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.

'We've got a present for you': Hepatitis C elimination, compromised healthcare subjects and treatment as a gift

With the advent of highly effective and tolerable direct-acting antiviral treatments for hepatitis C, widespread optimism for and investment in the project of disease elimination now informs the public health response. In Australia, the Commonwealth government has invested heavily in elimination by universally subsidising treatment, promising access for all. Reflecting concerns that commonly accompany ambitious public health projects, cost for governments supporting access to the treatment and cost for individuals consuming it have emerged as central issues. Drawing on 30 interviews with people who have been cured of hepatitis C with direct-acting antivirals, this article examines how cost shapes experiences of hepatitis C treatment and cure in Australia. Drawing on Lauren Berlant's (2011) influential work on 'cruel optimism', we analyse three interconnected ways that notions of cost shape participants' views of treatment as a beneficent gift from the state: (1) understandings of treatment access as a form of 'luck'; (2) conceptions of the cost of treatment; and (3) criticisms of others who are seen to waste state resources by not taking up treatment or by re-acquiring hepatitis C. We argue that, together, these dynamics constitute people affected by hepatitis C not as citizens worthy of public investment and fundamentally entitled to care, but as second-class citizens less deserving of treatment and of the health care to which they might otherwise be considered entitled. It is within this dynamic that the compromised quality of elimination optimism takes shape, binding people affected by hepatitis C to an inequitable relationship to health care, reproduced through the very things that promise to free them of such inequality - investments in access to treatment and cure.

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

With the advent of highly effective antiviral treatment for hepatitis C, many people have undergone treatment and been cured. Others, however, have not undergone treatment, even where it is free and readily available. Australia's aim of eliminating the disease by 2030 means this group is of concern to researchers, health professionals and policymakers. This article draws on 50 interviews conducted for a research project on treatment experiences to examine treatment non-uptake in Australia. Informed by Berlant's (2007) work on 'slow death', it analyses experiences of non-uptake to explain the dynamics at work in such outcomes. The analysis is divided into three parts. First, participant Cal describes a lifetime in which hepatitis C, homelessness and prison have shaped his outlook and opportunities. Second, Evan describes intergenerational drug consumption, family contact with the prison system and an equally long history with hepatitis C. Finally, Rose also describes a long history of hepatitis C, complex struggles to improve life and contact with the prison system. All three accounts illuminate the dynamics shaping treatment decisions, calling to mind Berlant's slow death as a process of being 'worn out by the activity of reproducing life' under conditions that both demand self-management, and work against it. In concluding, the article points to Berlant's distinction between 'epidemics' and 'endemics', arguing that its politics apply directly to hepatitis C. In doing so, it highlights the need to address the criminalising, pathologising, capitalist context of 'attrition' (Berlant) that wears out lives even as it fetishises autonomy, responsibility and choice.

Wait Up!: Attachment and Sovereign Power

Sociologists and feminist scholars have, over many decades, characterised attachment as a social construction that functions to support political and gender conservatism. We accept that attachment theory has seen use to these ends and consider recent deployments of attachment theory as justification for a minimal State within conservative political discourse in the UK since 2009. However, we contest that attachment is reducible to its discursive construction. We consider Judith Butler's depiction of the infant attached to an abusive caregiver as a foundation and parallel to the position of the adult citizen subjected to punitive cultural norms and political institutions. We develop and qualify Butler's account, drawing on the insights offered by the work of Lauren Berlant. We also return to Foucault's Psychiatric Power lectures, in which familial relations are situated as an island of sovereign power within the sea of modern disciplinary institutions. These reflections help advance analysis of three important issues: the social and political implications of attachment research; the relationship between disciplinary and sovereign power in the affective dynamic of subjection; and the political and ethical status of professional activity within the psy disciplines.