Faculty Bibliography

In 1992, New York State Department of Health regulations provided for fully legal syringe exchange programmes in the state. The policies and procedures mandated that: 'Each program must seek to recruit ... for inclusion on its advisory board ... program participants ... Programs are also urged to establish other advisory bodies, such as Users' Advisory Boards made up of program participants, to provide input and guidance on program policies and operations.' The inclusion of drug users as official advisors to the legal programmes was seen as a method for incorporating the views of the consumers of the service in operational decisions. The 1992 regulations implied a new public image for users of illicit psychoactive drugs: active drug users were seen to be capable not only of self-protective actions (such as avoiding HIV infection), but also of serving as competent collaborators in programmes to preserve the public health. This development has important implications with regard to the evolution of official drug policy, since it will be difficult in future to treat IDUs simply as the passive objects of state intervention. Whether as individuals or representatives of a wider population of illicit drug users, they have acquired a legitimacy and sense of personal worth which would have been unthinkable in previous periods.

OBJECTIVE:Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was formally identified among injecting drug users (IDUs) in 1981, and research on preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among drug injectors began shortly thereafter. At the time this research was begun, there was a general assumption that drug user (who were called drug abusers at that time) were too self-destructive and their behavior too chaotic for them to change their behavior to avoid infection with HIV. This chapter reviews the history of research on implementation of programs for prevention of HIV infection among IDUs. METHODS:Reviews of both research and program implementation research were conducted. Consultative discussions of issues and findings were conducted with researcher in the United States and other countries. RESULTS:An extremely large amount of useful information has accumulated during the pat 15 years. We now know that the great majority of IDUs will change their injecting behavior in response to the threat of AIDS and that these behavior changes are effective in reducing HIV transmission among drug injectors. Additional insight is needed regarding the apparent insufficiency of some prevention programs to control HIV, the transmission dynamics of rapid HIV spread, and the persistence of moderate to high incidence of HIV infection in high seroprevalence populations. Despite the current research knowledge base, implementation of effective prevention programs in may countries is nonexistent to incomplete. CONCLUSIONS:The most important barrier to reducing HIV transmission among drug injectors is not a lack of knowledge but the failure to implement effective prevention programs in may parts of the world.

Some long-term, large-scale socio-economic changes may affect the politics of HIV and other emerging viruses such as hepatitis C. It is useful to ask why the potential peace dividend of the early 1990s failed to provide adequate resources for HIV-related social and medical service delivery in developed or developing nations. This failure can be understood by looking at long-term global economic trends and the pressures they put on governments and corporations. They have produced a period in which fundamental issues of political and economic structure are at stake and, often, the response is a divide-and-rule politics to promote stability. National politics differ in terms of the extent to which such a 'politics of scapegoating' is institutionalized and in terms of which groups are scapegoated. Groups such as drug injectors, gay and bisexual men and sex traders are particularly likely to be targeted both by the scapegoaters and by HIV. Given this framework, how should public health professionals and activists engaged in HIV-related issues respond? Under what circumstances should we orient efforts upwards towards corporate, political or bureaucratic leaders? Under what circumstances, and how, should we orient towards popular forces? Relatedly, we need to consider an issue we often ignore: What do we have to offer potential allies? That is, in terms of their goals, philosophies and needs, why should they ally with us?

The initial period in the establishment of syringe exchange projects is often characterized by overt conflict: between community AIDS activists, on the one hand, and public officials and political leaders who remain ideologically opposed to the introduction of measures perceived as condoning illicit drug use. In this context, professionals concerned with legitimating the new institutions of syringe exchange may sometimes neglect aspects of their everyday logistics and social organization, obscuring the important choices which have to be made to carry these initiatives forward. In particular, the contrast between formally-constituted institutions-the "storefront" or "community-based" syringe exchange programs (SEPs)-and the model of low-threshold syringe availability through pharmacies, vending machines, and user networks, is here presented not as an either/or choice but rather as a pair of complementary strategies which respond to diverse needs and target different populations. The advantages and disadvantages of each particular approach make it likely that maximum effectiveness will be achieved through a combination of every possible form of needle distribution, each tailored to specific and cultural circumstances. The case is here examined in the light of the experience of the SEPs in New York City, from their clandestine origins in 1990 through their first years of official functioning in 1992-1996.

The causes of death among injecting drug users. (IDUs) are still being discussed worldwide. We analysed the causes of death among IDUs attending 26 centres for drug users in North-Eastern Italy from 1985 to 1994. The study of a total number of 1,022 deaths reveals the following: (1) AIDS has become the primary cause of death among IDUs since 1991 and is rising even in an area with a moderate HIV seroprevalence; (2) the mean age of death in AIDS patients proved higher than among patients who died of other causes (which may be due to the long incubation period of AIDS); (3) our data do not reveal higher HIV seroprevalence among IDUs who died of overdose and suicide as opposed to IDUs who died of other causes; (4) the mortality rate in IDUs is significantly higher when compared to that of the general population in the same age group.