Demand for a health rights commission
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Nerun Yakub
Concerned health activists recently called a press conference and faulted the government with shortchanging the people in the name of finalizing a new health policy. For, apart from a few fine words, it is largely the same old system being renewed -- a predominantly treatment-focussed approach rather than the enhancement of peoples's health, claimed the critics. [But, one wonders whether the policy makers would at all grasp the attitudinal and qualitative difference embodied in this criticism/concern for the common weal]. The government was also found to have shown some amount of incompetence, for not having posted the 'final' 2010 Draft Health Policy on its website yet (as of Monday 01/02/10).
Did it really mean what it had said earlier -- that it would welcome inputs from the public, and consider 'good' recommendations before finalizing and presenting the national health policy 'within the next three months'? Then it had better update its website and listen to people's voices. One of the key demands of the health movement is to institute a health rights commission and to incorporate this in the policy document. In addition, the activists called for some coordination among ministries which have direct or indirect impact on health matters.
Another missed input, this scribe considers vital, is the need to include a comprehensive health science/ human biology course from classes one to eight, at least. [This was oft repeated over the course of the past months, in the hope that the good Education minister would pay heed and incorporate a compulsory course, modelled on a standard O'level textbook, in the latest education policy]. This fundamental education -- on how one's body works, what constitutes a balanced diet and how to take care of oneself -- could make a sea change in the health of our human resource and reduce the burden of diseases of malnutrition, poor sanitation and other ailments of poverty and ignorance.
Be that as it may, recommendations for upgrading the health policy have been coming in not only from pro-poor people like the above but also from high places that want our public health services to be privatized, with the government retaining only a regulatory role. No doubt this would bring huge windfalls for the medical industry and for those practitioners catering exclusively to the well-to-do. But for the majority of the people here -- the bottom of the heap, plus the middle classes -- it would only mean further exclusion.
Not that the public health services currently in place are ideal. Everyone knows, it is almost impossible for ordinary people to benefit from whatever care is available unless they have 'insiders' in the system -- be they doctors or ward boys -- to facilitate access to a hospital bed, medicines, physician's attention or nurse's succour. But considering the overwhelming numbers that have to be served against all odds, it is no mean feat, though there is certainly room for improvement. But, given the poverty of resources, it is quite amazing that so many do still get served in the public health sector.
The government would certainly be taking a wrong turn if it relinquished its responsibilities towards the majority, whose right to essential services would be denied altogether if ruthless 'profit-only' private investors were allowed to take over. For then, health services would be a commodity on offer, available according to people's ability to pay, not according to their needs.
At this stage of our socio-economic development, wholesale privatization of health care would make a bad situation worse. One would hope this pro-people government would be fully sanguine about the matter.
When only a small minority of well-to-do can go doctor-shopping at home or abroad, treating essential health services like any other commercial commodity would be tantamount to crime. Of course the prevailing health care system is badly in need of drastic overhaul, but there is no reason to suppose this job cannot be accomplished if the political will is strong enough to get an incorruptible people-oriented health administration in place to cater to people's needs.
About a decade ago, a number of national and international organizations had launched a People's Health Assembly in Bangladesh,warning precisely against vested interest groups that, under different guises, advocated the privatization of the public health sector. Make no mistake, said the assembly, these are agents of the very powers bent on controlling the world's resources through neo-liberal, neo-colonial, political and economic policies. It warned that the world's most powerful governments, companies and international financial institutions,worked together virtually as the 'Global Government'to control everything and everybody.
Developing countries' governments must understand that they have a fundamental responsibility towards their people to ensure universal access to quality health care in addition to education and other essential social services. These must be made available according to people's needs, not according to their ability to pay. Unless this can be guaranteed, the global health crisis is bound to grow worse.
People in Bangladesh suffer mostly from preventable nutrition-sanitation-water supply-pollution -- related illnesses. Old diseases and mysterious new ones are also emerging, whether natural or man-made, God only knows. Health activists claim that powerful pharmaceutical entities have even been inventing ailments, as it were, and designing drugs to cater to the booming generations of hypochondriacs, paranoids and neurotics ! Our governments would do well to be aware of the trends in this globalised world so that they are able to protect the people's right to basic health needs. A commission to that effect is imperative if a comprehensive primary health care service -- that is universally accessible and affordable -- is to be put in place.
Concerned health activists recently called a press conference and faulted the government with shortchanging the people in the name of finalizing a new health policy. For, apart from a few fine words, it is largely the same old system being renewed -- a predominantly treatment-focussed approach rather than the enhancement of peoples's health, claimed the critics. [But, one wonders whether the policy makers would at all grasp the attitudinal and qualitative difference embodied in this criticism/concern for the common weal]. The government was also found to have shown some amount of incompetence, for not having posted the 'final' 2010 Draft Health Policy on its website yet (as of Monday 01/02/10).
Did it really mean what it had said earlier -- that it would welcome inputs from the public, and consider 'good' recommendations before finalizing and presenting the national health policy 'within the next three months'? Then it had better update its website and listen to people's voices. One of the key demands of the health movement is to institute a health rights commission and to incorporate this in the policy document. In addition, the activists called for some coordination among ministries which have direct or indirect impact on health matters.
Another missed input, this scribe considers vital, is the need to include a comprehensive health science/ human biology course from classes one to eight, at least. [This was oft repeated over the course of the past months, in the hope that the good Education minister would pay heed and incorporate a compulsory course, modelled on a standard O'level textbook, in the latest education policy]. This fundamental education -- on how one's body works, what constitutes a balanced diet and how to take care of oneself -- could make a sea change in the health of our human resource and reduce the burden of diseases of malnutrition, poor sanitation and other ailments of poverty and ignorance.
Be that as it may, recommendations for upgrading the health policy have been coming in not only from pro-poor people like the above but also from high places that want our public health services to be privatized, with the government retaining only a regulatory role. No doubt this would bring huge windfalls for the medical industry and for those practitioners catering exclusively to the well-to-do. But for the majority of the people here -- the bottom of the heap, plus the middle classes -- it would only mean further exclusion.
Not that the public health services currently in place are ideal. Everyone knows, it is almost impossible for ordinary people to benefit from whatever care is available unless they have 'insiders' in the system -- be they doctors or ward boys -- to facilitate access to a hospital bed, medicines, physician's attention or nurse's succour. But considering the overwhelming numbers that have to be served against all odds, it is no mean feat, though there is certainly room for improvement. But, given the poverty of resources, it is quite amazing that so many do still get served in the public health sector.
The government would certainly be taking a wrong turn if it relinquished its responsibilities towards the majority, whose right to essential services would be denied altogether if ruthless 'profit-only' private investors were allowed to take over. For then, health services would be a commodity on offer, available according to people's ability to pay, not according to their needs.
At this stage of our socio-economic development, wholesale privatization of health care would make a bad situation worse. One would hope this pro-people government would be fully sanguine about the matter.
When only a small minority of well-to-do can go doctor-shopping at home or abroad, treating essential health services like any other commercial commodity would be tantamount to crime. Of course the prevailing health care system is badly in need of drastic overhaul, but there is no reason to suppose this job cannot be accomplished if the political will is strong enough to get an incorruptible people-oriented health administration in place to cater to people's needs.
About a decade ago, a number of national and international organizations had launched a People's Health Assembly in Bangladesh,warning precisely against vested interest groups that, under different guises, advocated the privatization of the public health sector. Make no mistake, said the assembly, these are agents of the very powers bent on controlling the world's resources through neo-liberal, neo-colonial, political and economic policies. It warned that the world's most powerful governments, companies and international financial institutions,worked together virtually as the 'Global Government'to control everything and everybody.
Developing countries' governments must understand that they have a fundamental responsibility towards their people to ensure universal access to quality health care in addition to education and other essential social services. These must be made available according to people's needs, not according to their ability to pay. Unless this can be guaranteed, the global health crisis is bound to grow worse.
People in Bangladesh suffer mostly from preventable nutrition-sanitation-water supply-pollution -- related illnesses. Old diseases and mysterious new ones are also emerging, whether natural or man-made, God only knows. Health activists claim that powerful pharmaceutical entities have even been inventing ailments, as it were, and designing drugs to cater to the booming generations of hypochondriacs, paranoids and neurotics ! Our governments would do well to be aware of the trends in this globalised world so that they are able to protect the people's right to basic health needs. A commission to that effect is imperative if a comprehensive primary health care service -- that is universally accessible and affordable -- is to be put in place.