Article here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-india-billion-20111203,0,211651.story
India's population is one of the largest in the world, at 1.2 billion people, second only to China. However, due to China's one-child campaign, India is projected to become the most populous nation by 2020. The growth is very alarming, as the influx of new births is straining the resources available to India, and there are few effective measures being implemented to try and reduce the out of control birth rates. Currently, the poor of India suffer conditions which are on par or worse than most of their neighbors and many sub-Saharan African countries.
India has a variety of problems relating to the poor of their country as well as with women's rights. Education is difficult to come by for both the poor and women, and the growing population is only making it harder to access education. The rising wealth of the nation is also astoundingly causing more problems for women's rights, because the cost of dowries rises along with it, leading to female infanticide and abortions.
Access to health is similarly limited. Global supply of healthcare is already limited, so put scarce supply together with a massive poor population which can't afford it, and you end up with a large part of the population being susceptible to all sorts of diseases and sicknesses. The population growth is simply unsustainable in all regards at the moment.
Women's rights should by focused on first; many rural areas keep their women uneducated, deeming it a waste of time. The lack of education in women is connected to high birth rates. In tandem with providing education to the poor, other measures must be implemented to lift people out of poverty, so the pressures which push the poor into having more children are reduced. Resources shouldn't be spent on trying to forcibly limit the number of children a couple can have, such as in China's case, since it takes a lot of work to keep track of everyone and their children.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
SADC refuses to cut DDT use by 2020
Article here: http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=1&aid=47&dir=2011/November/Friday18
The SADC (Southern African Development Community) has notified the UN that they will not be able to eliminate their use of DDT, a powerful but dangerous insecticide, because there is no reliable alternative. DDT is mainly used for the control of mosquitoes as a prevention measure against malaria, and it does provide results. However, DDT also has many side effects, including being carcinogenic to humans, and heavily polluting the environment and being a threat to wildlife, especially birds.
Malaria is an huge disease in Africa, being one of the largest health problems there. The Millennium Development Goals specifically lists the goal of reducing malaria incidence by 2015. So it is no surprise that the countries which are part of the SADC want to continue use of DDT to help their citizens. By using DDT, though, new health problems emerge. The ecosystems which are treated with the insecticide are disrupted, and there are many long term issues associated with humans who are exposed to it, namely cancer, diabetes, and a variety of developmental disorders. But even with those problems, the lives saved by using DDT to prevent malaria still vastly outnumber the amount of problems caused. WHO actually recommends its use to prevent malaria (in the case that mosquitoes in the treatment area aren't resistant to it).
DDT use should remain for the time being, since alternatives are much more expensive, and the immediate benefits of its use are immense. But its use must be restricted to where it is most effective, and avoided in heavy populated areas. Currently, many homes are being treated with the chemical, and in some instances it is still being used to treat crops. Practices such as these have to be stopped, because they provide minimal benefit for the reduction of malaria while causing huge problems for human health in the long term. And naturally, there must be plans in place to halt its use quickly when an effective alternative strategy against malaria emerges.
The SADC (Southern African Development Community) has notified the UN that they will not be able to eliminate their use of DDT, a powerful but dangerous insecticide, because there is no reliable alternative. DDT is mainly used for the control of mosquitoes as a prevention measure against malaria, and it does provide results. However, DDT also has many side effects, including being carcinogenic to humans, and heavily polluting the environment and being a threat to wildlife, especially birds.
Malaria is an huge disease in Africa, being one of the largest health problems there. The Millennium Development Goals specifically lists the goal of reducing malaria incidence by 2015. So it is no surprise that the countries which are part of the SADC want to continue use of DDT to help their citizens. By using DDT, though, new health problems emerge. The ecosystems which are treated with the insecticide are disrupted, and there are many long term issues associated with humans who are exposed to it, namely cancer, diabetes, and a variety of developmental disorders. But even with those problems, the lives saved by using DDT to prevent malaria still vastly outnumber the amount of problems caused. WHO actually recommends its use to prevent malaria (in the case that mosquitoes in the treatment area aren't resistant to it).
DDT use should remain for the time being, since alternatives are much more expensive, and the immediate benefits of its use are immense. But its use must be restricted to where it is most effective, and avoided in heavy populated areas. Currently, many homes are being treated with the chemical, and in some instances it is still being used to treat crops. Practices such as these have to be stopped, because they provide minimal benefit for the reduction of malaria while causing huge problems for human health in the long term. And naturally, there must be plans in place to halt its use quickly when an effective alternative strategy against malaria emerges.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Australia passes law to stop colorful cigarette packaging
Article here: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/10/4045077/australia-provides-global-leadership.html
Australia has passed the world's first law restricting what can appear on a cigarette package, specifically, free from nearly all branding and logos. The wanted effect is to try and make the packaging less appealing to kids and teens. Naturally, all the tobacco companies are up in arms, suing anyone related to this to try and reverse the law.
The law represents the very different problems that developed countries face compared to developing countries. Most citizens have money to spend, the majority can afford necessary healthcare and insurance, and many employers provide it as part of their pay. So rather than not having the resources to treat people, the majority of health problems that people face come from lifestyle choices. Obesity is not caused by a virus, and cancer is as much an environmental problem as it is a genetic one. But the biggest problem is how and why people make the choices they do which lead to these widespread problems that almost look like epidemics, even if the diseases aren't contageous.
The education of people in developed countries is the biggest concern. Many are fairly educated in the sciences and humanities, as part of compulsory education. But being taught about their bodies is not nearly prioritized as much. Indeed, the point of education in developed countries is to make the people schools spit out employable. Money is the goal at the end.
The people of the developed world are constantly interacting with the messages corporations put out to make whatever they sell appealing. Tobacco companies are handing out packs of cancer and making people pay for it. Of course, it is the consumers' choice in the end, but the education they receive from advertisement is probably much more of an influence then the semester of health education they might have taken in high school. Countries have to take a stand against this, and act for the betterment of the population like Australia has in this instance. The importance of the health and well-being of any countries citizens should take priority over the income of any given corporation.
Australia has passed the world's first law restricting what can appear on a cigarette package, specifically, free from nearly all branding and logos. The wanted effect is to try and make the packaging less appealing to kids and teens. Naturally, all the tobacco companies are up in arms, suing anyone related to this to try and reverse the law.
The law represents the very different problems that developed countries face compared to developing countries. Most citizens have money to spend, the majority can afford necessary healthcare and insurance, and many employers provide it as part of their pay. So rather than not having the resources to treat people, the majority of health problems that people face come from lifestyle choices. Obesity is not caused by a virus, and cancer is as much an environmental problem as it is a genetic one. But the biggest problem is how and why people make the choices they do which lead to these widespread problems that almost look like epidemics, even if the diseases aren't contageous.
The education of people in developed countries is the biggest concern. Many are fairly educated in the sciences and humanities, as part of compulsory education. But being taught about their bodies is not nearly prioritized as much. Indeed, the point of education in developed countries is to make the people schools spit out employable. Money is the goal at the end.
The people of the developed world are constantly interacting with the messages corporations put out to make whatever they sell appealing. Tobacco companies are handing out packs of cancer and making people pay for it. Of course, it is the consumers' choice in the end, but the education they receive from advertisement is probably much more of an influence then the semester of health education they might have taken in high school. Countries have to take a stand against this, and act for the betterment of the population like Australia has in this instance. The importance of the health and well-being of any countries citizens should take priority over the income of any given corporation.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
500,000 new cases of cholera in Haiti by 2011
Article here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/10/21/international/i061048D00.DTL
One year ago, Haiti had no documented cases of cholera, and in just one year, 470,000 new cases have emerged, with 6,600 deaths attributed to the disease. By the end of the year, the number is expected to exceed 500,000. These numbers show just how quickly an epidemic can emerge when the people are not vaccinated, and highlights the consequences of ignoring vaccinations. Vaccination efforts are starting to take place now, but the point of vaccines is to stop outbreaks from occuring in the first place. But unfortunately, even with conditions ripe for an outbreak, no action was taken until the disease was already widespread.
The outbreak occurred months after the Haiti earthquake. As in any natural disaster, clean water become harder to come by, so cholera, a disease which resides in dirty water and food, should have been expected. Organizations and governments should respond to disasters such as this more effectively, since public health is most vulnerable after disasters, as people are displaced and infrastructure is either disabled, destroyed, or inaccessible. Providing clean water, shelter, and vaccines is most important during times of hardship such as these, since it is when disease has the easiest time of spreading. The more cases there are of a disease, the harder it is to bring it under control.
Vaccines help control the speed of diseases spreading as well. There is a limited amount of doctors and beds available at any given moment, so even where vaccines don't help stop a disease entirely, they could slow the transmission rate and bring the number of patients at any given moment down to a more manageable level, and help localize the disease to smaller areas at a time.
One year ago, Haiti had no documented cases of cholera, and in just one year, 470,000 new cases have emerged, with 6,600 deaths attributed to the disease. By the end of the year, the number is expected to exceed 500,000. These numbers show just how quickly an epidemic can emerge when the people are not vaccinated, and highlights the consequences of ignoring vaccinations. Vaccination efforts are starting to take place now, but the point of vaccines is to stop outbreaks from occuring in the first place. But unfortunately, even with conditions ripe for an outbreak, no action was taken until the disease was already widespread.
The outbreak occurred months after the Haiti earthquake. As in any natural disaster, clean water become harder to come by, so cholera, a disease which resides in dirty water and food, should have been expected. Organizations and governments should respond to disasters such as this more effectively, since public health is most vulnerable after disasters, as people are displaced and infrastructure is either disabled, destroyed, or inaccessible. Providing clean water, shelter, and vaccines is most important during times of hardship such as these, since it is when disease has the easiest time of spreading. The more cases there are of a disease, the harder it is to bring it under control.
Vaccines help control the speed of diseases spreading as well. There is a limited amount of doctors and beds available at any given moment, so even where vaccines don't help stop a disease entirely, they could slow the transmission rate and bring the number of patients at any given moment down to a more manageable level, and help localize the disease to smaller areas at a time.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
US Troops sent to central Africa to help quell insurgency
Article here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-sends-troops-aid-africa-anti-insurgency-14739654
Obama has sent 100 troops to help the forces there help put down the Lord's Resistance Army, a guerrilla group notorious for extremely violent acts against innocent people in central Africa. While the troops are not planning to engage in direct combat, they will be able to train and educate the soldiers already there, a very valuable resource in a region that lacks even primary education.
This action is a very large step forward for global health, for a variety of reasons. International aid groups almost always refuse to send help where their workers might be targeted and risk getting killed, and aid sent there might simply be used to help the fighters rather than the civilians who need it most. Many people are displaced from their homes and end up in refugee camps, where food and water is scarce, sanitary conditions are abysmal, and disease runs rampant. On top of that, rape and violence takes place in the camps as well, which is exactly why many are forced into the camps in the first place. And human trafficking is common business for these violent groups, where many women are forced into prostitution, leading to a spread of STDs and a variety of other problems due to the abuse of women.
Naturally, the first step to providing aid is being able to provide aid in the first place. Violent groups that destroy any aid that arrives just to keep power over their people must be diffused first so that proper attention can be taken to providing aid and helping to lift the repressed people out of poverty and rampant disease.
Obama has sent 100 troops to help the forces there help put down the Lord's Resistance Army, a guerrilla group notorious for extremely violent acts against innocent people in central Africa. While the troops are not planning to engage in direct combat, they will be able to train and educate the soldiers already there, a very valuable resource in a region that lacks even primary education.
This action is a very large step forward for global health, for a variety of reasons. International aid groups almost always refuse to send help where their workers might be targeted and risk getting killed, and aid sent there might simply be used to help the fighters rather than the civilians who need it most. Many people are displaced from their homes and end up in refugee camps, where food and water is scarce, sanitary conditions are abysmal, and disease runs rampant. On top of that, rape and violence takes place in the camps as well, which is exactly why many are forced into the camps in the first place. And human trafficking is common business for these violent groups, where many women are forced into prostitution, leading to a spread of STDs and a variety of other problems due to the abuse of women.
Naturally, the first step to providing aid is being able to provide aid in the first place. Violent groups that destroy any aid that arrives just to keep power over their people must be diffused first so that proper attention can be taken to providing aid and helping to lift the repressed people out of poverty and rampant disease.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Guinea worm disease nearly eradicated from the earth.
Article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/05/jimmy-carter-eradicate-guinea-worm-disease
Former US President Jimmy Carter has spent the last 25 years trying to help those that suffer from the disease, caused by larva consumed from drinking water. And he has been very successful, lowering the prevalence by 99.9%, with only 1000 new cases per year. With only $100 million more, the disease will be entirely wiped off the planet. Normally, this would seem to be a large misplacement of money, since there are only roughly 4000 cases remaining, but this is a very well managed health effort which has consequences beyond destroying the disease.
Being a parasite, the disease has no cure or vaccine. Instead, the water where the worm larva reside in must be filtered, and new wells dug. Digging the wells is fairly easy, and filtering water through simple apparatuses is simple enough, but the challenge is to get villagers to use them. A large education campaign was carried out, with nearly 12,000 local volunteers taught about the benefits of clean water and other aspects of healthcare. This is exactly what needs to be done everywhere in the world. Rather than simply sending in workers and doctors to help control a disease, you have to teach the population how to take care of themselves. In remote villages, even the most basic of sanitary practices don't take place, often because people don't know any better. On top of that, they begin to trust foreigners, since they have been given power over themselves and control over their own health. And when people trust others, they are more willing to learn from them and accept help. Results are nice to see on paper, but the social aspect of international health can't be ignored either. If there is no trust, and no willingness to help and accept help from people across the globe, then global health becomes a much more difficult thing to deal with.
Former US President Jimmy Carter has spent the last 25 years trying to help those that suffer from the disease, caused by larva consumed from drinking water. And he has been very successful, lowering the prevalence by 99.9%, with only 1000 new cases per year. With only $100 million more, the disease will be entirely wiped off the planet. Normally, this would seem to be a large misplacement of money, since there are only roughly 4000 cases remaining, but this is a very well managed health effort which has consequences beyond destroying the disease.
Being a parasite, the disease has no cure or vaccine. Instead, the water where the worm larva reside in must be filtered, and new wells dug. Digging the wells is fairly easy, and filtering water through simple apparatuses is simple enough, but the challenge is to get villagers to use them. A large education campaign was carried out, with nearly 12,000 local volunteers taught about the benefits of clean water and other aspects of healthcare. This is exactly what needs to be done everywhere in the world. Rather than simply sending in workers and doctors to help control a disease, you have to teach the population how to take care of themselves. In remote villages, even the most basic of sanitary practices don't take place, often because people don't know any better. On top of that, they begin to trust foreigners, since they have been given power over themselves and control over their own health. And when people trust others, they are more willing to learn from them and accept help. Results are nice to see on paper, but the social aspect of international health can't be ignored either. If there is no trust, and no willingness to help and accept help from people across the globe, then global health becomes a much more difficult thing to deal with.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Funds allocated to provide children with vaccines in poor countries
Article here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/27/us-vaccinepoor-nations-idUSTRE78Q3K420110927
The GAVI international immunizations group has agreed to 50 new deals providing children in 37 developing countries with rotavirus, pneumococcal, and other vaccines that will help prevent child deaths. The two leading causes of child death, pneumonia and severe diarrhea, are a large target of the move, along with a variety of other diseases such as meningitis and measles. This is a very large and important step for global health in its entirety, since vaccines are a very cheap way to prevent deaths and save on healthcare through prevention rather than treatment. Children will be healthier as they age, meaning less resources will have to be used in the future, although to truly have children grow up healthy funding needs to be provided for proper nutrition and sanitation. Nonetheless, there is no negative to providing vaccines. The number of cases involving child diseases will dramatically drop, so health will improve among the entire population as there will be less diseased and weakened individuals.
So with funding now allocated to providing vaccines, the organization still has to deploy them effectively. Vaccines don't do much good if they aren't delivered to where they're needed most. The countries that are receiving them must also be receptive to them, and the population would have to be alerted of the opportunity and educated about the importance of getting the vaccines. Along side deployment, it would be efficient to carry out other projects, such as trying to set up clinics or teaching people healthy habits while vaccines are deployed, especially since many shots require boosters in the future. This is a rare opportunity to have something be deployed on a wide scale, and it's a good time to start a variety of other wide scale projects along side deploying the vaccines.
The GAVI international immunizations group has agreed to 50 new deals providing children in 37 developing countries with rotavirus, pneumococcal, and other vaccines that will help prevent child deaths. The two leading causes of child death, pneumonia and severe diarrhea, are a large target of the move, along with a variety of other diseases such as meningitis and measles. This is a very large and important step for global health in its entirety, since vaccines are a very cheap way to prevent deaths and save on healthcare through prevention rather than treatment. Children will be healthier as they age, meaning less resources will have to be used in the future, although to truly have children grow up healthy funding needs to be provided for proper nutrition and sanitation. Nonetheless, there is no negative to providing vaccines. The number of cases involving child diseases will dramatically drop, so health will improve among the entire population as there will be less diseased and weakened individuals.
So with funding now allocated to providing vaccines, the organization still has to deploy them effectively. Vaccines don't do much good if they aren't delivered to where they're needed most. The countries that are receiving them must also be receptive to them, and the population would have to be alerted of the opportunity and educated about the importance of getting the vaccines. Along side deployment, it would be efficient to carry out other projects, such as trying to set up clinics or teaching people healthy habits while vaccines are deployed, especially since many shots require boosters in the future. This is a rare opportunity to have something be deployed on a wide scale, and it's a good time to start a variety of other wide scale projects along side deploying the vaccines.
Friday, September 23, 2011
New Polio Strain Spreads in Pakistan and China
Article here: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/health/polio-hits-china-pakistan/
The World Health Organization (WHO) is warning China and Pakistan about a new, highly contagious strain of polio which is starting to appear. This particular case is a very interesting global problem, because the outbreak is occurring around the time of the Haj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. If there isn't a global response, the new strain could quickly grow out of control as pilgrims come and go from their respective countries, especially since vaccines against the virus aren't common in the region. Travelers are being urged to get vaccinated, but for many people there is simply no access to clinics which provide vaccinations, and many others simply can't afford the vaccine.
This is a prime example of how globalization is affecting health around the world. It is nearly impossible to isolate an entire population from the rest of the world today, so helping people everywhere should be a high priority for all countries, simply because it directly affects the health of their own people in the long term. Unfortunately, there is currently no reliable international system to handle health on a global scale. The WHO is a start, acting as a sort of global health adviser, but countries themselves need to step in and support global health before any real work gets done to global health.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is warning China and Pakistan about a new, highly contagious strain of polio which is starting to appear. This particular case is a very interesting global problem, because the outbreak is occurring around the time of the Haj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. If there isn't a global response, the new strain could quickly grow out of control as pilgrims come and go from their respective countries, especially since vaccines against the virus aren't common in the region. Travelers are being urged to get vaccinated, but for many people there is simply no access to clinics which provide vaccinations, and many others simply can't afford the vaccine.
This is a prime example of how globalization is affecting health around the world. It is nearly impossible to isolate an entire population from the rest of the world today, so helping people everywhere should be a high priority for all countries, simply because it directly affects the health of their own people in the long term. Unfortunately, there is currently no reliable international system to handle health on a global scale. The WHO is a start, acting as a sort of global health adviser, but countries themselves need to step in and support global health before any real work gets done to global health.
Friday, September 9, 2011
U.N. Not Taking Global Health Seriously Enough
Article here: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/210698/20110908/non-communicable-diseases-un-member-states.htm
The United Nations recently met with most of the high-level officials present, the second time in history it has done so. The summit discusses topics of a wide variety, and nearly always of international nature. However, one topic which couldn't get enough attention is global health. The draft statement issued by the U.N. was labeled a great disappointment by international health groups as the draft did not include any mention of plans to deal with global disease epidemics and outbreaks. The consequences of this could be dire; should an outbreak occur, in today's globalized world, the disease wouldn't stay in any one country. It would be everyone's problem. The lack of any plan to fight such a scenario means the international response would be very slow and incomplete. And if a disease is particularly contagious, it may even spread faster than we could contain it. Having a plan for international disease control is very important for the sake of everyone in the world, especially developed countries where travel is more common.
The United Nations recently met with most of the high-level officials present, the second time in history it has done so. The summit discusses topics of a wide variety, and nearly always of international nature. However, one topic which couldn't get enough attention is global health. The draft statement issued by the U.N. was labeled a great disappointment by international health groups as the draft did not include any mention of plans to deal with global disease epidemics and outbreaks. The consequences of this could be dire; should an outbreak occur, in today's globalized world, the disease wouldn't stay in any one country. It would be everyone's problem. The lack of any plan to fight such a scenario means the international response would be very slow and incomplete. And if a disease is particularly contagious, it may even spread faster than we could contain it. Having a plan for international disease control is very important for the sake of everyone in the world, especially developed countries where travel is more common.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
24 Year Old Father Dies from Toothache
Article/video here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171
Putting catchy titles aside, a 24 year old father did actually start out with a minor toothache, and ended up dying only two weeks later. The original procedure required the tooth be pulled, but since the man lacked health insurance, he couldn't afford the procedure. Later, the tooth became infected, and after going to the emergency room for treatment he couldn't afford the antibiotics to combat the infection, opting to go for cheaper pain medication instead. A bit later, and the infection spreads to his brain, killing him. This is a man from Cincinnati, USA, a country I hope we are all aware is a very developed country. And yet we have cases where rather simple, treatable infections lead to death. It is a grim reminder that simply being in a developed country does not necessarily mean people can access these "developed" resources. I see this as rather unfair, but more importantly dangerous to society as a whole. Although this particular article is but a single instance, the premise behind connecting healthcare to wealth can have large consequences. A lot of order is required to keep people in separate castes, and if the distance between them becomes large, unrest could lead to acts of hate, a rise in crime, riots and, for better or for worse, wars.
Putting catchy titles aside, a 24 year old father did actually start out with a minor toothache, and ended up dying only two weeks later. The original procedure required the tooth be pulled, but since the man lacked health insurance, he couldn't afford the procedure. Later, the tooth became infected, and after going to the emergency room for treatment he couldn't afford the antibiotics to combat the infection, opting to go for cheaper pain medication instead. A bit later, and the infection spreads to his brain, killing him. This is a man from Cincinnati, USA, a country I hope we are all aware is a very developed country. And yet we have cases where rather simple, treatable infections lead to death. It is a grim reminder that simply being in a developed country does not necessarily mean people can access these "developed" resources. I see this as rather unfair, but more importantly dangerous to society as a whole. Although this particular article is but a single instance, the premise behind connecting healthcare to wealth can have large consequences. A lot of order is required to keep people in separate castes, and if the distance between them becomes large, unrest could lead to acts of hate, a rise in crime, riots and, for better or for worse, wars.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)