I was watching some television last night, when I stumbled
across the Colbert Report and was surprised to see Paul Farmer as the guest! He
was there to talk about Partners in Health and his new book, Infections and
Inequalities. It was really fascinating to see global health issues discussed
in a more comedic setting. I personally found this to be a great venue, because
certain topics are able to be subtly or bluntly addressed that could not in
more formal settings.
Here is the link to the interview:
Right away, Colbert jokes about Dr. Farmer having traveled
recently to West Africa to help out with Ebola. I thought it was an interesting
way to address the issue of quarantines and the stigma attached to Ebola
exposure. This is evidence to my point about the style of conversation in
comedic news that allows for frank discussion or references to more difficult
issues.
One of the main topics discussed in the interview was the
connection between illness and poverty. This makes sense, given that Dr. Farmer
solidified the idea of structural violence that we discussed in class. (Structural
violence being the connection between societal structures that are oppressive,
such as poverty and gender discrimination, that reduce agency and cause
illness). Their discussion rather poignantly hit on some of the issues with
attitudes in wealthier nations towards helping those in poverty, even within
their own nation. Colbert asked Dr. Farmer to “sell me on helping people.” I
found this very interesting, because that is exactly what aid organizations
have to do in order to get funding for interventions. Whether it be the higher-ups
in an NGO, the government or asking for donations from society in general,
there is a need to “sell” the idea of an intervention.
This may or may not be a negative reality. On the one hand,
I do believe there is a lot that can be learned from the business sector for
health services delivery. However, I picture those lessons more about framing
those receiving care as the consumers. Perhaps those providing funds should be
viewed as investors, but I am not entirely “sold” on this idea. On the other
hand, this comes back to the question of health as a right. Do I, as a human
being, have an inherent obligation to help improve the health of others because
it is their right?
I found another question that Colbert asked interesting. He
asked “what is the prescription for poverty?” I believe that this is a question
that we have debated over the semester. How do you change these deeply
entrenched structural problems? Paul Farmer does provide an answer, and I think
it would be beneficial to the class to listen to the things he has to say.
I am still sorting out my thoughts about these issues, but I
am sure that many of you will find other interesting things in this episode. I
would love to hear any thoughts you had about this interview.
I really enjoy the Colbert Report and The Daily Show but they never manage to get a lot of substance into the 6 minute interviews. I definitely think the readings and discussions from this course added a lot to that clip, for me, than I would have gotten in August. The question Colbert posed, "What's in this for me?", is THE question organizatiosn face when fundraising. Some people have a greater ability to empathize with others and don't need as much coaxing to open their wallets as others do. Soliciting donations as "investments" only works if you can provide evidence of a return on that investment (other than feeling warm and fuzzy about your act of charity). The satirical character that Colbert operates as might not be able to be convinced that an "investment" into global health will have a significant and direct return for him. A safe and more prosperous world has little marginal value if you already feel you've achieved safety and financial stability for you and your family. A stronger pitch to change the status quo has to be made than offering someone something they may already feel they have. I read an article in The Atlantic awhile back that was about a study done on differences in charitable giving by the rich and the poor. In summary, how people donate is shaped by the environment the live in and the kind of charitable organizations they identify with. The poor donate to religious and community organizations, the rich donate to arts institutes and educational organizations. That's pretty generalized, but what I'm getting at is that you're taking the hard road if you're pitch to the wealth of the world is that they'll get some direct return on their global health "investment"
ReplyDeleteLink to article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/
I will watch the clip at some point, but I would like to comment mostly uninformed on the actual conversation between Paul and Jon. I love that you mention how the style of comedic news is well suite for frank discussion in difficult issues. I would agree completely. ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE: I know I know I personally use humor when discussing difficult issues at home. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. For me, it takes the brunt off talking about illness or death. Example: My family cat recently was put to sleep. My parents had a hard time of it, and actually put him to sleep without asking for a specific diagnosis. This is is because my aunt, my mom's sister, was recently diagnosed with lung cancer (she beat cancer before, but smoking exacts a heavy toll) and our first cat died from cancer (In my mom's arms). She said she couldn't handle hearing anymore about cancer. Okay, back to topic: My mom asked me if Rachel or I wanted any cat food, litter, or cat towers/beds. This is bitter sweet and really sad. When I told Rachel, we both had a sad laugh about it. 1) this is very much like my mom, and 2) it is both sad and humorous (if you knew my mom). Anyways, humor when discussing something sad.
ReplyDelete