Global Health

domestic and international policy or incidents related to public health, i.e. HIV/AIDS, epidemics like cholera in Haiti, food security issues, controversies surrounding the distribution of humanitarian aid

Featured Global Health Globalization

The Changing Face of Global Health

written by Erfan Faridmoayer

Since the inception of the field of global health, allocation of sufficient funds has been a major point of concern. Whether in providing the right number of vaccinations or in keeping the cost of medication reasonable, funds and donations from governments, the private sector, and different individuals have been critical to the maintenance of global health endeavors. Recently, however, the efficiency of a number of these efforts were questioned. Even though adequate funds were allocated to deal with the crises at hand, the tasks were not comprehensively completed by the anticipated deadlines.

A report by the World Health Organization (WHO) on The Path to Universal Coverage in 2010 revealed that “conservatively speaking, about 20-40% of resources spent on health are wasted, resources that could be redirected [for example] towards reaching universal coverage.” The report suggested that effective measures could be taken to significantly improve these statistics. Preventing the overuse of antibiotics, increasing the quality of medical storage and waste management, and improved quality control practices were suggested as potential strategies to help decrease a developing country’s health expenditure by up to 5%.

In other reports, it was revealed that many global health efforts are extremely focused on immediate relief and have not invested significantly on sustainability of the projects that are implemented. This was discussed in detail in one of our journal’s previous articles in the context of Haiti’s recovery after the 2010 earthquake. While effective investment in the creation of sustainable infrastructure and practices may require additional funding initially, it would reduce healthcare expenditure in the long run.

Fortunately, there has been a shift in the practice of global health, leading to solutions that appear more achievable, more sustainable, and have more realistic timeframes. Polio, for example, was eradicated in the United States by 1979 because of the availability of resources and emphasis on cultural education. India, once famed for having the highest number of Polio cases internationally, eradicated the virus by 2012, and has remained Polio free ever since. At the present time, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are the only remaining three countries waiting to have the virus eliminated. Optimistic predictions suggest the end of Polio within the next decade. According to the Polio Global Eradication Initiative, the majority of all prevention efforts center on routine immunization, supplementary immunization, surveillance, and targeted “mop-up” campaigns.

Women’s Empowerment

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been a major contributor to global vaccination, both in funding and in strategizing eradication practices. Recently, The Generation had the pleasure of interviewing one of the organization’s founders, Melinda Gates. Prior to her visit to UCLA, she published an article in Science Magazine titled “Putting Women and Girls at the Center of Development.” In her writing, Gates argues for the need to address gender inequality in developing countries not only because it’s a human right, but also because of its sustainable economic and cultural ramifications. Although she acknowledges the need for additional expenditure by investors in order to implement this proposal, Gates sees this as an investment that leads to sustained community and economic growth for the local population, in addition to its transformative effects in redefining the role of women and children within families and society.

In realizing these changes, Gates finds that Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) can play a significant role as liaisons between the immediate community and the funding organizations or government. Through her experience, NGOs can assist with creating trust among communities. As such, she believed that NGOs can serve as an influential group in the specific issues pertaining to the population they work closely with.

During the interview, Melinda Gates was asked about the use of contraception in developing countries as a step towards women’s empowerment. It is important to note that usage of contraceptives has become more acceptable in a number of countries in Africa, and is not as controversial as abortion. Gates emphasized the importance of culture in assuring sustainable practices. For example, if a wife suggests to her husband to use condom, it may be interpreted by him that his wife has a sexually transmitted disease (STD) such as HIV. As such, this may lead the husband to believe that his wife has been unfaithful to him. Gates noted that such misconceptions should be further clarified so that contraceptives are viewed as a way to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and not just to the capacity of eliminating the transmission of STDs. In summary, Gates believes that such education should center on women’s health, decision-making capacity, and intellectual empowerment. This also means that there is a demand for men to become more involved in the improvement of women and children’s rights.

Significance of Numbers and Statistics

The Gates Foundation has been ranked second in most contributions to global health initiatives. The United States holds the fourth place in this ranking, indicating the crucial need for America to utilize its resources further in global health endeavors. Nonetheless, the government has been in close collaboration with other organizations such as the WHO and the Center for Disease Control through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). These elements were crucial in containment and management of the recent Ebola outbreak in a number of African countries.

Without a doubt, many global health organizations, including the WHO, were not prepared or were delayed in responding to the Ebola crisis in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. The most recent reports indicate that there have been 8,675 deaths caused by the disease so far. With the failure to respond promptly, one may wonder at the reasons that led to the inefficiency of the global community, especially the United States, in responding to and preventing this crisis.

We had the opportunity to ask this questions directly to Dr. Rajiv Shah, the Director of USAID, who visited the UCLA campus recently. He believes that the data on Ebola-positive cases were not utilized as efficiently and carefully as they should have been, given the necessary infrastructure to report any Ebola-positive case for incorporation into an open-sourced data map of the disease’s distribution. In summary, Shah believed that the data we had prior to the outbreak was overlooked and not analyzed to its full capacity.

It is evident that global health efforts have evolved to a point that financial investments are not considered as the only factor in improving the health conditions of a nation. Sustainability has become a key element in the majority of the current efforts in establishing lasting successful health practices. A crucial component of this strategy is creating a welcoming and educated culture for both men and women on a local scale. This allows accommodation for the specific needs of a region which may be very different than another community. Lastly, it is important to further incorporate statistical analyses and models in recording and predicting the health outcomes of a nation. Such an integrative approach has a much higher chance of resolving current and future global health crises in a more efficient and effective manner.

April 25, 2015 1 comment

Featured Global Health UCLA and the World

Haiti’s recovery: Don’t give them the fish, teach them how to fish

written by Erfan Faridmoayer

Almost five years have passed since the devastating earthquake in Haiti that cost at least 200,000 individuals their lives and left many more injured. The country was in ruins after this tragic event. Since then, valuable international collaborations have been initiated to put Haiti back on its feet, and have assisted Haiti with reviving agriculture, importing pharmacological drugs, and rebuilding shelters and houses for those who lost their homes.

The majority of these efforts aimed to provide immediate assistance to the country, with little regard for their level of sustainability. As reported by the Boston Globe, less than ten percent of the international funds went to local and national authorities. The rest were spent on immediate care. As a result, to this day, Haiti is still very much dependent on foreign aid for its survival. This is not to suggest that the foreign aid for immediate relief efforts is unnecessary. These efforts, however, should be modified to lead Haiti toward self-sustainability in the long run during its ongoing recovery from the earthquake.

Fortunately, there has been a recent shift in the initiatives that assist Haiti’s recovery. Our very own University of California (UC) system has taken the lead in providing sustainable technologies for Haiti. Through the UC Haiti Initiative, in collaboration with the State University of Haiti (Université d’Etat d’Haïti or “UEH”), participating UC campuses have funded a number of training programs for skilled Haitian physicians to travel to the United States and receive advanced training in their field of expertise. Upon their return, they will implement their newly learnt techniques in Haiti.

This year, UCLA hosted a talented rheumatologist from Haiti, Dr. Wilciane-Claire Belliot, sponsored by the UC Haiti Initiative. With the high prevalence of rheumatic diseases such as arthritis, long term and sustainable training of healthcare professionals is a much needed and worthy cause. To put this issue in perspective, the UCLA medical center has 25 rheumatologists. Haiti, with a population of 10 million, only has two.

In the course of her stay, Dr. Belliot had the opportunity to observe treatment methods, visit patients in the clinic, and have access to all the resources that UCLA’s fellows have. By the end of the program, Dr. Belliot was prepared to treat not only rheumatic patients, but also received invaluable training to establish Haiti’s first rheumatology clinic.

In an interview with the UC Haiti Initiative, I asked if the organization had faced any major problems in implementing their proposals. It was mentioned that funding for “capacity building” measures have been limited. Kenny Pettersen, Chair of the UC Haiti Initiative Executive Committee and current medical student at UCSF noted “governments, NGOs, and other actors have prioritized primary education and the direct provision of other services, such as healthcare.” Pettersen also suggests that “it is hard to grow an economy without access to a talented pool of management-level professionals,” alluding to the need for training that goes beyond just primary education.

Sustainability has been the cornerstone of the UC Haiti Initiative’s approach. In managing their activities, two factors are heavily considered: local need and presence of infrastructure. With the widespread presence of rheumatoid conditions and availability of only two rheumatologists, the investment to build the foundations for a growing rheumatology clinic in Haiti is very well justified. In addition, the training was designed in such a way to accommodate for the limited biomedical technology that is available in Haiti compared to those in the United States.

The UC Haiti Initiative can serve as a model for other organizations in designing ways to bring sustainable systems back to Haiti. There are many issues that the international community can assist with, as the earthquake did not just bring physical destruction to Haiti. For example, due to lack of proper healthcare, and the displacement of almost 1.5 million people, public health has been declining since the earthquake.

In 2010, there was an outbreak of cholera in Haiti. The epidemic continues to this day and has left 8,500 people dead and many more infected. According to the Center for Disease Control, cholera is mainly transmitted where there is lack of sanitation. That includes lack of access to clean water and proper sewage system. With close to $9 million of foreign aid budget, one may wonder why cholera is still present four years after its outbreak?

In a report by NPR, it was revealed that most of the foreign aid has been directed to “short-term, Band-Aid type” solutions. Bladders of water were provided and porta-potties were installed, but the main issue still remains. There is no clean-water supply, nor is there a sewage system for sanitary elimination of contaminated excrement. Without a long-term resolution for these issues, Haiti will never fully recover regardless of the amount of foreign aid it receives.

Fortunately, some initiatives have been taken to provide Haiti with a number of sanitary water systems by organizations such as Water.org. Nonetheless, these efforts need to grow further and many other issues still need to be addressed in Haiti (economic growth, agriculture, and education to name a few). Sustainability should become a centralized theme in all such efforts. No matter how significant the international aid may be, Haiti needs to regain its independence.

To read more about UC Haiti’s efforts, please refer to their website at www.uchaiti.org.

November 23, 2014 1 comment

Africa Asia Europe Featured Geopolitics Global Health Security Security and Conflict

The Walking Brain Dead

written by James Walker

In every modern version of the “Zombie Apocalypse” narrative, small bands of plucky survivors fend off endless hordes of infected, shambling, braindead individuals. The zombies have no appreciation of community, shared responsibility, or collective security. Instead they are driven by base instincts and a complete disregard for anything other than their own immediate self-interest. The irony in this narrative is that while the world currently faces a very real pandemic crisis, it is the victims who are being forced into the role of desperate survivors, while the non-infected are acting like the brain dead hordes.

For the past few months the world has been struggling to get a grip on the worst Ebola outbreak in history. Upwards of 5000 people have lost their lives to this horrifying disease, with almost 15,000 incidents of infection across West Africa. To say that this is a tragedy of epic proportions is an understatement. Aside from the personal toll upon the families of those affected, the communities they live in, and the countries battling to gain control of the situation, the effect upon the entire West African region has been substantial, with the World Bank predicting a possible $32 Billion in economic impacts alone. In other words, the Ebola crisis is not a laughing matter.

If only the international response to this catastrophe was equally as serious. The rather lack-luster response has been so bad that even the normally reserved UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has gone on the offensive. Applauding the efforts of the US, Britain, and France in their moves to (finally) get some skin in the game, Moon called out other major players, stating “It’s time that those other countries who really have capacity … provide financial and other logistical support.” In other words, states such as China and Russia, along with India and Brazil as up and coming “BRIC” nations, need to step up to the plate and demonstrate why they should be considered pillars of the international community. Similarly, you know things are getting pretty bad when the head of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, calls for immediate action on the basis that “It is not a matter of choosing whether to do it or not. It’s just a question of when we pay the price for it.” Just in case our national leaders were not paying attention, pretty much everyone with a global agenda has determined Ebola in Africa to be a major threat to regional stability. As international leaders, they might want to get with the program given that this is a textbook example of why international society is needed in the first place.

On the domestic plane, individual countries have responded in a multitude of ways, from Nigeria’s considered approach involving comprehensive public health education programs and exemplary infection control, to North Korea’s outright panic and the imposition of total lockdown in order to avoid an impending Zombocalypse. The idea of Ebola as a kind of pre-curser to a global zombie pandemic is, of course, completely fantastical, but Kim Jong-un’s regime is not the only paranoid group making the same tenuous connection between this disease and the apocalypse. The Chinese state news agency was forced to issue a statement in order to counter rumors running wild on Chinese social media that Ebola victims were returning from the dead in order to feast on the living. Given that these same rumors suggest eating raw onions in order to ward off infection, you can only imagine the eye rolling going on at the Chinese Center for Disease Control.

Having said that, the American Center for Disease Control (CDC) has its own hands full countering the hyperbole and rhetoric that substitutes for analysis here at home. Under a barrage of attacks from the media and the more insane fringes of the US political spectrum, the director of the CDC, Dr. Thomas Frieden, has taken to pointing out that while Ebola has killed one person on US soil so far, influenza kills upwards of 30,000 a year. Given that less than half of the population bother to get inoculated against an actual epidemic in our midst, you can sympathize with the CDC’s exasperation over the hysteria currently masquerading as the Ebola debate.

A good example of the kind of knee-jerk, anti-scientific response the CDC is facing from our civil authorities is the issue of travel bans. Both international and domestic health experts have stated categorically that travel bans make responding to this outbreak significantly harder. Closing off air links to West Africa means that the most useful bottlenecks for the infection (airports) are rendered useless, as people are forced to cross land borders – a situation that is almost impossible to monitor. Even worse is the imposition of travel bans against international health workers. By far the most pressing need is for more personnel to travel to and from affected regions, in order to fight the disease at its source. By making it almost impossible for volunteers to return home, countries are virtually guaranteeing that the crisis cannot be contained. With what can only be described as a mounting sense of frustration, Ban Ki-moon’s people consistently try to get the world to listen to reason, emphasizing that “the best way for any country to protect itself from Ebola is to stop the outbreak at its source in West Africa.”

The anti-science crowd here in the US goes one step further, professing that the constant efforts of the UN and the CDC only go to prove the dire threat to the country. Against all the evidence to the contrary, a popular theme among a particular section of the political spectrum has latched on to Ebola as yet another political weapon to wield in the never ending war of attrition that is modern US politics. For example, Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) has gone on the record as stating that “Every outbreak novel or zombie movie you see starts with somebody from the government sitting in front of a panel like this saying there’s nothing to worry about.” In other words, we should all start panicking as the Obama administration is clearly just trying to keep the sheeple quite.

So, the level of our public debate is that politicians are referencing George Romero movies as if they are documentaries. To paraphrase the zombie maestro, “when there’s no more room in hell, congressional representative will walk the earth.” The ironic thing is that if the Ebola virus really were a harbinger of the zombocalypse, we actually have a response ready to put into place. Intended as a “training exercise” in contingency planning, the US Strategic Command report CONPLAN 8888 lays out a series of scenarios for dealing with a pandemic zombie infection. At least you can’t accuse the US government of not thinking outside the box when it comes to preparing for imaginary threats – real world disasters on the other hand, not so much.

At the end of the day Ebola is a trans-national issue, and one that requires a direct, well-supported international effort to combat. From this perspective alone can it be seen as similar to a zombie outbreak. Prof. Daniel Drezner of Tufts University wrote an excellent exploration of this exact issue – Theories of International Politics and Zombies. Perhaps Ban Ki-moon should start leaving copies around the UN Security Council chambers. If rational, scientific, economic, and humanitarian appeals won’t work then maybe a little hyperbole is what will do the trick. You have to hope that at least some of the world’s leaders are not all brain dead, right?

November 19, 2014 1 comment

Global Health Middle East Security and Conflict

Ending Polio: A Long Overdue Eradication

written by Erfan Faridmoayer

Erfan Faridmoayer

Editor

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has called it “one of the most feared diseases of the twentieth century.” Mainly affecting children under five years of age, Poliovirus can infect the nervous system and cause long-term or permanent paralysis. In extreme cases, it can lead to death by paralysis of lung and heart muscles. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a victim of this disease among many others. Medical research thus far has been unable to find a cure for polio; the disease can only be prevented by vaccination. The immunization process, however, can be done with minimal side effects, and it will only cost $0.50 per vaccine according to The United Nations Foundation. Nonetheless, even with these measures easing the process, polio has not been eradicated. Understanding the cultural and regional roots leading to this outcome may serve in the solution to rid the world of polio effectively.

The global health battle against polio officially launched in 1988, when the CDC, World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, and the Rotary Foundation began the initiative of eradicating polio in highly endemic countries such as India and parts of Africa. Since then, according to the WHO, this process has been so successful that the disease was reduced by 99%, from a starting number of 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 reported cases in 2012. Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are the three remaining countries that have not overcome polio. Disturbingly, during the past summer, there were reports of polio outbreaks in Somalia and Kenya. More recently, another polio outbreak occurred in Syria, sparking concerns over the possibility of viral transmission by the refugees into continental Europe.

Currently, prevention through vaccination stands as the only means to eradicate polio. Many factors, however, have come in the way of eradication. The bulk of these issues revolve around the absence of support from religious leaders, as well as the geographic turmoil surrounding the three mentioned reservoirs. Understanding and addressing these obstacles remains the sole way to effectively eradicate polio in the future.

Roots of Eradication

Citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan hold mixed emotions towards America’s global health initiative. On one hand, the United States military has carried out numerous operations in these lands with little regard for the ramifications of such actions on the civilian population. With the increasing number of drone strikes targeting terrorist groups, ordinary citizens have become angered with America’s military intervention. On the other hand, U.S. provides the highest proportion of global health funds among other nations. A portion of this funding is allocated to eliminate endemic diseases such as polio. Additionally, in cooperation with private organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a strong effort has been made to provide vaccination to Middle Eastern Countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In many cases, the mistrust towards Western countries outweighs the eradication effort. For example, in an extended report by Donald McNeil of The New York Times, a number of individuals refrained from vaccinating their children since it was made public that some of the immunization camps were set up as cover for a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operation. Undoubtedly, convergence of military agenda with global health initiatives has been a drawback in providing vaccination for Afghani and Pakistani citizens. Moreover, religious factors play a significant role in making vaccinations accessible. With the influence of anti-Western religious institutions, many immunization camps have been forced to withdraw by local organizations in power, for a multitude of reasons including the continued drone strikes.

In many situations, the issue has not been the availability of vaccines, but assuring the public that immunizations are in fact for the good of the people being vaccinated. According to a report by The New York Times, health care providers had to fight the rumors that polio vaccines contained HIV or birth control hormones. A combination of these rumors along with people’s mistrust towards Western countries has resulted in the undermining of eradication efforts.

A small but notable percentage of those not currently vaccinated come from regions without access to purified water. Bad sanitation habits have caused the sewage being mixed with clean water pipes, allowing for spread of polio and many other viruses that target the population utilizing that singular source of water. This is one of the few examples indicating that eradication will not be successful solely through vaccination.

Recent Outbreak in Syria

A number of other factors need to be addressed simultaneously in the fight against polio. Less than a month ago, multiple reports indicated the emergence of polio in Syria; a country beset with internal conflicts that have led many to flee and seek refuge in neighboring countries. Such movements have caused the spread of the disease from one country to another. It is estimated that the virus entered Syria through Pakistan in this manner.

Although, as noted in a report by Reuters, the United Nations is taking prompt measures to prevent further spread of the virus, it is imperative to keep in mind that polio was eradicated in Syria fourteen years ago. The civil conflict over the past few years has crippled many health-care functions including vaccinations, allowing polio to regain its foothold within the country

In addressing Syria, the international community should direct its attention to the health concerns of civilians both inside the country and within the refugee camps. If unattended, not only will this lead to further fatalities, it will also facilitate the virus finding its way to other continents such as Europe.

Hope for Progress

The international fight against polio has come a long way since it started in 1988. One of the most influential battles throughout this period was the successful eradication of the virus in India in 2011. Being one of the most challenging countries to eradicate polio in, this success paved the way for the current global eradication movements. In its annual report, The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) brings examples of successful methods in effective vaccination throughout India. Such strategies include strong collaboration between physicians and local religious clerics, as well as continued sampling of the sewage systems in high-risk areas to keep a constant lookout for the presence of the virus.

In the long history of conflict and rivalry between India and Pakistan, eradication of polio in India was seen by some as a triumph for India and a great tragedy for Pakistan. This event, however, has mobilized both Pakistani citizens and health-care providers to promptly address this issue and work towards being the next major international state to have polio eradicated.

The current trajectory of polio immunization aims to have polio completely eradicated by 2018. This goal, however, will only be successfully reached with the simultaneous collaboration of immunization efforts between the global community and local communities alike. Consistent supervision of eradicated sites with incorporation of other essential efforts such as the provision of purified clean water, mean that eradicating polio could well become the most successful global health effort of this century.

Facts and figures from CDC, WHO, Global Polio Eradication Initiative, The UN Foundation, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, BBC, and The Wall Street Journal

Erfan is a fourth year undergraduate student at UCLA majoring in Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology and Minoring in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. He is involved with Shot at Life, a global health organization under the umbrella of the United Nations Foundations that advocates for vaccination in developing countries.

November 26, 2013 3 comments

Global Health Middle East Security Security and Conflict Terrorism

Pakistani Elections 2013: Vote for Change, Vote for Integrity

written by thegeneration

By Akbar Khan
Contributing Writer

December 2011, Abbottabad, Pakistan – Well over a year before Election Day, in one of the world’s most dangerous countries, I could already sense the beginnings of what was becoming the most important election in the history of the country. Political banners, slogans, and portraits lined street corners and highway billboards. Buses, filled with enthusiastic supporters, were shuttling constituents to party rallies. The political climate was heating up in anticipation of the upcoming May 11 election and even I, a foreign-born Pakistani, understood the magnitude of what was riding on the outcome

Since achieving Independence in 1947 under the leadership of Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah, Pakistan has not exactly been an exemplar of democratic statehood. In its relatively short 65-year history, the country has been the victim of four military coups, three territorial wars with India, and numerous rigged elections. Today, political corruption, rural poverty, and Islamic extremism plague the country. And yet, despite all this negativity, the people of Pakistan face an opportunity for change in the upcoming election.

In the Pakistan’s party dominated political landscape, there are about 90 parties, but the 2013 election has been dominated by three in particular: Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The latest polls show that the PML-N will win the most seats, followed by PTI and PPP. Some speculate that if PTI and PPP form a coalition, it could control a majority of the 272 electable seats and consequently, Imran Khan (PTI) would be designated as Prime Minister.

Pakistan People’s Party — Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

Founded as a progressive party in the 1960s, the PPP won parliamentary majorities in 1973, when Zulfikar Bhutto became Prime Minister, and in 1988 and 1993, under Benazir Bhutto, the first female elected Prime Minister of Pakistan. Following her assassination in 2007, the PPP won a majority of seats in the 2008 elections but have lost support in recent months with the rise of the PML-N and PTI. The current chairman, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, is the son of Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari, the current President of Pakistan. Educated in England and following in the footsteps of his mother and grandfather, Bilawal Bhutto possesses enormous potential as a future leader. However, since he is only 24 years old, he is unable to run as Prime Minister in the upcoming election (in order to run for a seat, a candidate must be at least 25 years of age).

The PPP has been the most targeted party of the Pakistani Taliban’s campaign violence, which has resulted in the death of several party members and the recent kidnapping of former Prime Minister Gilani’s son Yusuf Raza Gilani by gunmen in Multan. Since April 11^th, pre-election bombings have left more than 100 people dead. As a result, the party has not been able to campaign as openly as it would like. Despite efforts by PPP members to protest to the Election Commission that the attacks have put an unfair strain on their campaigning abilities, with Election Day less than 24 hours away, there is little the party can do to make up lost ground. Because of the heightened threat of suicide bombers, the Pakistani Army has announced that 70,000 troops will be deployed across the country on Election Day.

Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz — Nawaz Sharif

The PML-N, a conservative party, is centered in the Punjab province. It won parliamentary majorities in 1990 and 1997 enabling its leader, Nawaz Sharif, to become Prime Minster in both years. Sharif has little to boast from his two terms as Prime Minister. Acquiring considerable wealth from his milling industry ownerships throughout the country, Sharif was accused by former President Ghulam Khan of corruption for his personal financial gains during his tenure as Prime Minster. Despite this allegation, the PML-N remains the leading party at this point in the election campaign.

Pakistan Tehree-e-Insaf — Imran Khan

The PTI is a relatively young party founded in the 1990s. It is the only party out of the major three in this election that has not had a substantial political voice until recently. Its chairman, Imran Khan (the former cricket star who brought a World Cup victory to Pakistan in 1992), first achieved national political prominence through his construction of a major cancer hospital in Lahore, dedicated to his mother who died of cancer. His work on the hospital earned him a reputation as an honest leader because he consistently provided statements of the hospital’s funding records, demonstrating that he had not pocketed any of the donations he received for the project. He was also heavily involved in aid relief efforts for flood victims in 2010. His party’s campaign focus has been to bring justice to Pakistan and to eradicate corruption within the state.

The Path of Change

If there is one thing that has been consistently lacking in the Pakistani government, it has been integrity. Pakistan’s political institutions have been riddled with corruption. Parliamentarians have laundered taxes for their own personal benefit and high-ranking leaders have coerced banks to lend, only to default on the loans. Even I have witnessed police officers blatantly accepting bribes in their execution of the “law.” Unfortunately, there exists a gap in trust between the Pakistani people and their government.

However, on May 11^th, the people of Pakistan face a landmark opportunity because this election marks the first time in the country’s history that one democratically elected government will succeed another. After years of “load shedding,” infrastructure deterioration, stagnant social and economic opportunities, and overall political neglect, they finally have an opportunity to steer the country in a direction that can cater to their needs. With this opportunity, though, comes a weighty responsibility: the Pakistani people must be the catalysts for the positive change they seek within the country. This change starts by filling the gap in trust between the government and its constituents. In order to do this, the people must distinguish between leaders who have had a record of corruption from those who have not and put the latter in power. A foundation of trust will only be laid down for future democratic transitions if people have confidence in the government; this is true of any country aspiring towards democracy and Pakistan is no exception.

Both the PLM-N and PPP would preserve the status quo. Nawaz Sharif has little to speak for his leadership besides allegations of corruption and the PPP, the currently ruling party, has accomplished little in its latest attempt to govern. Of the three major candidates, only one candidate has had a track record of sincerity and honesty. From the beginning of PPP’s campaign, Imran Khan has made it a point to fight corruption in Pakistan. To some, he lacks political savvy and experience, but his greatest asset is what is most needed in the country – integrity.

Unfortunately, several days ago, Imran Khan fell off of a tall structure while making a rally appearance. The incident was completely accidental but now Imran will be bed-ridden for several weeks, which renders him unable to campaign. He has insisted, however, on making speeches from his hospital bed. Despite the circumstances, Imran is still devoted to his cause for a better Pakistan and the country should take this as a sign of his determination.

Tomorrow, despite the violence, the Pakistani will take to the ballots. For their sake, and for the sake of the country, I hope they vote for the path of change and integrity.

Facts and figures from Trading Economics, BBC, UNICEF, Guardian, and Pakistan Today

Akbar Khan is a third-year Political Science student with a minor in Global Studies. He is an intern at the Burkle Center for International Relations.

May 10, 2013 1 comment

Global Health Security and Conflict Women's Rights

International Women’s Day 2013: Going Beyond Awareness

written by thegeneration

by Sara Pilgreen
Editor

Here we are again, 102 years since the inaugural celebration of International Women’s Day (IWD). It is no secret that women, who constitute half the world’s seven billion people, also comprise the majority of the world’s absolute poor. Moreover, they are paid significantly less than their male counterparts, are confronted with outrageous rates of domestic violence, and lack an equal presence in both politics and the boardroom. In spite of this it is common knowledge that women and men alike desire change.

This is not to say that progress has not been made in the past century. Take a look back to the Arab Spring in which Tunisian women have played a critical role in the uprising and continue the fight for equality. In Rwanda, women hold 45 of the 80 seats in Parliament, furthering the female fight for representation. Women in Jamaica are outpacing men in holding high-skilled jobs such as senior officials, legislators, and managers. Just as some see the election of President Barack Obama in the United States as a symbol of progressing equality for blacks in America, some may see these trends in Tunisia, Rwanda, or Jamaica as evidence of the end of the global gender gap. However, this is far from a reality, as this issue defies simple solutions and quick actions.

The realities of what social media can produce in an age of globalization are impressive, including open petitions denouncing brutal gang rape from India to the United States and viral videos that expose child labor. Yet, while social media provides vast exposure, we must ask ourselves whether instantaneous awareness helps or hurts. Campaigns drafting petitions, activists wearing red lipstick, women offering free cupcakes to note IWD – do these actions affect anything but a fleeting recognition in our conscious? While these gestures may have good intentions, they do not adequately honor those who founded this day and their reasoning for it: to help all women who desperately seek equality.

The U.N. boldly claims that for 2013, “A promise is a promise: Time for action to end violence against women.” Yes, much action is needed; however, what action will be taken? The responsibility of the media, political leaders, and individual citizens to challenge the inequalities and atrocities facing women is one place to begin. We need to recognize how such issues are framed. The perspectives of privileged citizens from developed nations, who may know little about the realities of the other half of the world beyond bite-size news clips and Facebook petitions, must change. The dehumanization of women occurs, in part, by lack of recognition that many well-intentioned citizens support global economic and political structures that perpetuate gender inequality and disempower the world’s women. The multifaceted aspects of such structures result from a confluence of sociocultural, situational, and personal factors. Global systems of inequality have existed for centuries and continue today, while we take part consciously or unconsciously. We have come to a point arguably worse than not knowing: becoming aware of an issue, yet being relatively dismissive. Perhaps we sign a petition, post on Facebook, or wear a specific color for a day. We are far enough removed from the immediate situation, yet feel content that our attention was held, if just for a second, to open our eyes to what has happened before closing them yet again to the reality.

Greater awareness and endless amounts of information regarding women around the world have thus created a paradox: yes, we may know about these issues, yet we do not act on them, save for re-tweeting someone else’s comment before posting an update of what we ate for breakfast. For example, we may concede that violence against women has structural determinants. Then what? As we process the distress we endure from reading about such violence, we enter an almost virtual world of inconsistencies, one where we forget to question the reasoning behind the structures in place, one in which we inadvertently support the system that encourages us to contribute to this paradox. Then, perhaps we agree on the comforting narrative that we, the strong open-minded citizens of the world, will see that progress is made through the assiduous application of the Western values we consider to be universal.

But how does short-circuit awareness impact the real problem, the end goal being the cessation of violence against women worldwide? This indefinite loop of awareness – through 24-hour news channels, endless sources of social media, and ceremonial days such as IWD – allows us to acknowledge instances of rape in India, sweatshop abuses in Asia or child-bride trafficking in Pakistan. Yet, we are rarely attentive to the complexity of those abuses. We certainly do not contemplate what material conditions underpin the world’s structural violence against women, and thus, social change cannot materialize in a way that actually provides sustainable alteration to the structures that perpetuate such violence. In order for real action and reform to occur, we must analyze and interrogate the structures historically and currently in place. From there, individually and collectively, as countries and continents, we will realize that structural change is needed to ameliorate the gender disparity and end violence against women. Yes, we must be aware, yes, we must question. More importantly though, we must not only process our distress and give someone a free cupcake; we must make the connection to take direct action, action called for by the U.N.

Facts and figures from The World Bank, United Nations, and Aljazeera.

Sara Pilgreen received her BA in Psychology and Communications from University of Hawaii, Hilo, in 2004. She then went on to serve in the Peace Corps in the Republic of Vanuatu where she focused on gender and development while teaching English. Before entering the combined MSW/PhD program at UCLA, Sara completed her MA at Teachers College — Columbia University in clinical psychology. Currently, Sara is in her second year of the MSW program and first year of the PhD program at Luskin School of Public Affairs.

March 7, 2013 8 comments

Asia Global Health The International Economy Women's Rights

The Next Global Dilemma: An Aging World

written by thegeneration

by Tina Kim
Co-Editor

The next great crisis of our generation may not be global warming, nuclear attacks, looming deficits, or any pending apocalypses. It’s babies—specifically, not enough babies. 97 percent of the world’s population now lives in countries where fertility rates are declining, according to the Wall Street Journal. In 60 years, the global population will begin to decrease and the world will lose its most valuable and fundamental resource: human capital. For the past century, large populations have brought innovations to technology and science and provided the manpower to drive the economy. Moreover, a plethora of taxpayers have allowed governments to fund healthcare, defense, education, and all other spending. However, at some point when the world transitions into a situation where the old largely outnumber the young, we will come face to face with an immeasurable problem.

Throughout the world, countries have already faced the consequences of low fertility rates, varying culturally from region to region. In Asia, “tiger” nations such as China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore have fertility rates well below the 2.1 replacement rate. The “tiger” culture of an intensely competitive workplace and lifestyle leave individuals without much spare time while depriving them of the disposable income necessary to enjoy their lives and raise a child.

“Most of my friends are not married,” a 35-year-old female civil servant in Singapore said in an article from Forbes. “They don’t want to be single but they are too busy with their work commitment. My friends are consumed by work. Money, status, prestige, climbing the ladder. You expect things to change when you get older but it doesn’t. The calculation just doesn’t work out.”

Joel Kotkin, author of The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, explains this issue as an “economic and spiritual” problem. Economically, the high costs of living and the time and money consuming nature of child rearing are seen as major roadblocks. In addition, unlike in the U.S. (with a few exceptions like New York City), many of these Asian countries have high density apartment living. In high density areas, traffic congestion, overloaded public transport, higher rates of crime, higher costs of basic products and services, and general overcrowding are everyday occurrences. Kotkin, who has interviewed and researched individuals living in Singapore and other East Asian countries, stated that spiritually, people who live in these conditions are reflective of their difficult lives. For these individuals, the growing pessimism towards the future has given them a dismal outlook for the next generation, which has led many to not have children.

In 2009, 20 percent of women between the ages of 30 and 39 chose to remain childless; it is estimated that in some East Asian societies, up to a third of all women will remain childless. In addition, as women become more educated, many have pursued their own careers, which have prevented marriage or child rearing. As a result, women are no longer able to take on the cultural expectation, including that of being the sole caretaker of the child. Countries in Southern Europe, which have had similar cultural views, have also had significantly lower fertility rates compared to their Northern European counterparts.

In Northern Europe, greater male participation in child rearing has offset much of the difficulties faced by other countries. Such cultural differences have influenced government policies and have led to higher fertility rates. An article by the New York Times states that, “many countries with greater gender equality have a greater social commitment to day care and other institutional support for working women, which gives those women the possibility of having a second or third child.” For instance, Scandinavian countries provide state support for having a child and guarantee paternity leaves, which gives women the opportunity to work while raising a baby. More importantly, since both parents are more likely to work, financially, the couple is better able to handle obstacles such as high living costs.

In response, many governments in Asia have instituted measures such as state-funded childcare to encourage parenthood. However, according to Kotkin, these state-funded initiatives will only marginally increase fertility rates. The fundamental determinant in encouraging people to have children would be to improve the difficult living conditions people deal with on a daily basis; addressing problems such as high commodity costs, high college tuitions (and debt), rising housings costs, and in some cases environmental pollution, would be more effective in convincing parents to have children.

To make up for these decreases in fertility rates, countries such as Germany, Japan, and the U.S. have largely depended on immigration to offset decreasing birth rates. For example, Germany attracted migrants to establish a highly skilled and productive labor force in order to create an export oriented market. Thus, Germany is able to pay for welfare and provide social programs that many Eurozone countries have struggled to provide. In contrast, debt-ridden Southern European countries such as Spain, Italy, and Greece offer no incentives or job prospects for people to immigrate. By depending on tourism and real estate, when the economy collapsed due to the housing bubble and the financial crisis of 2007, many of the foreign investors fled these countries, leading to great debts.

But even for Germany and other countries that count on imported labor, the dependence on immigration may not be an option in the future. In the next century, the world’s population will decline and so will the surplus of people in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. Even if regions such as Africa and India do have surpluses of people, there is the issue of having an educated and skilled workforce. According to UNESCO, South and West Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa have among the lowest literacy rates in the world, at about 63 percent.

Ultimately, Kotkin predicts that the “diminished labor force and consumer base” will eventually “slow economic growth and limit opportunities for business expansion.” However, there are predictions that the need for human manpower will be replaced with innovations in technology and economic growth will continue. But how many more Steve Jobs can come from a significantly smaller population?

Politically, the smaller youth population will have many problems. On one level, the youth will have less political power and representation, as seniors will be the majority of voters. A UN report states that in 2050 the number of people 60 years and older will increase by a factor of 2.6 (from 784 million to more than 2 billion). These seniors will need social security and healthcare, but how will a disproportionately smaller workforce handle paying for these programs? These individuals have the burden of paying today’s and future government debts, along with healthcare and social security for seniors as well.

Already, there have been protests against governments cutting social programs and raising taxes. With income inequality increasing and the population decreasing, there may be a future where seniors will not be able to count on state support. Governments around the world have become aware of their impending demographic cliffs. However, the general trend among political figures around the world has been to implement austerity measures, which ultimately ignores addressing these core issues. Austerity will no longer work in a future of an unbalanced population, increased income inequity, and a world of reduced economic growth.

Whether governments do anything to address these issues or not, the social, economic, and political consequences are imminent and they will affect people on a global scale. How exactly will this unfold? This generation will just have to wait and see.

Facts and figures obtained from Forbes, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, UNESCO, the United Nations, and a personal interview with Joel Kotkin.

Tina Kim is a second year Communications major and Urban Planning and Public Policy double minor at UCLA. She is co-editor of The Generation.

February 18, 2013 27 comments

Global Health Security and Conflict The International Economy UCLA and the World

Stop Voting Against Yourself: The Difference between Opinions and Facts

written by thegeneration

by Shadee Ashtari
Editor-in-Chief

In less than 24 hours, our nation will face one of the most crucial decisions of the decade, not only for America, but for the entire world. Our nation will face a decision that not only directly impacts every American citizen today, but every American and global citizen for years to come.

All my (politically cognizant) life, I have been told by greedy, bigoted elders that I am a liberal because I am “young,” “naïve,” and “don’t pay taxes.”

Well, I may still be young (luckily), but I have in my short life: served as a caregiver for a mother with cancer for ten years; lost her to cancer at the age of 20; and worked multiple jobs to help pay for my family’s and school’s expenses (and hence, paid taxes for the last five years). I have experienced my fair share of bitterness and loss, sacrifice and hard work.

And still, I believe that I would rather work hard every day and give as much as I can to those who cannot fight for themselves. I still stand for the liberating and mobilizing power of a strong educational system. I still stand for whatever socially and economically most benefits the greatest amount of people in my country. I am first and foremost a caretaker of my fellow American, and I will defend whatever truly allows the majority of them to succeed.

I believe the greatest American tragedy and hoax has been the intentional and manipulative inception of a deluded lie to masses of good-intentioned Americans by a few profiting con artists. These con artists should be finally called for what they are: anyone who tells the American people that voting for Mitt Romney is in any way beneficial for the majority of Americans.

It is truly not shocking that upper class politicians and voters support his platform and policy outlines—(despite the clear moral and civic duties they choose to ignore) it makes sense that a millionaire would vote for a fellow millionaire to protect their mutual interests. Fine.

But what on earth is the other 96% of the population even considering? The decision between voting for Obama or Romney is not a complex, relative “opinion”—it is a simple fact-based decision between one man’s platform directly economically and socially benefiting 96% of the American population vs. the latter directly and exclusively serving less than 5% of the population.

Anyone who is a student, a member of the middle or lower class (96% of Americans), a woman, a champion of American jobs, cares the slightest about the rest of the world and the future of their children, has half a heart or half a brain ought to vote for President Obama; otherwise, they literally, socially and fiscally, VOTE AGAINST THEMSELVES. They vote to increase their student tuition. They vote to outsource American jobs to China and India. They vote to veto bills ensuring equal pay for men and women. They vote to alienate global allies, increase tensions with unstable countries like Iran, and essentially significantly increase risks of another unnecessary and financially impossible war. (Note, I am steering clear of a few social issues like gay marriage because I am making a point that the majority of Americans, despite their religious or cultural beliefs, will financially and socially benefit on more “indisputable” social issues like equal pay for women from voting for President Obama.) Unless you are part of the top 4%, if you are voting for Romney, you have been conned in Romney’s longest-standing scam. Let’s break it down, for fact’s sake:

GLOBAL IMPACT

To begin with, what would a Romney presidency do to the rest of the world?

Well, it seems like the international community agrees: the outcome would be disastrous. A BBC World Service opinion poll recently found “sharply higher overseas approval ratings for US President Barack Obama than Republican challenger Mitt Romney. An average of 50% favored Mr. Obama, with 9% for Mr. Romney, in the survey of 21,797 people in 21 countries.” Only Pakistan’s respondents chose Mitt Romney as a preferred winner in the November election.

Ouch. Quite the disparity there, Mittens. Apparently the rest of the world seems to understand their inevitably interrelated fates within the international economy. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and Professor at Columbia University, explains, “Romney’s proposed contractionary policies – the attempt to reduce deficits prematurely, while the US economy is still frail – will almost surely weaken America’s already anemic growth, and, if the euro crisis worsens, it could bring on another recession.”

At that point, U.S. demand will be shrinking and the rest of the international community will directly feel the negative economic impacts of a Romney presidency. In the face of globalization, countries around the world need resolute and collaborative efforts to confront issues of trade, climate change, and nuclear arms. And although Romney’s chest-puffing may have fooled some Americans, the rest of the world agrees his macho rhetoric will not serve as a constructive leader in the challenging years to come.

STUDENTS

How would a Romney vs. Obama administration value you as a student?

President Obama:

–Has launched an initiative to help universities and community colleges cut the rate of inflation in half in college expenses. The new system, explains former President Bill Clinton, “sets aside a long reserve in the federal budget, gives money directly to colleges and to students so the loans cost less money… far more important, every single person after next year that gets a college loan from the federal government…can pay that loan back as your choice as a small fixed percentage of your income for twenty years.” Essentially, no student should ever have to drop out of a college or university again because of the cost of college tuition.

Romney/Ryan solution:

–The Romney administration’s plan would “slash more than $15 billion of mandatory and discretionary funding from the Pell Grant program beginning next year, resulting in a 42 percent cut to Pell Grants,” explains Stephen Steigleder, Policy Analyst at CAP Action.

–Governor Romney’s advise to students? “Borrow money if you have to from your parents.” Romney then goes on to tell a story about a friend who once needed money and borrowed $20,000 from his parents at a “low interest rate.” Must be nice. Oh wait, except for the fact that students who even qualify for Pell Grants probably don’t have parents who can just cough up $20,000.

Impact: Eliminating Pell Grants for more than 1 million students and adding thousands of dollars in loan debt to college students and their families.

JOBS & THE MAJORITY CLASS

Who will protect your job? Who will ensure a secure and fruitful future for your children in the job market? Who will make America a competitive leader of the free world?

Romney (as Massachusetts’s governor):

-Vetoed a bill banning state contracts with companies outsourcing state work overseas.He opposed George W. Bush’s tariffs on imported steel from China and opposed President Obama’s tariffs on tires imported from China (factcheck.org).

-Argues that companies like his Bain-owned company Sensata Tech. betray American workers because of a “high tax burden.” But the truth is, the effective corporate tax rate is the lowest it has been in 40 years, while many of our largest corporations pay close to or nothing in taxes (similar to Romney and his offshore Cayman accounts). So the actual explanation for Romney’s record of outsourcing our children’s jobs to China and India is essentially, the bottom line. His priorities are not the 96% of hard-working Americans—his priorities, as reflected by his policies, are cutting overhead costs and finding the cheapest labor possible, for the maximum amount of profit possible, for the fewest number of people possible.

Obama: The majority of Americans, 96% according to Pew Research, are not upper class, so why do half of Americans choose to vote for them?

Maybe they think a businessman like Romney can fix the economy? Well, let’s look at the numbers.

When was a last time our economy witnessed a surplus?

Under a Democratic administration, the Clinton Administration. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 22.7 million jobs were added between January 1993 and January 2001. What about in the last Republican administration? “There was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs”—20 million less jobs for American workers (factcheck.org).

What about today?

Today’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics “showed that the economy added 171,000 jobs last month, beating analysts’ expectations. The private sector added 184,000 jobs…making this the 32nd consecutive month that the private sector has grown.” Overall, under Obama, “the private sector has added 759,000 jobs. At this same point in the George W. Bush administration — October 2004 — the private sector had lost more than 1 million jobs.”

Not to mention, when it comes to Romney and his tax rhetoric, there is an enormously annoying point missing: “the fact that although the rich pay higher taxes than the poor, middle-class people actually pay a higher percentage of their income in total taxes,” according to a 2010 study by Citizens for Tax Justice. Although federal income tax rates are progressive, deductions, loopholes, and “special treatment of capital gains reduce actual tax rates for the top earners.” So what is actually happening? Upper-middle-class taxpayers are paying the highest actual percentage of their income (over 31%).

How strange, I guess a deregulated pro-business, upper-class tax-cutting model didn’t really work out. Seems a middle-class economic growth plan, empirically, yielded a fiscal surplus and that Romney does not seem too opposed to taxes when it comes to pushing them down to America’s working class.

WOMEN

Obama:

-Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, legally eliminating wage discrimination barriers for women, as his very first executive action as President.

-Increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act in an effort to protect victims of sexual assault and combat violence against women.

-Obama’s Affordable Care Act also ensures women can receive cancer screenings and mammograms without co-pays or deductibles.

Romney’s plan:

-“Get rid of” Planned Parenthood funding, “overturn Roe V. Wade,” and hand over women’s rights to “employers” to decide their access to birth control coverage.

There is no excuse for any human being who values a woman’s safety and her access to life-saving resources like mammograms to vote for Romney (who plans to repeal these measures)—a woman doing so, is yet again, voting against herself and every other woman’s basic liberties. There is more at stake than one’s particular (and irrelevant) religious or cultural reservations; “the bottom line” is the universal civil rights and health of an entire female population.

VOTE FOR YOURSELF

So as voting day approaches, I make my last plea: vote for you; vote for the student, the woman, the middle class, the majority; vote in the interest of the international economy.

Despite your particular traditional reservations, this year, VOTE FOR YOURSELF.

Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication, once said:

“…news is not what it used to be. It has fallen into a bizarre notion that substitutes something called ‘balance’ for what used to be called ‘accuracy’ or ‘truth’ or ‘objectivity.’ That may be because…the notion of a truth doesn’t have the same reputation it used to, but, as a consequence, straight journalists both in print and in broadcast can be played like a piccolo by people who know how to exploit that weakness.”

There is a difference between opinion and fact—don’t be played like a piccolo.

Facts and figures from factcheck.org, Pew Research Center, The Huffington Post, and CNN.

Shadee Ashtari is a senior at UCLA majoring in Communications with a minor in Political Science. At the Burkle Center, Shadee is the Editor-in-Chief of The Generation. She debates on the UCLA Debate Team and edits for the UCLA School of Law’s Communications Department. Her current research focuses on student homelessness in the U.S. and the rise and decline of religiosity in industrialized nations.

November 5, 2012 14 comments

Global Health UCLA and the World

The State of Health in Nicaragua

written by thegeneration

By Stephan Chiu

This past December, I returned home from a Global Medical Training (GMT) trip to Nicaragua. GMT organizes trips in which college students travel to foreign countries to work with local doctors and translators in medical clinics. Eight days and 60 patients later, I come back with a better perspective on the state of health in Nicaragua, as well as global health in general.

Nicaragua is a poor country with over half of the country living below the poverty line, and most ailments of patients were a result of their living conditions. Parasites such as roundworms and amoebas are rampant. One 13-year-old patient shocked us when she threw up during a clinical visit, revealing no less than twenty roundworms wriggling in her vomit. Contamination in water supplies, combined with improper hygiene, leads to these parasites being a part of daily life there.

One clinic day, I went with a few group members and a doctor on a house visit to see a patient who was too weak to make it to clinic. After treating her, we were allowed to tour their home and get a glimpse of daily life for villagers there. I saw a stagnant tank of water sitting in the open. When I asked what it was used for, they answered for washing and drinking. In addition, I saw their “shower” – it consisted of a pitched black tarp surrounding several buckets of water.

Although we served hundreds of clients during our time there, I feel that our impact, while significant, was only a temporary solution to a larger problem. What we need is not more pharmaceuticals or supplies, but better education. The poor and uneducated of Nicaragua often do not have basic understanding of hygiene and sanitation. Even implementing fundamental changes to their lifestyle could make a great impact on their overall well-being.

To help make these changes a reality, health education tables should be implemented at clinics and hospitals in poor afflicted regions such as the ones I worked in. Helpful advisors and easy to understand pamphlets would educate patients on the basics of sanitation, healthy diet, diabetes prevention, and other pressing issues. Just a simple increase in health education could prevent much of the pain and complications that I witnessed.

January 14, 2012 1 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts