide for themselves how they want to test" the issue is how have you mitigated for the possible abuse, misuse, duress and coercion that I highlighted in my original comment and how will such people be protected?

Fundamentally, I am not against self-testing, per se, but I see no considered and detailed safeguards that makes this direction safe for those it might be imposed upon who will not have ready access to the essential legal protections in the immediacy of when they are abused.

There are social consequences and they must not be ignored to the point that whatever course is taken appears dogmatic.

The case for State law over religious guidance

Civic responsibility above religious beliefs

In the light of the tussles between religious beliefs and civil obligations, I could not have wished for a better reference for legal opinion than one that was part of the rejection of an appeal based on a sacking the appellant believed was religious discrimination.

A marriage guidance counsellor with Relate [1] – a secular relationships guidance organisation – refused to offer counselling to same-sex couples due to his religious beliefs which were Christian in inclination leading to his being relieved of his duties.

The UK has seen a number of cases of civil servants refusing to perform their objective work functions on the grounds of it prejudicing their beliefs and hence withholding public services from people who do not seem to conform to their standards or moral values.

The gravitas of religious leaders contemned

In this case the former archbishop of Canterbury, Lard Carey even made representations to the Lord Justice on this matter and there has been a certain Christian persecution complex that has been gaining activist fervour with the subtext that Christians are no more allowed to express themselves with conviction – the converse of which is the appearance of prejudice and bigotry in Christian attitudes that are less than communal and inclusive.

Lord Justice Laws made some very far-reaching statements that could prove useful in dealing with religious laws in Nigeria whilst give all citizens equal access to a uniformly accepted set of laws dispensing justice and protecting rights without depending on any belief system apart from plainly being a member of that society.

The legal case is made for completely keeping religion out of State, civil matters and the law, the full text of this judgement should for all purposes be required reading for any student of law and I liberally quote from the statements made in the article as written in the Guardian [2].

Justice cannot be given a religious tint

He said, “Legislation to protect views held purely on religious grounds could not be justified, it is an irrational idea and it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”

The Archbishop called for a special panel of judges with a "proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues" to hear the case. He went on to say, recent court decisions involving Christians had used "dangerous" reasoning and this could lead to civil unrest.

This is not to suggest that the archbishop was intent on invoking a mob to run riot against judges that weigh the facts of cases before them objectively without the influence and prejudice of religious faith, but that could deny non-adherent justice if civil issues are adjudicated by a panel of clergy-like lords.

Uniform laws for all

The Lord Justice then went on to say, “We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

I do not think any stronger statement can be made for eliminating Sharia Law from being a part of the legal system in Nigeria on the basis that even in Northern Nigerian were the majority might be Muslim, all people do not share uniform religious beliefs.

"The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the state, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.”

Taking religion out of civil society

This is where it gets untenable, if the people are to be free, the state has to think for itself and not be bound by religious laws over which there can be no reasoning or it can be subject to malevolent interpretation in the hands of those whose religious influence might not necessarily be commensurate with the required legal training to administer justice fairly and honestly.

Whilst Lord Carey was at liberty to say, “The description of religious faith in relation to sexual ethics as 'discriminatory' is crude and illuminates a lack of sensitivity to religious belief.” It can also be said that religious faith that cannot comprehend or tolerate difference in humanity is insensitive and inimical to societal cohesion.

In essence, religion must well be kept in the religious houses where the people congregate for worship and where the 'religious' people mix with other facets of society the character, personality and quality of the person by reason of their beliefs should not be obvious; adequate discretion must be exercised as to what you have faith in.

Source

[1] Relate | About Us

[2] Christian counsellor loses court fight over sacking | UK news | guardian.co.uk