I saw this article today about a Lafayette
business that was hindered in trying to perform humanitarian aid for members of
the community: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/04/3015111/homeless-restaurant-indiana/.
This article made me reflect on our
conversation in the last class about responsibility in the world of public
health both locally and globally. This
restaurant was performing a public service by providing a once weekly meal for
disadvantaged individuals in the community.
However, neighboring businesses were uncomfortable with the situation,
and were ostensibly worried about the security of their own businesses. Despite the fact that the only issue that
ever arose out of these meals was stopped traffic due to long lines, the
constant pressure by neighbors and law enforcement led the owner of the
restaurant to stop the program. While I
recognize that there may be more to this story than meets the eye, I do think
it raises some interesting questions as to whom is responsible for providing
social services as well as the meaningful impact (whether positive or negative)
that a small group of individuals can make.
I believe this situation, despite
its relatively small scale, is representative of some of the larger issues
facing humanitarian aid and public health.
The restaurant owner saw a need that wasn’t being met within the
community and decided to take action in the best way she knew how. However, others’ discomfort with seeing the
face of poverty in their own proverbial backyards ultimately shut this program
down (Keyes provides examples of other similar cases across the nation). Are the homeless and socioeconomically
disadvantaged (or disabled or diseased) to be shut away? One point upon which we all agreed this
semester is that funding for public health and other humanitarian based
projects is lacking and relatively difficult to come by without institutional
support and the prospect of providing deliverables. Yet here is a situation where a need is being
met- with no external financial assistance.
It was mentioned in class that we need more wealthy individuals to get on
board and contribute to health causes.
This may be true, but we also need more people that are willing to do
whatever small services are within their means, and a system that allows for
and supports this happening.
So, who is responsible? Is it the government? Law enforcement? Public health workers or other medical
professionals? Or is it the
individual? The answer, I think, is all
of these- dependent on the context, the ability, and the means to perform
services. Achieving the international
health goals of equity, access, and total health will require holistic
approaches that incorporate individuals and organizations at all levels of
society. The question we must ask ourselves is not "how can I possibly make an impact on the large scale problems facing the global health community?" Rather, the question we must ask is "how can my action inspire others to do the same?"
A friend of mine posted that story on facebook and it blew my away. I couldn't believe that people could be so petty as to stop such a great project. I think you ask good questions regarding who is responsible. I think a great solution to this is to act as individuals. In a society such as ours, money speaks louder than words. Condemning the other restaurants while still eating there does nothing; however taking your business elsewhere speaks volumes. If this business owner can't afford to lose 800 dollars one day a week, he should find that being socially reprehensible costs him significantly more than that.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I find people not wanting to see poor and disadvantaged people around where they live and eat disturbingly like the Hunger Games and how the poor districts are cut off from the rich. Out of sight, out of mind, right?