Short abstract:

This paper will explore entanglements in law, human rights, medical treatment and government policy as they pertain to the elimination of hepatitis C. It also considers how theory shapes logics of and possibilities for care, as well as what we might come to care about.

Long abstract:

Hepatitis C is a longstanding public health problem. Transmission largely occurs in the context of the heavily stigmatised activity of injecting drug use. In recent years, new drugs that cure hepatitis C have emerged. The Australian government has invested heavily in them, and aims to eliminate hepatitis C. Although treatment uptake was initially high, it has since plateaued. To address it, policymakers and researchers need to know why this is happening. Commonly, those not yet tested and/or treated are described as having gone ‘missing’ or been ‘lost’, and various ‘novel’ strategies for finding them are proposed. Some argue that these ‘novel’ approaches are enabled by law and human rights, including the state’s duty of care to its citizens. I define these ‘novel’ approaches as a form of ‘narcotechsolutionism’, where drug-related problems are theorised as solvable in narrow terms. Importantly, narcotech solutions may overlook alternative explanations for the testing and treatment plateau, including the possibility that people who use drugs didn’t go missing, but resist being found. This may be because they do not trust health care systems, fear stigma or worry about the legal ramifications of testing positive. Drawing on insights from Karen Barad (2019) and Daniela Gandorfer (2019), I explore what is at stake in narcotechsolutionism, including how theory sits within and shapes it. I argue that researchers must reflect on their own role in shaping logics of and possibilities for care, and how we are always in the act of shaping what we might come to care about.