Should human rights talk be applied to health?
Posted by Lalith Polepeddi on April 8, 2009
Today in globalhealthU, we went over the keynotes and workshops from the truly inspiring GlobeMed Summit 2009. We focused in on one event in particular: the much-discussed panel discussion between Drs Evan Lyon, Laurie Zoloth, and Nirav Shah. I've summarized a couple of the main points from our discussion below. So take a look at them and let me know who you agree with or why a position is wrong by commenting on the post!
-Lalith
EVAN LYON: There is a gap between how we think of health and how we describe health. When we talk about health, we say "this is the best healthcare your money can buy," while on the other hand we don't say things like "this is the best police force or judicial system your money can buy." We still talk about health as if its purchaseable, but we need to talk about it as a right.
LAURIE ZOLOTH: Rights language instills in us a sense of duty to partake in health delivery. Rights talk provides a duty and motive in ourselves to feel the call to service.
NIRAV SHAH: What's the point of using rights talk? People understand that there exist health disparities in the world, so why add another convenient layer of intellectualism? Can saying 'health is a human right' really help convince people? You can't really discuss whether something is a human right because if two people don't agree, then their conversation is essentially over. Instead, what you can discuss is policy and data. It is this evidence that can drive implementation of health projects, not rights language. Therefore the human rights framework really isn't useful and should be abandoned.
COUNTERPOINT: Human rights language is not meant to enable implementation of health projects, it creates a mechanism for us to identify disparities. In identifying ineqity we can start to take the next step and ask what else should be done.
GlobeMed at Northwestern Quarterly Newsletter
Posted by Jon Shaffer on December 14, 2008
Please check out our Fall Quarter Newsletter to read articles about GlobeMed at Northwestern students traveling to our health partner, the HOPE Center in Ho, Ghana, guest articles from Prof. Kearsly Stewart and Peter Luckow, and other great content. It has been a very productive quarter as is reflected in the newsletter!
Download the Newsletter here!
Happy Holidays!
-Jon
Change we can believe in…
Posted by Lalith Polepeddi on November 21, 2008
The election is over, but the campaign motto lives, especially with NU Globemed.
We had a fantastic discussion about the social determinants of health. We started by talking about structural violence and how political/social/economic structure can exclude a group from resources they need and deserve.
Through our discussion, we pinpointed major problems facing the field of biosocial medicine. We agreed that medicine is not purely biological, but also can be perpetuated by social forces. How can we resolve this? One member mentioned that we must focus on repairing broken governments, for if a political structure can be rescued from corruption and instability we can make strides in ensuring healthcare.
How can we mend governments without infringing upon a country’s sovereignty? NGOs deal with this problem all the time and have developed ways to do so respectfully. But are NGOs really solving the problem? One member noted that NGOs have such a defined focus that they risk removing themselves from the overall goal of removing social barriers to health. Perhaps we could retain the big picture by integrating NGOs such that they all are working together on a different aspect of the problem. But will this work? Do we risk creating more bureaucracy by putting all NGOs together? Will an NGO infrastructure just be another form of structural violence?
One of our members put it best. He said that the lack of education is a social determinant of health. Education is a profound privilege and the lack of it exacerbates many of the problems we discussed, such as a fractured political bureaucracy. We are in a prime spot as students to learn about these problems and have discussions about strategies to resolve them. In order for us to become the Paul Farmers of tomorrow, we must educate ourselves today to help others overcome social barriers of health.
A Film and Discussion on Humanitarian Aid
Posted by Gabriela Escobar on November 20, 2008
GlobeMed had the opportunity to partner with the Northwestern University Conference on Human Rights to screen the film “Beyond Borders” this past Thursday, Nov. 13. I was glad to be able to attend the screening and the discussion that followed. The film touched upon many issues affecting humanitarian work including NGO accountability, compassionate fatigue and the means taken to aid those in need.
In the opening scene a relief worker, Nick, storms a party in which a member of a group that has just pulled funding from Nick’s relief work in Ethiopia is being honored. The money that was pulled and the party brings forth questions regarding NGO accountability. Are NGO’s working to the best of their ability in an effective manner? When a specific case of work in humanitarian aid is begun, how is it implemented? Does aid end in a sustainable manner so that you do not end up where you started? In the movie a group gave money which helped feed many in Ethiopia, but when the funding was abruptly pulled many people were once again in the same spot as before- facing starvation. Nick interrupts a party honoring humanitarian aid. In this case, the conscience of some people was put so at ease by a small amount of help that they were able to pull out the help once given and then spend large amounts of money to congratulate themselves in their work.
Another aspect of the movie that was brought up in discussion is how at times Nick’s actions are questionable. In the opening party scene Nick is also with a small malnourished Ethiopian boy named Jojo. He presents Jojo to all those present as a figure of the suffering going on in Ethiopia and what the group is no longer willing to help. At one point he even makes Jojo act out the role of a monkey when someone throws a banana. When Nick and Jojo are taken away and separated, Jojo finds himself alone in an unknown place and dies on the streets. Later on when funding runs out, Nick is desperate and becomes involved in arms smuggling in return for aid. High emotions and the feeling of desperation can lead you to commit actions that may be seen as unethical. During the discussion it was brought up that exposing someone in the way that Jojo was can be an act of taking someone’s dignity away. Does obtaining money for aid justify arm smuggling? Actions like this cause Nick to be taken captive and his friend to be killed when problems arise. Again one must consider how humanitarian aid is implemented and its effectiveness. Are situations like these the result of compassionate fatigue?
Another point in the movie that I’d like to share which deals with the issue of compassionate fatigue is when, inspired by Nick’s speech, a woman named Sarah, travels to Ethiopia. Sarah is someone new to humanitarian aid and Nick is at first very negative and rude toward her, seeing her as a silly wealthy girl only there to ease her conscience. You learn that Nick does not call people by their names to keep detached from those around him.
Working amid suffering can result in cynicism and a state in which one needs to feel detached to keep going. It can also lead to desperation as with the case of Jojo and the arm smuggling. When working with humanitarian aid, how does one avoid compassionate fatigue?
The preceding examples were just a few of the issues brought up in the movie and discussed afterward. It was a great experience to hear the thoughts of other students in regards to humanitarian aid.
