There is this study that is doing rounds in several Health - and particularly HIV/AIDS oriented mailing lists. The paper is
exciting because it provides easy to understand, yet deeply convincing policy
and fiscal arguments for investing resources and indeed creating positive
policy environments for Key Populations. In many countries in East Africa, -
including Kenya this includes Persons who inject drugs, Sex workers and gay men
and other men who have sex with men.
The paper argues that targeting highly
connected individuals for prevention resources may have a disproportionately
powerful effect in bringing down HIV prevalence. And this makes sense. If you
wanted to reduce transmission of an infectious condition, it helps in ensuring
that the people who are likely to transmit to more people are prevented from
getting that condition in the first place.
According to studies done in Kenya, a sex
worker is likely to have sex with seven different men, on a weekly basis while
a married woman is likely to have sex with only one man. In terms of preventing HIV transmission then,
it makes sense to ensure the sex worker is not infected with HIV, because of
the likelihood of transmitting it to many more men, than would a married woman.
The same argument applies for men who have sex with men, as well as PWID.
For a Member of Parliament from Murang’a
country, this information is important because Murang’a has the highest HIV
prevalence in the whole of Central Kenya. At 5% prevalence, it is just shy of
the National prevalence which is currently estimated at 5.6%. As expected Murang’a
also lags behind in other health outcome indicators.
One would be forgiven to imagine, that a
legislator from such a severely hit region, would be at the forefront of
advocating for legislations and policies that make it possible for as many
people as possible to come out to know their HIV status, as well as for those
in high risk groups, to take up prevention and treatment. This is especially
the case when we know; people on treatment are far less likely to transmit HIV,
and that, people who know their HIV status take better care of their health
than those who do not know.
Indeed
in this parliamentary debate which he instigated at asking for strict implementation of anti-gay laws, shows, the challenge of HIV remains a very
real and growing challenge. This debate
instigated by Mr. Kang’atia, led to treatment interruption for more 200 MSM who
had to run for safety for fear of possible arrests and violence. Hon Kang'atia knows very
well, that criminalization of MSM, drives them further underground so they are
unable to access qualified prevention, treatment and care. He also knows that such
exclusion creates fertile ground for accelerated HIV transmission.
One can therefore conclude, that for all
the parents in Kiharu Constituency, who would like their children to grow in a
HIV-Free Murang’a their current MP, presents their worst nightmare. Mr. Kang’atia
may be good for Kiharu people in many other ways, but for those who aspire to
successful HIV prevention programs they must ask themselves whether he
represents their best interests.
In Murang’a and in Kenya, Hon. Kang’atia
has written his legacy – he is the face of anti-HIV prevention, and for parents
who care for their children there is need to reflect what this legacy means.
The moral argument advanced by Hon Kang'atia in the push for anti-gay laws is not convincing because, as the now besieged leader of government notes in the Hansard report, solution lies in dialogue. it does lie in the strict enforcement of a law imported to Kenya by the colonialists in 1930, when we had no HIV challenge to deal with. Yet, this legacy is for Hon. Kang'atia for keeps - the question is what will you do about it? If you are from Murang'a especially, what does this mean for you?
