No abstract

Thirty years after the beginning of the HIV epidemic, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (collectively called MSM) bear a disproportionate burden of HIV in the United States and continue to acquire a distressingly high number and proportion of new infections. Historically, HIV prevention for MSM has been focused on individual-level behavior change, rarely intervening with MSM as part of a couple. Yet, an estimated 33–67% of HIV infections among MSM are acquired from primary sexual partners, suggesting that work with MSM as couples could be an important contributor to prevention. Given the emergence of high impact combination HIV prevention, it is timely to consider how work with the broad variety of male couples can improve both personal and community health. Couples HIV testing and counseling for MSM is an important advance for identifying men who are unaware that they are HIV-positive, identifying HIV-discordant couples, and supporting men who want to learn their HIV status with their partner. Once men know their HIV status, new advances in biomedical prevention, which can dramatically reduce risk of HIV transmission or acquisition, allow men to make prevention decisions that can protect themselves and their partners. This paper highlights the present-day challenges and benefits of using a couples-based approach with MSM in the era of combination prevention to increase knowledge of HIV status, increase identification of HIV discordant couples to improve targeting prevention services, and support mutual disclosure of HIV status.

Decision making about interventions for children and young people with life-limiting illnesses is fraught with difficulties but faced regularly by staff in children's hospices and paediatric wards. The perspectives of the child, various family members and professionals may all be different. The process of discussion and negotiation and the mechanism by which a decision is arrived at is complex. Various laws have recently changed in the UK that have an impact on this process. This article discusses several clinical scenarios to better understand these decisions and the effects of changes in the law. It also discusses how multidisciplinary teams in children's hospices (and other supportive clinical systems) can best support young people and families with and without recourse to the law.

No abstract