A plan for a “grand convergence” in
health suggests that by increasing funding in research and development to
invest in new medications, vaccinations and technology could get rid of the
disparities between rich and poor nations. Not only does it claim that by
focusing these investments towards AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis will get rid
of disparities but that it is possible to get rid of them within one
generation. I found this very surprising. The prevalence of these diseases is
nothing new or unheard of by those in the health field. The former US Treasury
Secretary Larry Summers stated “For the first time in human history we are on
the verge of being able to achieve a milestone for humanity: eliminating major
health inequalities so that every person on earth has an equal chance at a
healthy reproductive life.” Now after being in international health this year
and other previous classes this rose several issues for me. First I’m skeptical
that by addressing just the health of nations that we will be able to eliminate
health disparities. We have mentioned in almost every class that health is the
influenced by many other things, for example structural violence, the
environment and human rights. I do agree that it is the right for everyone to
have an equal opportunity for a healthy life but I think it may be a bit naive
to think that by addressing the actual health outcome (AIDS, TB ect.) that it
will result in riding the health disparities. For example just because we now
have medications to treat this illnesses does not mean that we solved the
problem of the number of women being raped and therefore have HIV/AIDS, the
number of people who now have access to clean water, shelter, sanitation, food,
healthcare and the list goes on. The
article then goes to explain that the report recommends taking preventative
bold steps such as heavy taxing on sugar, alcohol and of course tobacco. This
made me think of the number of people who would throw a fit because their human
rights were being comprised because the government has too large of a role in
the decisions they should be making for themselves. Bio politics or the
influence the government has on a population’s health is definitely going to be
discussed due to this type of situation. The investment for research and
development will have to double from 3 billion to 6 billion dollars by 2020 to
save approximately 10 million lives in low and middle income countries. I do
agree that international assistance is important and we do need to focus on
minimizing the gaps between low and high income nations, I just think that 6
billion dollars would be better spent and would save more lives if we focused
on the factors that lead to these health outcomes in the first place rather
than the health outcome themselves. However, these types of factors would also
be more difficult to address and I’m sure arguments could be made that they
would be a riskier investment. I believe this brings up a lot that was
mentioned last night by some of you.
I agree with your opinion on this topic discussing ridding the disparities between rich and poor nations. I find it extremely ambitious to say that this goal could be achieved within one generation. We as a country and world have been aware of such health disparities for many generations. Why now can we tackle this issue and alleviate such great disparities in such a short amount of time? I see it as a gradual shift and not something that each country or nation of the world will achieve at the same time. Each nation has its own specific dilemma and reason for disparities between the rich and poor. The claim that focusing on AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis seems a bit skewed to me. Although these do plague much of the developing world, these countries have other factors playing into their health disparities among the rich and poor. The incorporation of a “grand convergence” is ideal, however, I do not see it as a practical solution.
ReplyDelete