The Ministry of Health and Welfare said it will scrap compulsory human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) tests for foreigners seeking to acquire an entertainer’s E-6 visa, and workers renewing their E-9 visas here.
However, the tests will still be required of those seeking E-2 language teaching visas.
. . .
[T]he latest move is likely to spark more disputes over the continued testing requirement for E-2 visa applicants and holders.
“Education is considered a very intimate relationship. According to an unofficial survey by the Prime Minister’s Office, the majority of parents wanted solid evidence of their children’s teachers’ HIV status,” said an official of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
The article goes on to name law professor Benjamin Wagner as a foreign teacher who has objected to these regulations, and you can read more information compiled by him on the topic of discriminatory HIV tests for foreign English teachers---and the ignorance and misinformation that prompted them---in a report compiled for the Human Rights Commission of Korea on the media bias against E-2 visa-holding English teachers.
Nhrck Report 2
Discussion of foreign English teachers and AIDS begins on page 24. An excerpt from page 25:
Given the Korean public’s serious misunderstanding of how HIV is transmitted
As you'll see on page 24 of the report and in the October 25th Korea Times article in which a Ministry of Health and Welfare official is quoted saying “We’ve decided to ease the rules as HIV is not transmitted through air or water but through human contact most of the time."
Given the Korean public’s serious misunderstanding of how HIV is transmitteda nd the public’s strong fear of infection in the school setting, it is no surprise that many Koreans find the idea of a foreign teacher with HIV terrifying. Instead of correcting the public’s misperception through educational efforts, however, the government has decided to perpetuate this misperception and give the public a false sense of security by implementing symbolic HIV testing of foreign English teachers. Yet this move by the government only reinforces the misunderstanding of how the disease is spread, heightens the stigma and discrimination surrounding PLWHA, and promotes the false idea that only foreigners are in danger of infection.
The points about ignorance of the disease and the activity of the Anti-English Spectrum to spread misinformation about teachers were briefly summarized by Wagner in a June 2009 Korea Herald column calling for a stop to discriminatory HIV testing of teachers.
36 comments:
Seriously, when I first read this news I was really pissed. How dare they not test the foreign whores (E6 'bar workers'), yet continue testing English teachers. Then I calmed down and just put this into the 'Korean logic' basket, and forgot about it.
HIV testing for everyone! E2s, F4s, E6s, E9s, F5s, ROK nationals, everyone.
A quarter century into the AIDS epidemic, it is time to stop treating HIV infection like a human rights issue and start treating it like the public health issue it actually is.
The rights of already-infected people to evade potential social embarrassment earlier rather than later when their undiagnosed or hidden condition eventually becomes known, should not override the rights of those as-yet uninfected to be protected from what still is a lethal infection.
necrone666 wrote:
Then I calmed down and just put this into the 'Korean logic' basket, and forgot about it.
You should put it in the bureaucratic operations basket instead. As I noted here, this discrepancy between visa types (which may itself be temporary) is because of different ministries making different policies.
What about E-7 visas? All the new teachers at our school got tested. Of course one came up positive, then re-tested, and they said the person had hepatitis. The person then went to a non-company facility and got the all clear.
Our boss said that someone probably paid someone to switch blood samples. Since the hospital got caught they just changed the diagnosis the second time.
Kushibo, you are such an adjushi. I think you should get out of Korea, go back home and try to think about what it was that made you an interesting person before Korea destroyed your soul. I am sick and tired of hearing you agree with mainstream Korean thought, sick and tired of watching you flush your values down the toilet and sick and tired of the way you inject a humourless element into every discussoin. Instead of preaching incessanlty about how the Koreans know everything and about how we should just smarten up and stop judging them, why don't you speak up for things like, oh maybe, human rights and dignity? I know you know how, I know you have it in you. With people like you cheerleading the Koreans on, they will never grow up.
Bob wrote:
I am sick and tired of hearing you agree with mainstream Korean thought,
Huh? Mandatory HIV testing for all Korean nationals and everyone else living in Korea is "mainstream Korean thought"? Can you show me where?
sick and tired of watching you flush your values down the toilet
Flushing my values down the toilet? Well, you'd be happy to know I'm already outside of Korea, in Hawaii where I study public health, and one of the things we're faced with is that millions of people are dying needlessly because of our archaic and unrealistic approach to HIV infection and its spread. How's that for "values"?
and sick and tired of the way you inject a humourless element into every discussoin.
Sorry for turning the HIV testing thread into such a humorless discussion.
@ Kusihibo #1 -
But the Ministry of Education has stated the E-2 AIDS tests do not have public health as their goal:
"The continuation [of AIDS tests for E-2s] does not mean the government regards foreign teachers to be HIV positive or have the potential of transmission ― it is just intended to assure the parents." [KT].
For more discussion see my (longish) comment at the Marmot's Hole.
So, the South Korean Government decides that rather than educating the public on misguided and potentially dangerous xenophobia, they'll simply placate the masses and in the effort validate it.
Ben Wagner wrote:
But the Ministry of Education has stated the E-2 AIDS tests do not have public health as their goal
"The continuation [of AIDS tests for E-2s] does not mean the government regards foreign teachers to be HIV positive or have the potential of transmission ― it is just intended to assure the parents." [KT].
Says an unnamed official in the Ministry of Education (not the Ministry of Health), as reported by the KT (why is the KT the gospel truth when they say something we like, but they're journalistically suspect when it's something we don't? If the KT can paraphrase or "interpret" a quote by someone when it's a bad-English-teacher story, how are you so sure it's not the same here?).
At any rate, I really don't care what an unnamed MinEd official says, because I am in no way endorsing their view of things and what muddled logic they may or may not have used to come to decide that visa holders on their watch should be HIV tested is immaterial. (And bensmatrix.info, the MinEd will probably soon catch up with the MinHealth's ill-advised globalization-enforced decision and scrap HIV testing for its E-series visa holders as well.)
Rather, what I support is something entirely different. Everyone get HIV tested regularly (say, as part of an annual physical, along with cholesterol, etc.), including ROK nationals. Everyone. Test foreign nationals before they come, but take foreign nationals who have been found to have contracted HIV in South Korea and put them in the HIV treatment system at the same cost as ROK nationals.
The quarter-century-old "human rights" approach to curbing HIV's spread is outmoded and leads to people dying. What has changed is that (a) HIV changes from lethal to chronic if caught early enough and diligently controlled and (b) the stigma of being outed as a homosexual (a common occurrence in Western countries) has dramatically eroded.
South Korea is in a unique position where (a) it has a relatively low rate of HIV infection and (b) it attempts to provide a high degree of care for those who are infected. In other words, HIV infection is largely compartmentalized, which makes it easier to control locally. Foreign pressure — from Ban Kimoon on down and including international groups aimed at using the G20 summit to force Seoul's hand — are trying to lower the bar. It's like a school deciding that instead of making other kids better students, they're going to try to force your kid to study less so he/she'll be as ignorant as the others.
If I had an E2 visa, I'd maybe be irked if my visa status was the only one requiring HIV testing, but the solution is not to keep eliminating it until no one gets it.
HIV testing for everyone! E2s, F4s, E6s, E9s, F5s, E7s, ROK nationals, everyone.
"HIV testing for everyone! E2s, F4s, E6s, E9s, F5s, E7s, ROK nationals, everyone."
Absolutely. Let's have a campaign for voluntary tests as recommended by Korean CDC and the Division of AIDS, Center for Immunology and Pathology, Korea National Institute of Health who concluded their recent study by stating:
"A question on the efficiency of current mandatory test is raised because the seroprevalence of mandatory test takers was low. However, HIV ISG included voluntary test takers was high in our result. Therefore, we suggest that Korea needs to develop a method encouraging more people to take voluntary tests at PHCs, also to expand the anonymous testing centers and Voluntary Counselling and Testing Program (VCT) for general population to easily access to HIV testing."
Of course that's just what foreign English teachers were doing before the revised E-2 requirements - making the smart choice to get voluntarily tested. But as you recall this was cited as cause for considering them as AIDS threats.
Ben Wagner wrote:
Absolutely. Let's have a campaign for voluntary tests as recommended by Korean CDC and the Division of AIDS, Center for Immunology and Pathology, Korea National Institute of Health
Korean health organizations, both in the public sector and at the NGO level, are influenced by pressure from international groups, which hold fast to the outmoded concept of HIV testing as a human rights issue based on 1985 science and social mores.
Even the KT article in question notes that the change came in part because of outside pressure on Korea to change its testing regimen:
The [HIV testing] rules have also reportedly been a burden for Korea, which is to host the G20 summit next month.
What is best for people in Korea is taking a back seat to what is acceptable to the international AIDS activism community. This country with low HIV prevalence and strong resources to help the infected is being pressured into following a substandard and outmoded paradigm.
who concluded their recent study by stating:
"A question on the efficiency of current mandatory test is raised because the seroprevalence of mandatory test takers was low. However, HIV ISG included voluntary test takers was high in our result.
The seroprevalence was low, but not non-existent. That means that with mandatory testing, they still found people they wouldn't have found had they just relied on voluntary testing.
If Korea were a country with inadequate resources and poor medical infrastructure, the opportunity cost of testing everyone would indeed be high. In such a case, focusing on that self-selective group who both (a) realize they are at high risk and (b) care enough about their health such that they would be more likely to follow the complicated regimen needed to prolong their life if they are infected, would be a better use of resources.
But that is not South Korea. The ROK is in a position where its vast medical infrastructure and its universal health care make it not only feasible to test everyone for lethal HIV infection so that they can get treated (to save their life) and get informed of their status (to prevent others from getting infected), but also make it a fiscally responsible proposition, since it is tasked with taking care of HIV-positive people and those with full-blown AIDS.
I'd be fine with all foreign nationals on a non-tourist Visa requiring an HIV test as part of their Visa acquistion process, such is the case with China and many Western nations. I think having all individuals, including citizens, having mandatory HIV tests is going a bit too far for me, and would probably limit it to individuals dealing with the general public as the Korean Government spokesperson mentioned 'intimately' to include all health workers, sex workers, etc.
But, what I object to is illogical, discriminatory, nonsensical testing of individuals purely to gain public support and political mileage. This sort of move, scraping testing for entertainment workers but not English teachers, may work well in domestic circles. But, to foreign eyes it makes South Korea, despite its significant advancements in recent decades, largely look the insular, parochial and xenophobic backwater it was in the past. The more things change, the more they stay the same in the ROK. But, hey, it's their country.
benmatrix wrote:
But, what I object to is illogical, discriminatory, nonsensical testing of individuals purely to gain public support and political mileage. This sort of move, scraping testing for entertainment workers but not English teachers, may work well in domestic circles.
Take a look at the article again. No agency "scrapped testing for entertainment workers but not English teachers."
Rather, one agency that was pressured by outside groups (i.e., the Ministry of Health) succumbed to that pressure and scrapped HIV testing for entertainment workers. Meanwhile, a different agency (i.e., the Ministry of Education) has not yet succumbed to outside pressure and has yet to submit to the Ministry of Justice its recommendation that HIV testing be scrapped for those under its purview.
I support mandatory testing for everyone, ROK nationals included, but if I had to choose one group over another to be tested, E6 visa holders would be at the top of the list. They should be at the top of anyone's list (The Marmot certainly agrees).
Score one for the "human rights" crowd. Now those infected with HIV will just find out later, when they're too sick to save. But at least their human rights will be respected.
Yours, too, after you've slept with someone whose former bedmate slept with an HIV-infected prostitute either in Korea or abroad.
[Brian my earlier comment disappeared, I'm re-posting it. If possible could you stick it back in? It should be the 9th comment, right after Benmatrix's comment.]
"HIV testing for everyone! E2s, F4s, E6s, E9s, F5s, E7s, ROK nationals, everyone."
Absolutely. Let's have a campaign for voluntary tests as recommended by Korean CDC and the Division of AIDS, Center for Immunology and Pathology, Korea National Institute of Health who concluded their recent study by stating:
"A question on the efficiency of current mandatory test is raised because the seroprevalence of mandatory test takers was low. However, HIV ISG included voluntary test takers was high in our result. Therefore, we suggest that Korea needs to develop a method encouraging more people to take voluntary tests at PHCs, also to expand the anonymous testing centers and Voluntary Counselling and Testing Program (VCT) for general population to easily access to HIV testing."
Of course that's just what foreign English teachers were doing before the revised E-2 requirements - making the smart choice to get voluntarily tested. But as you recall this was cited as cause for considering them as AIDS threats.
[b]Take a look at the article again. No agency "scrapped testing for entertainment workers but not English teachers."
Rather, one agency that was pressured by outside groups (i.e., the Ministry of Health) succumbed to that pressure and scrapped HIV testing for entertainment workers. Rather, one agency that was pressured by outside groups (i.e., the Ministry of Health) succumbed to that pressure and scrapped HIV testing for entertainment workers. Meanwhile, a different agency (i.e., the Ministry of Education) has not yet succumbed to outside pressure and has yet to submit to the Ministry of Justice its recommendation that HIV testing be scrapped for those under its purview.
[/b]
OK, but the current result is the same, is it not? Those on entertainment visas no longer require HIV tests while English teachers do. At the moment, that's where it stands, it remains to be seen whether English teachers will no longer require HIV tests whereas those on entertainment visas at the moment don't.
[b]Score one for the "human rights" crowd. Now those infected with HIV will just find out later, when they're too sick to save. But at least their human rights will be respected.
Yours, too, after you've slept with someone whose former bedmate slept with an HIV-infected prostitute either in Korea or abroad.[/b]
Yawn, save me the hyperbole.
Sure, you're probably right that the best way to deal with things is for every individual to be mandatory tested for HIV, regardless of nationality, citizenship or Visa status.
But, that's not the topic at hand, and repeatedly deflecting the core of the argument and bringing this segue is just deflecting the issue that one group of people with a much higher potential to infect others with HIV or other STIs are not being mandatory tested.
Whereas, another group of individuals who in no way are likely to transmit HIV or any STIs to others in their line of work, ( unless they are acting illegally or contrary to ethical behaviour), are being mandatory tested.
I already went on the record saying I have no problem with any foreign nationals on non-tourist Visas having mandatory HIV tests, what the heck why not have every individual in South Korea have it. But, the situation as it stands at the moment where only English teachers are being tested is illogical, discriminatory, nonsensical, and furthermore, unconscionable if public safety is truly the main concern. As those on entertainment Visas would be far more likely to transmit STIs including HIV than English teachers.
"Score one for the 'human rights' crowd. Now those infected with HIV will just find out later, when they're too sick to save. But at least their human rights will be respected."
We've become very familiar with this argument-
“Mandatory tests violate human rights” vs. “The need to block citizens’ exposure to danger at its root"
-it was the same advocated by Anti-English Spectrum in the article cited. Unfortunately it's extremely misplaced from a public health perspective.
Protecting human rights is precisely what makes diagnosing, treating and preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS possible. That's why anonymous voluntary testing has such a high rate of detection - because people's right to confidential diagnosis and treatment is available.
When people feel that a positive test will result in isolation from friends, family and society by being marked as a carrier or quarantined or otherwise isolated through stigmatization, the last thing they'll do is seek information on testing and treatment, which is why there is such a high rate of late detection in Korea. See this study by the Division of AIDS, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: "Increasing late diagnosis in HIV infection in South Korea: 2000-2007"
Even if a mandatory testing regime were to be imposed, human rights would be central to such a plan. What does the government do with all the people identified as HIV+? Quarantine them up like Castro did until 1993?
President Clinton has supported mandatory AIDS tests where the rates of infection are extremely high (e.g. Lesotho), but only where stigma is eliminated and the human rights of those identified as HIV+ are protected. [1, 2]
Your suggestion that mandatory AIDS should be enforced while laughing human rights off as some kind of joke is extremely misinformed and irresponsible from a public health perspective. As someone who studies public health you should know better.
"Score one for the 'human rights' crowd. Now those infected with HIV will just find out later, when they're too sick to save. But at least their human rights will be respected."
We've become very familiar with this argument-
“Mandatory tests violate human rights” vs. “The need to block citizens’ exposure to danger at its root"
-it was the same advocated by Anti-English Spectrum in the article cited. Unfortunately it's extremely misplaced from a public health perspective.
Protecting human rights is precisely what makes diagnosing, treating and preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS possible. That's why anonymous voluntary testing has such a high rate of detection - because people's right to confidential diagnosis and treatment is available.
When people feel that a positive test will result in isolation from friends, family and society by being marked as a carrier or quarantined or otherwise isolated through stigmatization, the last thing they'll do is seek information on testing and treatment, which is why there is such a high rate of late detection in Korea. See this study by the Division of AIDS, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: "Increasing late diagnosis in HIV infection in South Korea: 2000-2007"
Even if a mandatory testing regime were to be imposed, human rights would be central to such a plan. What does the government do with all the people identified as HIV+? Quarantine them up like Castro did until 1993?
President Clinton has supported mandatory AIDS tests where the rates of infection are extremely high (e.g. Lesotho), but only where stigma is eliminated and the human rights of those identified as HIV+ are protected. [1, 2]
Your suggestion that mandatory AIDS should be enforced while laughing human rights off as some kind of joke is extremely misinformed and irresponsible from a public health perspective. As someone who studies public health you should know better.
it was the same advocated by Anti-English Spectrum in the article cited
What does the government do with all the people identified as HIV+? Quarantine them up like Castro did until 1993?
Nice demonization there, Professor Wagner. I see you're turning into the same kind of master-of-distortion propagandist as Mr Lee at AES.
I am almost certain Mr Lee of AES has not endorsed any plan like mine, which calls for universal testing for all ROK nationals as well.
And why associate my idea with a repressive communist regime? I suggested no such thing; in fact, I think I was pretty clear that the regimen South Korea now has (mandatory treatment on an out-patient basis, I believe, paid for by the state) is fine.
I'm not "laughing off" human rights concerns. I'm making a calculation that saving lives by preventing future infections and by getting life-saving treatment to those who already are infected is a greater goal than saving the infected from being embarrassed or humiliated earlier when they can be treated for a chronic disease rather than later when their condition has developed into a terminal disease.
If stigmatization in South Korea is a worry, then a concomitant public awareness campaign would be in order, explaining that HIV infection can happen to gays and non-gays alike, the promiscuous and the non-promiscuous, etc., etc., and it is by no means a death sentence if caught earlier.
HIV infection should be no more stigmatizing than that of tuberculosis or asthma.
benmatrix wrote:
[b]Yours, too, after you've slept with someone whose former bedmate slept with an HIV-infected prostitute either in Korea or abroad.[/b]
Yawn, save me the hyperbole.
Hyperbole? There are an estimated 35 million people living with HIV around the world today, or 1 in 200 people with a communicable and lethal infection. There about 2 million deaths annually, and nearly 3 million new infections annually.
And quite a lot of them happen very similar to how I described. How's that for hyperbole?
"Nice demonization there, Professor Wagner. I see you're turning into the same kind of master-of-distortion propagandist as Mr Lee at AES."
Thanks for the discussion. Have a nice day.
Geez, man. If you can't take it, why were you dishing it out?
You were the one who started with the AES associations even though my position is nothing like what they advocate.
I'm not sure what happening with the comments as three of mine have inextricably vanished. But, as I've mentioned several times now, yes, kushibo mandatory testing for all individuals may indeed have merit but that's not what we've been discussing. Though, time and again you dodge the main issue and instead badger on about HIV rates. Me thinks you're being a tad disingenuous but anyway it's fun to play along though I think I'll give it a rest now. It's clear you're just muck raking now.
The merits of broader HIV testing is inherent to this discussion.
And as you gleefully strip away testing regimens for various groups (E9s now, E2s later, perhaps E6s down the road, even though you seem to acknowledge the complications of doing that), I offer that instead of chugging toward a state of no mandatory testing, perhaps things should go in the other direction.
That is hardly "muckraking."
The new policy will mean more infections, and therefore more deaths. South Korea, with its currently low infection rate and its expansive medical system and universal health care, is in a relatively privileged position to nearly eliminate HIV infection despite a large influx of people from countries where HIV infection is far higher.
My points on this matter are highly relevant, your dismissal of them notwithstanding.
Yawn.
I don't what happened with my posts, as well as Mr Wagner's, but it's telling that moments after I posted them each time they'd vanish and the only person to view them was yourself. Who then took out the bulk of the content and approached what little was left out of context. You've got an agenda, far be it from me to continue as you're enjoying yourself too much.
It's a pity as I enjoy reading your blog from time to time. Keep on trucking though, I'm sure someone else out there is interested ...
Ben, are you accusing me of removing your comments?
Not accusing you of a thing.
Seems odd that my posts would disappear with a minute of my postings. But, the internet's a strange world and there could be any number of reasons for it. Perhaps, it was due to an anti-spam measure on the comments as my other ID does contain my blog's address.
Okay, then. If you're not accusing me of any malfeasance, I'm not sure what you meant by...
it's telling that moments after I posted them each time they'd vanish and the only person to view them was yourself.
I'll admit to having an agenda, though. It's people not dying.
HIV infection and AIDS treatment are frequent topics around me. There is the mainstream view espoused by Professor Wagner (eliminate most or all mandatory testing and make it voluntary), but there are some voices of opposition as well. One lecturer we had suggested that some resource-poor countries in Asia would prevent more infections if they eliminated anti-HIV education to the general population and took those resources and concentrated them solely on the sex industry, as one example.
One recurring problem someone in public health sees is that, whether or not a system works well locally, the forces of globalization (e.g., World Bank, UN agencies, prominent NGOs, large Western corporations doing charity works, etc.) enforce a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't necessarily fit.
Quick comment about the comments: I'm not removing them, and when I check the post they're all still there. Are you reading comments on the post, the comment page, or via email? I know sometimes comments momentarily disappear after posting them on the comment page, but that's out of my control.
This is not the first time I had noticed Ben Wagner's comments disappearing. I've seen it at least once before, but I can't recall if it was here or at Popular Gusts, which is also a Blogger/Blogspot blog. I don't think any of his comments at my blog (also Blogger/Blogspot) have disappeared, though a lot of posts did lose all their comments when I switched to my dedicated domain name. (They still haven't responded to me about that.)
I just assumed it was Mr Wagner himself taking down his own comments (and I don't mean that as a dig; people have all kinds of legitimate reasons for taking down their own comments), but since I was forming replies based on comments coming in through my email, I thought it was fair for me to keep my reply up even if the original comment had been removed. When I saw that benmatrix's comments were also going AWOL, then I thought something was up.
I don't know if any of that information is useful or not.
If Brian is seeing them but some of us aren't, then it may be a browser issue. From my end, some of Ben and Ben's messages are missing if I view this blog in Safari on Mac, Firefox on Mac, and Safari on iPhone.
Another word about the comments:
Ben Wagner's second comment didn't show up on the site, but I got it in my email (it's the one he reposted).
I'm not sure why the ones from the other Ben, bensmatrix, didn't show up.
I'm not removing them. As I've said in other posts I try to keep my comment threads under control, which means removal of hateful, race-baiting posts, or spam. But neither Mr. Wagner's posts nor Ben's qualify as either, and they're both more than welcome to post here in whatever capacity they'd like.
I've been replying via the comments page so that's probably why they were getting deleted (from the comments page & possibly elsewhere moments after I posted them). Must be some blogspot glitch.
I apologise for any implications that were getting deleted for some reason, was just getting frustrated at seeing them disappear moments after posting them.
Anyways, it's been a fairly vigourous debate. I don't object per se to blanket HIV tests, I do however object to specific tests on individuals who in all likelihood will never spread the disease.
"Anyways, it's been a fairly vigourous debate. I don't object per se to blanket HIV tests, I do however object to specific tests on individuals who in all likelihood will never spread the disease."
I wish there had been more discussion on the issue, which remains whether race-based blood testing of non-Korean teachers for AIDS as a purely symbolic gesture can be justified as a legitimate government aim.
While the merits and demerits of universal AIDS testing is an interesting topic, it's certainly not the issue of this post.
It's too bad we can't ask the entire Korean nation to get tested for Hepatitus! (of which I hear many Koreans have) My ignorance and paranoia is more worried about picking that disease up from living in Korea.
Post a Comment