|
Abstract
|
INTRODUCTION: There is a strong evidence base that the stigma, discrimination and criminalization affecting adolescent key populations (KPs) aged 10-17 is intensified due to domestic and international legal constructs that rely on law-enforcement-based interventions dependent upon arrest, pre-trial detention, incarceration and compulsory "rehabilitation" in institutional placement. While there exists evidence and rights-based technical guidelines for interventions among older cohorts, these guidelines have not yet been embraced by international public health actors for fear that international law applies different standards to adolescents aged 10-17 who engage in behaviours such as selling sex or injecting drugs.
DISCUSSION: As a matter of international human rights, health, juvenile justice and child protection law, interventions among adolescent KPs aged 10-17 must not involve arrest, prosecution or detention of any kind. It is imperative that interventions not rely on law enforcement, but instead low-threshold, voluntary services, shelter and support, utilizing peer-based outreach as much as possible. These services must be mobile and accessible, and permit alternatives to parental consent for the provision of life-saving support, including HIV testing, treatment and care, needle and syringe programmes, opioid substitution therapy, safe abortions, antiretroviral therapy and gender-affirming care and hormone treatment for transgender adolescents. To ensure enrolment in services, international guidance indicates that informed consent and confidentiality must be ensured, including by waiver of parental consent requirements. To remove the disincentive to health practitioners and researchers to engaging with adolescent KPs aged 10-17 government agencies and ethical review boards are advised to exempt or grant waivers for mandatory reporting. In the event that, in violation of international law and guidance, authorities seek to involuntarily place adolescent KPs in institutions, they are entitled to judicial process. Legal guidelines also provide that these adolescents have influence over their placement, access to legal counsel to challenge the conditions of their detention and regular visitation from peers, friends and family, and that all facilities be subject to frequent and periodic review by independent agencies, including community-based groups led by KPs.
CONCLUSIONS: Controlling international law specifies that protective interventions among KPs aged 10-17 must not only include low-threshold, voluntary services but also "protect" adolescent KPs from the harms attendant to law-enforcement-based interventions. Going forward, health practitioners must honour the right to health by adjusting programmes according to principles of minimum intervention, due process and proportionality, and duly limit juvenile justice and child protection involvement as a measure of last resort, if any.
Language: en |