New drugs with the potential to cure hepatitis C have emerged. There is great optimism within medicine about the transformative potential of cure, but this overlooks the entrenched discrimination and stigma associated with both hepatitis C and injecting drug use and the role of law in re/producing it. Drawing on interviews with key stakeholders such as policymakers, lawyers, and representatives from peer organisations (N = 30), Latour’s (2013) work on legal veridiction, Fraser and Seear’s (2011) conceptualisation of hepatitis C as a ‘gathering’, and Mol’s (2021) work on being, this paper explores the possibility that legal processes complicate the linear trajectory of progress and transformation cure promises. Our participants’ identify various legal processes that allow hepatitis C to echo or linger in people’s lives after treatment. These processes are remaking hepatitis C, and making perpetual hepatitis C subjects. We argue that we must grapple with these forces in the era of cure.

Since the ‘AIDS Crisis’ of the 1980s and early 1990s, the combination of sex between men and epidemic disease has been fertile territory for the production of sex panic. This essay examines a 2007 outburst of Australian news media sex panic surrounding a case of the alleged reckless infection of persons with HIV/AIDS and the controversial practices of anal sex without condoms, or ‘barebacking’. The rhetorical inflations surrounding these sexual spectacles may be understood via a model of biopolitical governmentality that Linda Singer (1993) called ‘the logic of epidemic’. I draw on both Singer's model and work on sex panic to describe this news coverage as an instance of what I call ‘re-crisis’. ‘Re-crisis’ involves the revivification of the discourses of an earlier moment of AIDS representation in the service of new cultural and institutional modes of managing HIV/AIDS under neoliberal conditions and in the transformed contexts of HIV/AIDS ‘post crisis’, which has evolved since the advent of antiretrovirals (c. 1996).

Since the advent of more effective, new-generation treatment for hepatitis C, immense resources have been devoted to delivering cure to as many people with the virus as possible. The scale-up of treatment aims to prevent liver disease, liver cancer and onward transmission of hepatitis C, but social research shows that people also approach treatment with its social promises in mind, including the hope that it might reduce or eradicate stigma from their lives. Such hopes reflect broader ideas about medical cure, which is seen as an end point to illness and its effects, and capable of restoring the self to a (previous) state of health and well-being. But what does cure mean among people for whom treatment does not produce an end to the social effects of a heavily stigmatised disease? While new treatments promise to eliminate hepatitis C, accounts of post-cure life suggest that hepatitis C can linger in various ways. This article draws on interviews with people who have undergone treatment with direct-acting antivirals (n=30) in Australia to explore the meanings they attach to cure and their experiences of post-cure life. We argue that dominant biomedical understandings of cure as an ‘ending’ and a ‘restoration’ can foreclose insight into the social and other effects of illness that linger after medical cure, and how individuals grapple with those afterlives. Drawing on recent conceptual re-framings of cure from medical anthropology and disability studies, we suggest that thinking at the limits of ‘curative reason’ helps to better address the afterlives of chronic illness. In the case of hepatitis C, reconceptualising cure could inform improved and less stigmatising ways of addressing people’s post-cure needs. And in the era of hepatitis C elimination, such reconceptualisation is increasingly important as the cohort of people undergoing treatment and cure expands worldwide.

In recent years, highly tolerable and effective drugs have emerged promising a radical new ‘post‐hepatitis C’ world. Optimism about medical cure potentially overlooks discrimination and stigma associated with hepatitis C and injecting drug use. Legal frameworks are especially relevant to hepatitis futures, since the law has the potential to reinforce or alleviate stigma and discrimination. This article explores how hepatitis C figures in Australian criminal law and with what potential effects. Drawing on Bruno Latour’s work on legal veridiction, Alison Kafer’s work on futurity and disability and case law data collected for a major study on hepatitis C and post‐cure lives, we explore how the criminal law handles hepatitis C in the age of cure. We find that law complicates cure, constituting hepatitis C as disabling despite the advent of effective cures. The law steadfastly maintains its own approach to disease, disability and illness, untouched by medical and scientific developments, in ways that might complicate straightforwardly linear imaginaries of cure, transformation and progress of the kind that dominate biomedicine. We explore the implications of these tensions between law and medicine.

No abstract