Ethical Framework for Disclosure: THESIS
- Although there are laws surrounding HIV disclosure, we feel that disclosure should be based on context for either the protection of self or others.
- Our framework shows that in different contexts some people are more or less likely to disclose.
- The level of support and stigma influences the decision to disclose.
Here is a short video clip from CNN on bug chasing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo_n0IPsC7g
Below is where we fit bug chasing into our ethical framework. We felt that because there is higher support, lower stigma, and the fact that moral obligation does not even exist in the bug chasing sub cultuture, that we would put bug chasing in the center of our diagram - right in the heart of disclosure.
Here is our group reflection paper that outlines our experience as a group and how our diverse ideas came together as we worked on the project.
(1) SUMMARY
• "We focused on different contexts of HIV/AIDS disclosure (workplace, social relationships, intimate relationships).
• We focused on the background information on HIV/AIDS.
• We focused on the possible legal repercussions for a person living with HIV/AIDS could have.
• We introduced the bugchasing culture to the class and we feel it was something the majority (if not all) were not familiar with. This was going to be our main focus however we were unsure how to frame/process this issue.
• A majority of our research focused on gay men".
(2) GROUP PROCESS REFLECTION
"When we met as a group we were very diversified and we had many different ideas on what we wanted to do. For example, Andrea was very opposed to discuss abortion and Mat was very opposed to discussing homosexuals. Andrea was opposed to discussing abortion because it is a strong topic and she feared it would create hurt feelings and overall it would create unwanted aggression. Mat did not want to discuss “the gays” mainly because he felt in some classes professors look at open individuals, who identify as anything other than heterosexual. Although their intention is to create a well-rounded discussion, they still create repetition of the same concepts over and over again and not really diversifying the specific lens that we may have. Jen and Natalie were open to all ideas and were willing to accommodate Mat and Andrea’s feelings and beliefs.
Considering Mat and Andrea’s concerns of discussing gay men and abortion, we knew that we had to think of another topic we all could feel comfortable with. Our first idea was discussing the ethics of sex shops (a.k.a stag shops). However, we were not able to narrow our focus and we realized we wanted to touch on a more unique topic. After hearing other groups doing topics such as pornography, we realized it would be too much of an overlap. We also wanted to raise new questions and new research on a topic that not been talked about in class.
We were then stuck and felt frustrated and we all did not know what to focus on. After Jen googled “sexual ethics”, the search engine came up with “bugchasing”. After reading more about it and watching the video clip on YouTube, not only were we shocked, we wanted to find out if there was any academic sources we could learn from and use. We were immediately drawn to this and knew we wanted to incorporate into our presentation not only for it’s novelty but also for the interest it sparked within all four of us. We were thoughtful about Mat’s concern about homosexuality, but he was interested in talking about this because it has not been touched on (yet) in our academic careers. For all of us it was a huge issue because it is an issue that plays a major role in sexual ethics and we wanted to gain knowledge on the topic. It was captivating.
We all had different ideas on how to approach the topic and then we were stuck on how to best articulate it. For example, because this was so new to us we couldn’t figure out how to frame ethics around bug chasing. We went to Tracy to hear her advice and input on this issue because no one in the group initiated a plan. Once we talked with Tracy she guided us in the direction on an “umbrella” approach, with HIV/AIDS being the umbrella, and bugchasing being one of the many areas we could talk about. Again we came to another roadblock. We knew we wanted to focus on HIV/AIDS but we were unsure about how we should frame HIV/AIDS into ethics. In our second meeting with Tracy she suggested we divide the sources and background information we found and create a matrix from the common themes/ideas.
After we all did our research and found the common ideas/themes, we were able to develop a matrix and started to discuss a broad discussion on HIV/AIDS and created a concept map. The concept map created so many questions we had and started generating ethical questions surrounding HIV/AIDS. We noticed a trend in our questions that they broke down into different categories. When we started discussing these categories, we found that situations were very contextual. In some cases we thought things were ethical and others were not. Then we developed the three contexts (intimate and social relationships and workplace) and from that we looked even further into the literature, focusing on the specific categories. The more we looked into the literature the more we noticed that information surrounding ethics was framed around disclosure. In the literature we found it difficult to find empirical research to ground our framework. We overcame this issue by creating our own framework on ethical disclosure, which summarized all of our findings together.
With the creation of our framework the rest of the structure of our presentation fell into place. The main conflict our group experienced was allowing for time to get this together as we found it very difficult to match up our schedules. Our group was extremely accommodating of one another. For example a few of us had to book off work/switch around our schedules, which ended up working out. We also allowed each group member to miss a meeting and we would fill them in on what was discussed later on. We found there was no “leader” to our group because we all put in equal input.
Overall although we found this research project difficult at times because of the trouble we had with narrowing our focus point, we found our topic fascinating, shocking and it in the end it still left us still in disbelief. There are many questions we couldn’t answer throughout our presentation and there are still more questions we have ourselves about the issue of barebacking for example. We believe discussing the issue of disclosure of HIV/AIDS status and barebacking is an issue that can open many doors and it can inspire everyone to be aware, ask questions, and take control of their behaviours more".
Overall I found this group project to be a very good experience. Our diverse ideas really helped me think about sexual issues more than I would have on my own.
