Display options
Share it on

Nurs Philos. 2016 Oct;17(4):250-61. doi: 10.1111/nup.12136. Epub 2016 Jul 20.

Body-drug assemblages: theorizing the experience of side effects in the context of HIV treatment.

Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals

Marilou Gagnon, Dave Holmes

Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. [email protected].
  2. School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

PMID: 27435229 PMCID: PMC5035547 DOI: 10.1111/nup.12136

Abstract

Each of the antiretroviral drugs that are currently used to stop the progression of HIV infection causes its own specific side effects. Despite the expansion, multiplication, and simplification of treatment options over the past decade, side effects continue to affect people living with HIV. Yet, we see a clear disconnect between the way side effects are normalized, routinized, and framed in clinical practice and the way they are experienced by people living with HIV. This paper builds on the premise that new approaches are needed to understand side effects in a manner that is more reflective of the subjective accounts of people living with HIV. Drawing on the work of Deleuze and Guattari, it offers an original application of the theory of 'assemblage'. This theory offers a new way of theorizing side effects, and ultimately the relationship between the body and antiretroviral drugs (as technologies). Combining theory with examples derived from empirical data, we examine the multiple ways in which the body connects not only to the drugs but also to people, things, and systems. Our objective is to illustrate how this theory dares us to think differently about side effects and allows us to originally (re)think the experience of taking antiretroviral drugs.

© 2016 The Authors. Nursing Philosophy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords: ART; Deleuze and Guattari; HIV/AIDS; antiretroviral; assemblage; side effects

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Br J Sociol. 2000 Dec;51(4):605-22 - PubMed
  2. Sociol Health Illn. 2004 Jul;26(5):575-96 - PubMed
  3. Qual Health Res. 2004 Oct;14(8):1140-50 - PubMed
  4. J Adv Nurs. 2005 Jun;50(5):536-44 - PubMed
  5. J Adv Nurs. 2005 Jul;51(1):55-63 - PubMed
  6. Med Anthropol. 2005 Jul-Sep;24(3):237-64 - PubMed
  7. Antiviral Res. 2010 Jan;85(1):201-9 - PubMed
  8. Antiviral Res. 2010 Jan;85(1):25-33 - PubMed
  9. Nurs Philos. 2010 Oct;11(4):250-9 - PubMed
  10. AIDS. 2011 Jan 28;25(3):291-3 - PubMed
  11. Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2011;25(1):23-38 - PubMed
  12. Am Fam Physician. 2011 Jun 15;83(12):1443-51 - PubMed
  13. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012 May;49(5):539-48 - PubMed
  14. Sociol Health Illn. 2013 Sep;35(7):1065-79 - PubMed
  15. J Med Toxicol. 2014 Mar;10(1):26-39 - PubMed
  16. Soc Sci Med. 2014 Apr;106:10-9 - PubMed
  17. Int J Drug Policy. 2014 Jul;25(4):663-72 - PubMed
  18. J Med Humanit. 2016 Sep;37(3):257-74 - PubMed
  19. Nurse Res. 2006 Jul 1;13(4):84 - PubMed
  20. Aporia. 2016 Jan 1;8(1):19-40 - PubMed

Substances

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support