hep, rowland, smack etc

Fascinating article. Had know idea how prevalent Hep C is.

Interesting article. Although the efficacy treatment is improving the uptake of treatment is not increasing as fast as it should. The Howard et al crowd started using at an unfortunate time. By the time HIV risk (and response) emerged nobody knew what Hep C really was. Although needle exchanges were effective in almost entirely ameliorating the risk of HIV infection amongst injectors in Australia the incidence of Hep C amongst the injecting community would of been very high prior to the implementation of needle exchanges. Given that Hep C is much more virulent and requires much less blood to be transmitted HIV health promotion measures did not effectively address Hep C. Funding for hep c prevention didn't really start rolling in until about mid 90's.

By the mid 90's a lot of people like Howard are off the smack, most likely have Hep C, most likely don't know they have hep c or are not feeling any ill-effects associated with hep c and are most likely still drinking. By now a lot of the Howard crowd will have cirrhosis or cancer of the liver, at which stage hep c treatment might halt cirrhosis, but the liver won't repair itself beyond cirrhosis... so the only real option is liver transplants, but there's just not enough livers to go around.

=/

Wow.
This hits close to home in a lot of ways. And brings back some bad memories.
People tended to ignore the risks of hep C at the time (even the health services, who didn't screen blood donations/transfusions), and worry more about crabs, the clap, or pregnancy.
Then AIDS came along.

Oh, and that perspective comes from someone who always kept well away from needles, by the way. We all knew what that shit was going to do to you.

there was hepatitus but B. no one knew about hep c - something that hung around forever. People thought they'd done alright just to avoid ODing or an embolism.

I faked a needle phobia in the early - mid 80s to avoid this part of my social scene's activities.

i'm just glad this shit had mostly had its day by the time my indulgences got into full swing. unfortunately the final crack in the tail took a few friends with it.

just read it and it sounds like a truly horrific disease.

people weren't just shooting up smack in those days. Speed was often injected and a particularly stupid friend of mine dissolved sudofeds and shot them up once.
I know so many people with this disease.

What an incredibly moving article.

so many men live with their heads in the sand when it comes to regular visits to their doctors for overall health checks. and that's men who may not have Hep C. of those who do, a very small percentage actively involve themselves in minimizing the impact of the virus. many just suck shedloads of booze, eat crap loaded with saturated fats and other difficult-to-digest processed garbage while remaining horizontal for hours at a time. sad really. nothing clever about speeding up your own demise.

I'm glad you weighed in, sister.
Having just re-read that piece, I'm gonna call a pre-emptive Craig David here.
And no, not because I'm in any sort of trouble myself.

prolly one of the best articles i have read for a long time.

of course it hits close to home. not myself btw as i like sister had needle phobia whilst others around me had ''needle fixation''. a lot of my friends have been in denial about this. i remember telling them in the 90's to go and get checked. oh no we wouldn't have that. well i guess you know how the rest of the story goes......

heaps of people were shooting up around my patch back in the mid to late 70s. smack went through Dee Why, Collaroy and, unfortunately, my home break of Long Reef like a dose of the salts. guys and girls were equally susceptible. $30 a cap, $15 for half & $120 for the much preferred gram, which would return the initial investment after 4 ''sales'' leaving the remainder for personal use. the stuff sold was usually cut with powdered milk or a variety of other stuff increasing one's personal supply. which, naturally would always be of a superior quality (read: more pure, by which i mean one wouldn't step on their own supply).

smack...Christ i've seen it change people.

Very good article by Kate Legge, although it merely stated the obvious to anybody with medical education.

This type of article would never appear in an Aussie music magazine. They don't subject Australian musicians (especially legends like Rowland) to such a harsh, penetrating gaze.

The point about donating organs to 'innocents', not fun-loving reckless types for me is the best part of the article. Try as I might not to be part of the backlash, I can't help but feel I'd much rather my organs went to someone who's illness wasn't self-inflicted through booze or stupidity. not that i'd change my donor status or anything, but it seems a shame that some kid with a birth defect is in the same queue as a 65 yo ex-hipster. (or are they?)

There's different queues, depending on urgency. It's like triage at a hospital.

In the 80s, people did not know the risks of Hep C infection. Ex-junkies shouldn't be denied livers on the basis of their youthful mistakes.

I wouldn't care who got my organs. I wouldn't want a past (or present) indiscretion or lifestyle of a potential organ recipient to be used to perpetuate negative judgement. For me it's about how much use someone could make out of said organ. And I would hope anyone/committee making such a decision wouldn't take their decision lightly.

For example, I would much rather some 65yo ex-hipster get an organ ahead of some kid with a birth defect if said organ transplant afforded ex-hispter 10-15 years of relatively trouble free life, but gave the kid with a birth defect 1 or 2 years of life in and out of hospital.

Of course things aren't that black and white. ex-hipster might have been or still is a heavy smoker, and could have health issues associated with that. Kid with birth defect might only be expected to live 2 years, but an ethics committee might be prepared to approve painless clinical trails, which if effective might save the kids life or result in further clinical trails or improvement of treatment modalities which render birth defect treatable.

I can't help but feel I'd much rather my organs went to someone who's illness wasn't self-inflicted through booze or stupidity.

if 'illness' is poor health resulting from disease of the body or mind, and 'disease' a pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various illnesses such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress (borderline, but anyway), and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms, then i don't see where it's a moral issue.

if (active) addiction is an abnormal state of mind that substantially impairs the mental responsibility reducing, in the addict, powers of control, judgment etc, then the classification provides a mitigating defense against predigested prejudices. and whether or not an addict [can] functions in society with sufficient capacity to undertake a living isn't the point either.

for fuck's sake

really good and sad article. made me glad to have had a needle phobia hahaha. lost too many friends to that shit in the early 90's.