Search

In this article, we examine how injection drug users who do not attribute their HIV infection to engaging in HIV risk behaviours take up and critique discourses of individual responsibility and citizenship relating to HIV risk and HIV prevention. We draw on data from a study in Vancouver, Canada (2006–2009) in which we interviewed individuals living with HIV who had a history of injection drug use. In this paper, we focus on six cases studies of participants whodid notattribute their HIV infection to engaging in HIV risk behaviours. We found that in striving to present themselves as responsible HIV citizens who did not engage in HIV risk behaviours, these participants drew on individually focused HIV prevention discourses. By identifying themselves in these ways, they were able to present themselves as ‘deserving’ HIV citizens and avoid the blame associated with being HIV positive. However, in rejecting the view that they and their risk behaviours were to blame for their HIV infection and by developing an explanation that drew on broader social, structural and historical factors, these individuals were developing a tentative critique of focus on individual responsibility in HIV transmission as opposed to dangers of infection arising from the socio-economic environment. By framing the risk of infection in environmental rather than individual risk-behaviour terms, these individuals redistributed responsibility to reflect the social-structural realities of their lives. In this article, we reflect on the implications of these findings for public health measures such as risk prevention messages. We argue that it is important that such messages are not restricted to individual risk prevention but also include a focus of broader shared responsibilities of HIV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates coverage of cancer in three Canadian newspapers in order to explore how the print media presents issues related to cancer risk and prevention. Six months of newspaper coverage was coded and analysed quantitatively to identify trends in coverage. A small subset of these articles was then analysed qualitatively to identify latent and underlying messages. Results from the analysis suggest that coverage emphasised risk management through individual choice and lifestyle change, privileging a discourse of individual control. Conversely, social and environmental risks related to cancer were minimised, despite the emerging academic consensus around the central importance of social and environmental determinants of health. Lifestyle was the most frequently mentioned source of cancer risk. Social and environmental health links were mentioned sparingly, and when environmental links were presented they were contested in ways that lifestyle risks were not. The coverage reflects the prevalent discourse in Canadian society that responsibility for health management risk lies primarily with the individual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]