

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Children have the right to age-appropriate information about their
HIV status and should not be the last to find out that they are
HIV-positive, Human Rights Watch said on World AIDS Day, December 1,
2010. Human Rights Watch described its research in Kenya about the
subject and called on the Kenyan government to provide guidance to
health workers and parents on disclosure, which could start from the age
of 6, taking into account the child's maturity and the specific
clinical and social context.
Governments around the world need to create sound policies on supportive ways to disclose HIV status to children and adolescents as more children worldwide are tested for HIV and have access to anti-retroviral treatment (ART), Human Rights Watch said.
"Parents, caregivers, and health workers who avoid telling children
about their HIV status can do a lot of harm, unwittingly," said Juliane
Kippenberg, senior children's rights researcher at Human Rights Watch.
"They can shatter a child's emotional and physical health and carry
stigma about HIV to the next generation."
Human Rights Watch research in Kenya shows the disastrous effects of
poor disclosure policies. Children who do not know they are HIV-positive
may be less likely to take their medication regularly, which can lead
to drug resistance and death. Children who belatedly find out that they
are HIV-infected may be more likely to internalize stigma and feel
betrayed by those who hide their status. If adults withhold such
important information for years, children may sense a problem and live
in great anxiety. Some children are confronted with the news of their
illness through public comments from others, and experience trauma and
depression.
Approximately 180,000 children in Kenya are living with HIV, and
slightly more than 40,000 children are on ART. Most of these children
have been infected all of their lives through mother-to-child
transmission, yet parents and caregivers in Kenya often do not tell
their children that they are HIV-positive until they reach adolescence.
Human Rights Watch interviewed children between ages 8 and 14 who had
not been told of their HIV status, as well as parents and other
caregivers, health workers and counselors.
Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children under age
18 have a right to information about their own health. But Kenya's
National Guidelines for HIV Testing and Counseling leave the
responsibility for disclosure with the caregiver and do not allow health
workers to disclose HIV-status to a child unless a parent or guardian
has given permission. The guidelines permit health workers to inform
children who are pregnant, married, or sexually active. In practice,
though, sexually active children do not always disclose this information
to health workers, and hence are not told if they are HIV-positive.
Denying older children information about their HIV status violates
the child's right to information and privacy, and the child's right to
voluntary, confidential HIV counseling and testing, Human Rights Watch
said. It also compromises the child's ability to participate in his or
her own medical care, an important part of the right to health.
"Many parents are reluctant to tell their children that they are
infected with HIV," Kippenberg said. "They want to protect the child
from the stigma they experience themselves, and mothers in particular
may feel guilty for having infected their children or worry that their
own status may become known."
Kenya should provide more support and information for parents about
how to tell their children they are HIV-positive, Human Rights Watch
said.
Kenya's guidelines only cautiously encourage health providers to
"attempt to introduce age-appropriate information about HIV as early as
possible" and to "offer to assist with disclosure in case difficult
questions arise." Kenya's National AIDS/STD Control Programme (NASCOP)
has developed good training material on child disclosure, but few health
workers have been trained. NASCOP is setting up a committee to deal
with the issues of child testing, counseling, and disclosure, a positive
move, Human Rights Watch said.
"Accepting HIV is more painful when children find out late,
particularly during adolescence," Kippenberg said." Children should be
told about their HIV-positive status in a supportive manner from an
early age, and counseled about prevention when they grow older."
Early disclosure is also necessary for prevention, Human Rights Watch
said. Many adolescents start having sex before learning about their
status, and they risk spreading the virus to others.
The World Health Organization has stated that "informing older
children of their diagnosis of HIV improves adherence," to taking
anti-retroviral medication and has recommended that children above age
10 should be involved in discussing HIV testing. It has also urged
governments to provide guidance to healthcare workers about the process
of informing a child of their HIV status, because "informing children
and disclosing their HIV status to them is a process best performed with
support from skilled health professionals." The American Academy of
Pediatrics encourages disclosure of HIV status to school-age children.
Human Rights Watch called upon the government of Kenya to:
Nearly 90 percent of HIV-positive children worldwide live in
sub-Saharan Africa. The barriers the Kenyan government faces in
addressing the needs of children living with HIV and AIDS are similar to
those other Eastern and Southern African countries confront. In recent
years, important progress has been made in providing children with ART
in Africa, with nearly 300,000 children now receiving the drugs there.
However, close to one million children on the continent still do not get
the life-saving drugs because they have not been tested for HIV, lack
transportation or adequate food, or have poor family support.
Personal Accounts From Kenya:
(Names of children, caregivers, and counselors are pseudonyms)
"We had a 13-year-old boy whose father was alive and HIV-positive,
but his mother died of HIV. The father stigmatized HIV. The boy was
positive but did not know, and the father did not want to disclose. The
boy came to us with a TB cyst and rashes.... ARVs [anti-retrovirals]
eventually became available, but the boy never found out [his status],
because his father and aunt never told him. The boy refused to take his
medications. He died in 2009."
- Community counselor, Kayole, Nairobi, November 5, 2010
"My 5-year-old, Martha, is positive. She takes ARVs, but I tell
Martha that she needs to take the drugs for a chest infection and also
show her that I take the same drugs. Sometimes she doesn't want to take
them and says that she's healed, or says, "Drugs, drugs, drugs," or "Why
me only and not the others?" I have not received any training on
disclosure and I do not know of any place to get this training.
Community health workers have told me that I need to tell the child that
she is positive but they have not given me a way to do so."
- Mother of Martha A., Kayole, Nairobi, November 5, 2010
"My son is 10 and was told by his teachers at school that HIV
happened to people who had 'bad manners'... He is HIV positive and I
have been trying to slowly disclose, but it is difficult because of the
wrong information he has gotten from the school. He was watching TV and
saw someone drinking alcohol and said, 'That man has bad manners, he
will get HIV.' Then I asked him if he thought he could ever get HIV, and he said, 'No Mom, I am a good boy I do not have bad manners.'"
- Hannah K., community health worker and parent, Nairobi, November 3, 2010
"My son David is 12, he doesn't know that he is [HIV] positive. He
takes ART... He [thinks] that it [is] because he had chest problems.
Sometimes he throws his drugs away. He is tired of taking drugs.... I
have thought of telling him that he's positive, but I am afraid that he
will hang himself or kill himself... David thinks that only adults have
HIV and kids are not supposed to [have it].... I asked him what he would
do if he was HIV positive and he said, 'I will kill myself, I will take
poison.' If you can come up with a program to educate kids on HIV, it
will be better for me."
- Mother of David B., Kayole, Nairobi, November 5, 2010
"Two or three days ago Elaine found out that she was positive. She
overheard some people here... talking about it... She heard that the
medicines that she is taking are for people with HIV/AIDS.... For the
first two days [after this] she refused to take them [the drugs]."
- Mother of Elaine, age 12, Eldoret, August 19, 2008
"I was surprised [about my HIV-positive status] but not upset, I take
my medicines and I am healthy. It is better to know your status so you
can avoid getting sicker and dying."
- James W., age 12, who was told about his disease by his mother, Kayole, Nairobi, November 5, 2010
"I felt very bad. I had no idea I had HIV. I didn't understand at
first. I wanted to know that I will not die, that I can have a family
and be loved. I have not told anyone at school, not even teachers. But
it is better that I know, because I might be dead or very sick. I now
have [HIV] positive friends, and I can talk and sit with other children
at school because I feel better. Before, I was suffering alone, I was
ashamed of my illness and I ate alone at school [due to fingernails
breaking off, and other opportunistic infections]."
- Rose W., age 11, who was told about her status at age 9, and
recently joined a child support group, Kayole, Nairobi, November 5, 2010
"I would say any time the child starts asking questions about why I
am here, why am I taking these medications, is the right time to tell
the child. [Disclosure] can be a gradual process.... I would say this
can be from age 7 to 10. At the very least, a child above 10 should know
their status. There is a gap in training in the country on how to do
disclosure to children."
- Kenyan pediatrician, Eldoret, August 19, 2008
"There is a conflict of interest between the parents' needs and the
child's needs, but we need to disclose before the child reaches
adolescence because they run into very serious problems with adherence
[to ART]... The problem once you get to into adolescence, they feel
cheated if they are not disclosed. There is a loss of trust for adults
in their lives, they are not sure what they can believe."
- Professor Ruth Nduati, associate professor of pediatrics at the
School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of Nairobi,
November 12, 2010
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"We cannot out-organize a fascist administration while simultaneously bankrolling the companies profiting from its cruelty," said the head of Beyond the Ballot.
A Gen Z-led advocacy group fighting for working-class priorities on Tuesday announced a boycott campaign targeting major corporations "that enable, profit from, or directly collaborate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the broader racist policies of the Trump administration."
Beyond the Ballot launched "Not With My Dollars: ICE Out of My Wallet" as President Donald Trump's violent crackdown on immigrants in diverse communities across the United States continues and just days before Black Friday kicks off the winter holiday shopping season.
"We cannot out-organize a fascist administration while simultaneously bankrolling the companies profiting from its cruelty," said Victor Rivera, the organization's executive director, in a statement. "Every dollar spent at a complicit corporation is a dollar funding the abduction and disappearance of our neighbors. It’' time to make corporate complicity unprofitable, for good."
The group is taking aim at e-commerce behemoth Amazon and its grocery subsidiary, Whole Foods; tech giants Dell and Microsoft; Home Depot; streaming platform Spotify; and retail chain Target. The boycott webpage explains the reason each is listed, actions shoppers should take, and the campaign's demands. In some cases, it also offers alternative companies.
Target is under fire for its "broad range of cooperation with the Trump administration's racist policies." The campaign is calling on the company to not only publicly commit to refusing collaboration with ICE but also immediately reinstate its scrapped diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.
Spotify is on the list for airing ICE recruitment ads—a decision that also recently prompted a boycott call from the group Indivisible.
The campaign site calls out Home Depot because it has "repeatedly allowed ICE agents to patrol and detain workers and customers in its parking lots and stores, usually without presenting judicial warrants or establishing probable cause," and demands an end to those practices.
The group is urging Microsoft to end its "$19.4 million contract with ICE to provide artificial intelligence capabilities and processing data." The Dell section highlights that it has provided $18.8 million to "support the office of ICE's chief information officer through the purchase of Microsoft enterprise software licenses," and similarly calls for terminating that contract with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The Amazon section states:
REASON: Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the digital backbone of ICE's machinery, selling the cloud power that helps track, target, and tear families apart.
ACTION: Stop shopping on Amazon where possible; cancel Prime subscriptions if feasible; push universities, unions, nonprofits, and campaigns to move off AWS when and where feasible, and to issue statements condemning Amazon’s role in corporate-sponsored mass deportations.
DEMAND: End all ICE/DHS immigration enforcement contracts and data hosting that enable deportations; adopt a binding human-rights policy banning support for immigration policing.
ALTERNATIVES: Bookshop.org and local bookstores; direct-from-brand purchasing; cooperatives; independent retailers.
The site also stresses that "every dollar spent at Whole Foods directly strengthens Amazon, whose AWS platform is the digital backbone of ICE's machinery, powering the tools used to track, target, and tear families apart."
While the campaign is beginning just before Black Friday, boycott organizers aim to ensure it will "not disappear" after this week.
"Unlike other consumer boycotts, Not With My Dollars is designed for long-term pressure and escalation," Beyond the Ballot said. "To be removed from the boycott list, each targeted corporation must fulfill the specific demands outlined for its company. Anything less is not accountability, just more corporate PR."
"If you bankroll a violent, unaccountable agency that terrorizes our communities, you will not do it with our money," the group added. "Across the country, poor and working-class migrant families are facing a wave of state-sponsored abductions, violence, and political policing under the fascist Trump administration. Corporations that choose to partner with, advertise on, bankroll, or provide critical infrastructure to ICE are not neutral; they are complicit."
"Republicans have a million ideas regarding healthcare. Except one," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "They will never acknowledge that healthcare is a human right—to be guaranteed to ALL."
As President Donald Trump postpones unveiling his supposed plan to tackle soaring US healthcare costs—reportedly after pushback from congressional Republicans—Medicare for All advocates have renewed calls for shifting to a single-payer system.
"Republicans have a million ideas regarding healthcare. Except one," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, said on social media Monday afternoon. "They will never acknowledge that healthcare is a human right—to be guaranteed to ALL."
The union National Nurses United also called for Medicare for All on Monday, pointing to a recent West Health/Gallup poll that found 47% of US adults are worried they won't be able to afford healthcare next year, the highest level since they began tracking in 2021.
"The urgency around this is real," West Health president Timothy Lash told NBC News. "When you look at the economic strain that is on families right now, even if healthcare prices didn't rise, the costs are rising elsewhere, which only exacerbates the problem."
Over objections from progressives, including Sanders, a small group of Senate Democrats earlier this month agreed to help GOP lawmakers end the longest federal government shutdown in US history in exchange for just the promise of a mid-December vote on extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies to help over 20 million Americans who face skyrocketing premiums.
Citing unnamed White House officials, MS NOW reported Sunday that Trump was set to introduce the Healthcare Price Cuts Act to combat what the sources called "surprise premium hikes" as soon as Monday.
"The plan would also eliminate 'zero-premium' subsidies currently offered under the ACA, intending to stop 'ghost beneficiaries,' a frequent Republican concern about alleged fraudulent policy recipients, by requiring a small minimum payment as a means to verify eligibility to receive benefits," according to the outlet.
"The nascent plan also features a deposit program that would incentivize lower-premium options on the ACA exchange," MS NOW continued. "For individuals who downgrade coverage, the difference in coverage costs would be distributed to a 'Health Savings Account' provided with taxpayer dollars."
However, as Politico detailed Monday, also citing unnamed sources, "Trump's healthcare plan is in limbo after pushback from Republicans who were caught off guard by the president's forthcoming proposal—questioning, in particular, whether it would include additional abortion restrictions."
As parts of Trump's proposal continued to leak in the absence of its formal introduction, the American Prospect's Ryan Cooper and David Dayen wrote Tuesday that "all told, there's a good chance that Democrats will accept this offer, or something like it, as the best they're likely to get for the time being."
"If they are ever in power again, they can fix the ACA permanently, and avoid the danger of subsidies expiring (as the Prospect advocated back in 2021). But it's quite revealing as to the total bankruptcy of the Republican Party when it comes to healthcare policy," the duo added. "The GOP will flinch from more than doubling health insurance premiums—at least if middle-class people and up are the most affected—but only if they can also make the insurance worse, and make poor people pay more."
Last week, in a pair of op-eds and a letter to Democratic lawmakers, Sanders argued that "at a time when the Republicans have been forced to finally talk about the healthcare crisis facing our country, it is essential that the Democratic Caucus unify behind a set of commonsense policies that will make healthcare more affordable and accessible."
He called for not only extending the ACA tax credits, but also repealing Trump and congressional Republicans' $1 trillion in cuts to the ACA and Medicaid; expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing; cutting prescription drug costs by requiring pharmaceutical companies to charge no more for medications in the United States than they do in Europe or Canada; investing in expanding primary healthcare; and banning stock buybacks and dividends, and restricting CEO compensation.
Although Medicare for All lacks majority support in the Democratic Caucus, Sanders—the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—also emphasized his belief that it remains the ideal long-term solution. He reintroduced the Medicare for All Act in April with Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (Mich.).
Other single-payer advocates have also seized on current concerns and debates about the ACA. In a column for Truthdig last Thursday, Conor Lynch wrote that "with Republicans spotlighting the greed, corruption, and inefficiency of US healthcare, progressive Democrats have an opening to take Medicare for All off the back burner and renew the push for a comprehensive overhaul."
"The fact that Republicans are calling out insurance companies for their profiteering shows how much the national mood has changed since the passage of the ACA," he continued. "With Republicans unable to offer anything but a return to an intolerable status quo ante, Democrats should make the case for moving beyond the broken status quo."
The previous week, CJ Mikkelsen, a retired firefighter and paramedic now leading a small nonprofit in Michigan, made the case in the Midland Daily News that "we need a system like every other country in the developed world has."
Mikkelsen shared some of his and his wife's health struggles and stressed the society-wide benefits: "Medicare for All would mean that everyone is covered for everything at all times. No more losing coverage because you’ve lost your job, want to go back to school, or are starting your own business. The last thing I want you to know about Medicare for All, and pay attention here—IT’S CHEAPER THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW."
The Dutch historian said the BBC's edit of his lecture shows what happens "when institutions start censoring themselves out of fear of those in power."
The BBC is being accused of bending to pressure from the White House once again after it removed a historian's claim that President Donald Trump was “the most openly corrupt president in American history” from one of its broadcasts.
Rutger Bregman, a Dutch author and historian, said Tuesday that Britain's flagship news broadcaster cut the "key line" out of a speech he gave as part of its prestigious Reith Lecture series.
The broadcast had included Bregman's descriptions of Trump as "a convicted reality star" and a "modern-day Caligula." It also included his criticism of the "establishment propping up" former President Joe Biden, whom he called "an elderly man in obvious mental decline."
But the BBC admits it cut out the line referring to Trump's corruption.
“The BBC has decided to censor my first Reith lecture,” Bregman said. “This sentence was taken out of a lecture they commissioned, reviewed through the full editorial process, and recorded four weeks ago in front of 500 people in the BBC Radio Theatre."
In a subsequent BBC radio broadcast discussing the controversy, the host said Bregman's assessment of Trump's corruption was removed "on legal advice."
"That same BBC legal advice means I can't tell you what was removed," he continued.
Bregman said he "was told the decision came from the highest levels within the BBC.”
The decision to pull Bregman's quote came as the network faces threats of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from Trump over its edit of one of his speeches leading up to the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot, which was fueled by the president's false assertions that his defeat in the 2020 election was the result of widespread voter fraud.
A documentary for the network's Panorama series, released days before the 2024 US election, had spliced together three clips of the president's speech to those assembled at the Capitol, which had occurred about 50 minutes apart. The statements made it appear as if Trump had urged supporters to march with him and called for violence.
Trump has since pardoned everyone who committed acts of violence on January 6, referring to them as “patriots,” and has purged investigators within the Justice Department who pursued cases against them.
The BBC issued an apology for its edit of Trump's comments, and its director general, Tim Davie, and the BBC News chief, Deborah Turness, have both resigned. However, it has insisted it did not defame Trump and that it would not settle any lawsuit with him.
In comments to the Guardian, a BBC spokesperson said it removed Bregman's comments because "all of our programs are required to comply with the BBC’s editorial guidelines, and we made the decision to remove one sentence from the lecture on legal advice.”
On social media, Bregman said the network's explanation did not make sense.
"The edit was made at the last minute, after editorial approval and four weeks after the live recording," he said. "A standard editorial edit doesn’t require days of high-level legal review or the involvement of many people at the top level."
He said the real reason was the network's fear of drawing Trump's ire.
"The truth is that the sentence wasn’t inaccurate—it was removed because of legal fears," he said. "And that’s exactly the concern my lecture raises: when institutions start censoring themselves out of fear of those in power."