Jul 23

The London Summit on Family Planning

You may have seen on the news that July 11th was the London Summit on Family Planning, brought to you by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK Department for International Development (DFID). This summit was a landmark in the history of family planning, women’s health and women’s rights. The whole point of this summit was to increase women’s access to contraception worldwide. It was the first of its kind and finally this crucial topic got the recognition it needs and the political commitment it depends on.

 

Family planning has a somewhat tumultuous history on the international agenda. The issue gained warranted recognition during the heyday of women’s rights activism in the 1960s and ‘70s when concern over population growth was receiving major international attention. But, family planning’s reputation was tarnished in the 1980s when contraception became synonymous with involuntary or forced population control. Since then, it has been swept to the wayside as more attention-grabbing health problems, like the discovery of HIV/AIDS, shifted aid organization’s attention towards more disease-specific issues. Additionally, political and religious agendas around the further pushed family planning farther down the international agenda (think the Global Gag Rule and the Catholic church’s position against hormonal birth control). Fun fact: did you know that reproductive health is not even included in the MDGs? I would venture to say that growing concern over population growth and the major international focus on maternal health has brought family planning back into the spotlight with this summit.

 

So the big question about this summit is: will it be any different than the many other international gatherings, meetings, and conferences that make long lists of recommendations and commitments, but never give any solid plan for the future and rarely produce much of worth? Well, yes it seems like it will be different. There was strong international commitment at this summit where developed countries quite literally put their money where their mouths were in terms of committing $2.6 billion over the next eight years to providing access. Additionally, developing countries, where the need for contraception is the greatest, have promised to increase their spending on family planning and focus on women’s rights.

 

So far, so good. But, what about the implementation and follow through of all this support? My biggest concern is about the monitoring of money flow when it comes to international aid; where it goes and how it is used. I was relieved to see Amie Newman, editor of the Impatient Optimists blog for Continue reading

Share

Jul 20

HIV and Family Planning

July seems like a busy month especially for the global health arena. Besides hearing about the olympics, I have been seeing a lot of coverage lately about major global health initiatives and events that are taking or have taken place around the world. Recently on July 11th, the Family Planning summit was held in London to address the unmet needs of family planning for women living in developing nations. Next week from July 22nd-23rd, the International AIDS conference is being held in Washington D.C. for the first time. Lately, there has been a lot push from non-profit and governmental organizations to address family planning, contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, and AIDS. HIV and family planning are actually quite related to each other. If these topics were integrated with each other, and the divide between the issues is dissolved, both areas would see vast improvements in each area.

How are family planning and HIV related to each other? Well, contraception more specifically condoms help reduce the chance of getting infected with the HIV virus. Because of antiretroviral drugs and treatments, more HIV positive people are living longer and healthier lives. Family planning can help women who are HIV positive, avoid unintended pregnancies or give them control to plan their own pregnancies when it is right time for them according to their health status.  For example, women who are HIV positive are more likely to die not from the virus but rather from pregnancy. Additionally, many women travel very far in developing countries to get healthcare services. It is harder for these women to get access to both family planning and HIV care because not all nearby health clinics provide both services in these areas.

The best way to integrate both HIV and family planning would be offering family planning and HIV services at one local health clinic. Since these services would be more accessible to women, more women would use these services. Also, if nearby clinics provide both services, women would not have to travel so far and so early to get these services. It would save them time that can be used for something that is more productive. Women will have control over of their reproductive health and their overall wellbeing. Also, providing access to contraception and family planning in sub-saharan countries in Africa would prevent 160,000 HIV positive births. Providing integrated services can provide better results in both areas of global health.

Even though HIV and AIDS is a major international health problem in developing countries, it is important to also include a general focus on other sexually transmitted diseases as well. HPV and other sexually diseases are also a major problem in developing countries. Almost 80-85% of women in Sub Saharan Africa, Latin America, and South Asia die from cervical cancer that is associated to strains 16 and 18 of the HPV virus. The health clinics in these areas lack resources for cervical cancer screenings. According to the World Health Organization, if a women gets screened at least once in her lifetime, her risk of getting cervical cancer are reduced by at least 30%. This is the same situation for other sexually transmitted diseases as well. It is difficult to diagnose and treat other sexually transmitted diseases because lack of resources and infrastructure.

Integration of health services can be very beneficial, resulting in vast advances in the fields of family planning, sexual transmitted diseases, and HIV. Rather than focusing on issues separately, organizations and changemakers should focus on integration of global health issues. Integration of services can be cost effective at the same time and can make a difference in the health of many people living in developing countries that do not have easy access. Integration of health services would similar to  killing two birds with one stone. Additionally in the long run, it would enable us to focus on other global health issues that are often undermined. Integration would be a worthwhile investment for the present and even the future.

Share

Jul 20

Women’s Health in Texas: Why Coverage Might Disappear

Did you know that low-income women in Texas might not have health coverage next year? Do you know why they’re at risk? Because of a decision by the state legislature to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics. The state doesn’t legally have the right to do that if they want to continue receiving federal Medicaid funds. They were given the choice between reversing their decision or losing the $30 million they received annually from Washington. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they chose to stick to their politics and deny funds to the organization because of its affiliation with abortions. Planned Parenthood is currently suing the state to reinstate the funding they lost. If they lose, thousands of women will be without health coverage. The state simply does not have enough money to provide adequate care for women on its own. Learn more about the dangers to women’s health in Texas by watching this short video, and join the conversation today.

Share

Jul 19

The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly: ESPN Body Issue

The Good: First, the good news. The good news is that the 2012 ESPN Body Issue has officially hit newsstands. Just kidding, that’s not the real good news. The real good news is that we can officially call the ESPN’s 4th Annual Body Issue “a step in the right direction”.

One of the six covers of the latest ESPN Body Issue.

While the outright nudity in the 4th Annual Body Issue is often a point of contention (a topic for another day), ESPN has successfully managed to create a (mostly) tasteful and respectful magazine, making it ESPN’s best body issue yet. Why? First off, let’s just call it the classier alternative to Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Edition. It’s full of athletes, doing mostly athletic things, which is more than can be said for the Swimsuit Edition. In addition, the body issue highlights a new type of beauty, an athletic beauty, that is often disregarded by the mainstream media. It’s not just stick thin models. The issue highlights a whole collection of athletes, both male and female, who excel at their respective sports. Some athletes are short, some are tall, yet all are strong and built, chock full of muscle.

The athletes are of all different races, and all different nationalities, some from as far away as Norway and Slovakia. One of the foreign athletes photographed is Ukrainian rower, Oksana Masters, who lost both her legs at a young age due to nuclear exposure from a power plant near her village in Ukraine. She is a paralympic athlete, and will compete in London at the Paralympic Games this year. It’s refreshing to see ESPN highlight a different type of beauty, not one that is normally depicted, but that’s beautiful in its same right.

The Bad: They’re not models. They’re professional athletes. So shouldn’t they photographed as professional athletes? To my dismay, less than half (46%) of the female athletes photographed had any action shots, while almost all (90%) of the male athletes were shot in action. The majority of the photographs of the female athletes portrayed women in passive poses, in moves and poses completely unrelated to their sport.

Daniela Hantuchova

Some examples of such passivity? Take Candace Parker, famous for being the first woman to ever dunk in an NCAA tournament game, who is smiling sweetly over her shoulder, basketball in hand. There are the members of the US Women’s National Volleyball Team, like Destinee Hooker and Megan Hodge, who are simply staring off into the distance, no volleyball even in sight. Then, there is tennis player Daniela Hantuchova, who has managed to contort her body into something unlike any tennis move I’ve ever seen. There’s no racket, no tennis court, nothing to identify her as an athlete at all.

The Ugly: There’s passive, and then there’s slightly ridiculous. Presenting women’s golfer, Suzann Pettersen. As a golfer being photographed for a sports magazine, you would expect her to be shot mid-swing, or at least holding a golf club, wouldn’t you? Nope, not this time. She’s simply lying on a beach, basking in the sunlight. Last time I checked, I don’t think that’s how she became the #2 women’s golfer in the world. Some might call it a step up from the infamous photograph of Hope Solo “watering the lawn” (instead of playing soccer) taken during the last Body Issue, but they both send the same message- at the end of the day, these women are simply to be taken as objects of desire, instead of competitive athletes.

Anna Tunnicliffe

The bright side is that we’re getting closer. So much closer. While it’s only the 4th Annual Body Issue, it’s already managed to turn things around. While there still is a fair share of photographs, which objectify and sexualize several female athletes, there are signs that change is on the way. There are signs of promise, like the photograph of soccer player Abby Wambach caught mid-kick, sailing through the air. And the amazing shots of sailor Anna Tunnicliffe, hanging over the edge of the sailboat, muscles bulging, with complete focus in her eyes. The key is to include more “caught in the moment” action shots like Wambach’s and Tunnicliffe’s. Why not make them all action shots? Allow the women to be shown doing what they do best – competing. Show off their strength. Show off their athletic abilities. Their drive, their determination – that’s what makes athletes truly beautiful.

Share

Jul 19

The Lottery of Life: Bone Marrow Problem for Minorities

In spring of 2011, I remember coming back home from college after a week full of exams. I could not be happier to be home and be able to spend time with my family. I was watching television with my mom that evening. Suddenly during a break, a commercial featuring Aziz Ansari was shown. He was encouraging people to register for national bone marrow registry and to help find a bone marrow donor for an young man named, Amit Gupta, who was diagnosed with leukemia in September of 2011. At that moment, I remembered seeing something about Amit Gupta on twitter a few months before, and I aware that he was in need of a bone marrow donor. I also knew about the efforts made by his family and friends to search for a potential donor match using the internet. However, he still could not find a donor for one simple reason: he was South Asian.

His chance of finding a perfect match was 1 in of 20,000. Being a minority, especially being south asian, greatly decreases chances of finding the perfect donor. Luckily a few long months later, he was able to find a perfect bone marrow donor through tireless efforts. Most people are not that lucky. Less than 27% of the national bone marrow registry are non-caucasian and only about 3.9% of South Asians, Koreans, and Chinese make the up the registry. It is even more difficult to find a donor for a patient from a mixed race background.

Why are so few people from diverse races or cultures registering? Primarily because of the cultural and stereotypical negative attitudes towards organ donation in general. There are many myths and rumors surrounding bone marrow donation and the common misconception is that people immediately associate bone marrow donation with risky surgery. However, very few bone marrow donations involve surgeries. Additionally, many people think that donating bone marrow can be dangerous for their health and is a very painful procedure. The donor may feel slight soreness in the area of donation immediately after the procedure is done, but otherwise donation is pain free. Also, there are rarely long term health risks with this procedure.

 

Cultural influences also play a major part in making a decision to register or to donate. For instance, India has been a divided nation since the beginning of it history. Historically, different states and kingdoms were in constant conflict. Because of India’s prior history, prejudices against one part of country and another part still exist. Many people do not want to donate to a person who is not from his or her culture or region.

 

Worst of all is the fact that many people from the minority donor pool,  do sign up for the registry, however several may not commit to actually donating. Less than 50% of minority matches within the registry actually agree to donate bone marrow. People usually sign up for the registry to be matched with a loved one, a friend, or someone from their ethnic community. However, when they are a match  for another individual, the participant does not commit to the donation.

Amit Gupta’s internet driven campaign has helped gain a lot of publicity to this issue, and it has helped increase the amount of people that are registering for the national bone marrow registry.  However, minorities are still largely underrepresented in the bone marrow donor pool. It is time to change that. The best way is to prove myths wrong about donation and help change cultural prejudices towards donations. In order to change stereotypes and cultural thoughts about bone marrow donation, it is vital to include religious and cultural organizations. Religious and cultural organizations can spread awareness and create discussions about bone marrow donation in the local cultural community. Spiritual and religious leaders are often highly influential and respected leaders, that can support bone marrow donations and promote bone marrow drives at their local church or temple. While it is difficult to encourage more minorities to register, it is not impossible. The first vital step would be to remove cultural influences and common misconceptions about donation. This is the best first step to save valuable lives.

Share

Jul 18

Voter ID Law: Not Just a Texas Problem

Are you registered to vote? Do you have the identification necessary to do so? Hopefully you answered yes to both of those questions. But odds are pretty good that you don’t have everything you need. Especially if you live in one of the 9 states that now require you to show photo identification at the voting booth. Texas is one of those states. Or at least it’s trying to become one. In case you haven’t heard, a panel of three federal judges will be ruling on the legality of the Texas voter ID law some time in the coming weeks. That’s going to have a huge impact on the approximately 1.4 million people at risk of disenfranchisement if it passes. But it’s going to be just as important for the rest of the US population as well.
So to clarify the proposed Texas law would require a person to show a valid, government issued photo ID at the voting booth in order to vote. And as I said earlier, that negatively affects a lot of people in Texas, most of whom are minorities. It’s for that reason that the Justice Department struck down the law last year. Texas responded by suing the Justice Department to hopefully receive judicial permission toenforce the law. The judges’ opinion will send a strong message to other states considering passing restrictive voter laws and set a powerful precedent for the future.You might be wondering why Texas would need a law that will actually make voting more difficult. After all, the United States has shockingly low election turnout numbers as it is. So what could be the motivation to essentially discourage people from voting? Texas lawmakers claim it’s because they want to reduce voting fraud in the state. Sounds great right? Of course we want to keep elections fair and accurate. I’d be all for the law too based on that reasoning. But only if voter fraud was ACTUALLY an issue. And based on evidence provided by the Justice Department I think we can safely say it’s not. As one article even put it “UFO sightingsare more common than voter fraud.” Given that information, you have to ask what really going on? What’s the REAL motivation for the photo ID law? The motivation that Texas legislators will never admit to.

 

It’s an attempt to curb minority voting. In the 10 years before passing the law, Texas’s population increased by about 4 million people 90% of which were Hispanic. Studies have shown that minorities are statistically more likely to have a low income and live a long way from government locations, making it much more difficult to get or renew an ID. Of course anyone is still allowed to get one as long as he or she has the necessary paperwork. But even without any added barriers, we all know how irritating and difficult it can be to get through all that red tape. People don’t want to have to struggle with government bureaucracy just to be allowed to vote. And quite frankly they shouldn’t have to.

Yes, stricter voting laws will be problematic and irritating in Texas. But if the law is approved it will be damaging and potentially dangerous for the rest of the country. The Texas legislature clearly had ulterior motives beyond curbing voter fraud with the new law. They may argue otherwise now and the Justice Department may not be able to prove it. But it’s pretty clear to me and most people familiar with the case that voter fraud is not an issue in Texas. So what kind of message will that send to the rest of the country if the law is passed? Will it mean that it’s okay to place more restrictive laws on minorities? That some people have a greater right to vote? That we’re returning to the era of the poll tax?

Maybe my interpretations of the potential ramifications of this law are too extreme. In fact, I hope they are. But this law has the potential to set an important precedent for voting and minority rights. If it, and other laws like it, are approved now, then that lays the groundwork for even more questionable laws later. We can’t allow that to happen. There’s not really anything we can do now to affect the approval or not (fingers crossed) of the Texas voter ID law. But we can do our best to keep the government from creating similar laws. Protest, write letters to your congressperson, educate your community about the issues. But most importantly, remember to vote in November. Exercise that right that so many people fight for and ensure we have a government we can trust.

Share

Jul 17

A Culture of Violent Masculinity: Part One

Take a close look at the following numbers:

  • 85% of murders.
  • 90% of violent, physical assaults.
  • 95% of domestic violence.
  • 95% of dating violence.
  • 95% of child sexual abuse cases.
  • 99.8% of those in prison convicted for rape.

What do all of these statistics have in common? They’re all committed by men.

For too long, we’ve examined ways to make our streets, our schools, and our homes safer. We’ve increased our vigilance, cracking down on violent crimes within our society. However, too often we look at the solutions, instead of looking directly at the cause of the problem. We try to fix the system rather than simply realizing that maybe there’s another way to examine the issue. Maybe there’s an underlying cause, an invisible influence. Why not examine why there is such a close connection between masculinity and violence in the first place?

In our society, the inevitable truth is that to be a “real man” is to fit a certain mold. From a young age, boys are taught that to be a  “real man” means to be strong and brave, and always independent. He is never to let anyone get in his way. And he certainly never lets anyone tell him what to do. However, should these really be the only characteristics that define masculinity? Why the need to show only certain features, while hiding the rest?

Educator Jackson Katz calls this ongoing performance “the tough guise”. “The tough guise” is a projection, or front, that is put on daily by both boys and men to show only the aspects of their personality that dominant culture deems as acceptable. The parts that are hidden are those which deviate from mainstream culture, and often bring on an onslaught of insults such as sissy and wuss. The reason that many people never seem to question this “tough guise” is because it has become seemingly invisible within our society. It is so ingrained in our culture, that we never even take the time to question it.

Where do such ideas of dominant and violent masculinity come from in the first place? In many cases, the media. The link between violence and men can be found all over the media. There are slasher films. Action thrillers. Car chases, fight scenes, and the occasional James Bond movie. Hollywood hits with the ever-present Superhero. In many cases, the violent men are admired, even looked up to as heroes. Aren’t men supposed to be strong, controlling, and intimidating, all pillars of masculinity? Even advertising and commercials are full of glamorized notions of violent masculinity. In our society, violence has become something that is not only acceptable, but admired. It’s the way that boys turn into men.

So where do we go from here? Continue reading

Share

Jul 17

Women’s Health: It’s Not Up For Negotiation

You’ve probably noticed that women’s health has been in the news almost constantly over the past few months. The coverage has mainly focused on reproductive and contraceptive rights, which are both extremely important. But I think we sometimes forget there’s more to women’s health than just those issues, including breast cancer, depression, body image, and osteoporosis to name just a few. Unfortunately, these aspects can sometimes get lost in the shuffle as the more “interesting” rights debates continue. Or worse, they’ll sometimes get sucked into those debates, with negative consequences. Women can sometimes actually start losing health care coverage when issues start overlapping in this way. But women’s health is too important for it to be used in political discussion.
I know we’re not going to all agree on every area within the realm of women’s health. But I think we should be able to separate the controversial topics from the more widely accepted ones. Unfortunately that’s not what’s been happening. Take breast cancer screenings for example: one of the most important preventative measures for breast cancer. You’d think there would be no way someone would revoke funding for that. But you’d be wrong. Earlier this year, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation decided to pull funding for breast cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood. Of course, the reasoning for the decision stemmed from the most controversial topic of all: abortion. Komen didn’t want to continue providing funds to an organization that supported a woman’s right to choose. Even though the money went only towards cancer screenings. How could the Komen Foundation sacrifice women’s health safety just to take a stand against abortion? It seems absurd, but that’s what they did. Even though the abortion debate had no direct effect on the stated purpose of the organization or the use of the funds that went to Planned Parenthood. They still chose to make a political statement at the expense of women’s personal health and cancer prevention.
Both luckily and unluckily women chose to fight back any way they could. As a result, Komen’s fundraising ability plummeted this year because people were protesting their decision. Eventually the Foundation reversed their stand and returned funding to cancer screenings given by Planned Parenthood. Women were successful in their protests and righted a wrong (at least in my opinion.) But it came at a cost. Think about all that money that Komen didn’t raise this year because of the protest. What could they have done with that money? How many women could they have helped? Don’t get me wrong, in no way am I saying that women were wrong to protest Komen’s decision. In fact, I applaud their decision to stand up for their rights and beliefs. But I think it’s incredibly unfortunate that the abortion debate managed to negatively impact cancer research and thereby women’s health in such a destructive way.
Women’s health covers an incredibly broad range of topics. Which include areas that have sparked huge controversies throughout our nation. But that doesn’t mean we should be arguing over ALL areas of women’s health coverage. Or turning the ENTIRE topic of women’s health into a political debate. People can argue about reproductive rights all they want (and I know they will). But that shouldn’t affect other areas in women’s health that have no relation to the debate. Women should have affordable access to cancer screenings. They should be able to receive counseling for mental health issues. And they should never have to worry about losing that ability because of disagreements surrounding other issues.

Does abortion have a direct connection to cancer screenings? No. Do cancer screenings have any relation to the use of contraceptives? Of course not. So why have these things ended up in the same debates? I don’t really know the answer to my question but I think it’s something we need to consider. And more importantly it’s something we need to stop allowing. At the end of the day, women have the right to good, effective health care. That’s simply non negotiable.

Share

Jul 17

Stigma and Health

Last fall, I wrote a proposal advocating for the creation of a suicide prevention program at my university for my scientific and technical writing class. While researching for my proposal, I came across the concept of stigma and how stigma negatively affects help seeking behaviors  in college student populations. Once again, as I am researching and writing for my blog posts, I have noticed that stigma is a recurring issue in many topics, specifically health. Even in the 21st century, stigma is still prevalent and associated with mental health, sexual orientation, infectious diseases, and addiction. Stigma is a roadblock for seeking help and being able to be a free person.  It stops individuals from getting the treatment that they need or deserve and sometimes it even affects the effectiveness of a treatment. For example, even today stigma is a barrier to HIV testing and treatment despite the various medical advances that have been made in diagnosing and treating the virus.It is astonishing how many people are afraid of going to their doctor’s office and taking a test that may save their life. Stigma can be erased from society, and it is up to us to erase it completely. A world without stigma can lead to much healthier lives.

What exactly is stigma? According to Merriam-Webster, Stigma is “a mark of shame or discredit.” Throughout history, mental disorders and many diseases specifically infectious, have been associated with stigma and stigma often leads to discrimination. For example, In a village called Melmangalam in Periyakulam, Tamil Nadu in India, individuals who are diagnosed with certain diseases are locked into rooms, have to bathe in separate areas, and even eat with separate utensils. Even after being cured, sometimes people cannot find employment, leading to poverty and feelings of hopelessness. For fear of facing discrimination from family and friends due to stigma, many people are silent about their conditions. By avoiding getting help for his or her condition, an individual can negatively impact his or her health and the health of others.

I am a huge fan of awareness campaigns because I really do believe education and knowledge are the key to improvements in society. Since mental health is largely associated with stigma, to combat mental health stigma, it is an important develop a personal connection with the community. A local event such as an awareness concert can be planned in association with local psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health organizations, and community health workers. This would be a perfect venue to educate the community with real facts about mental health disorders and the stigma that is associated with it. It is also shown that education is effective in reducing stigma. At this event, organizations or individuals can speak about stigma and its negative impacts on our society and our future. Real life stories about people around the world or in a community being affected by stigma can also be shared at this event either in person or through some type of medium such as a video, or even a skype call. Social Media should be used to spread the information about the event and how people can get more involved. In order to advertise the overall message of the event, organizers can post signs and posters with facts around local neighborhoods and community centers. These messages can influence and inform individuals in a community. The best way to fight against stigma is to ultimately acknowledge it and to take action. Unfortunately, stigma still exists in society today and it is detrimental to the health of many individuals. It is important to stomp out the stigma in society today!

Share

Jul 13

The Rise of Brazil: Part 2

Brazil has an exciting few years coming up with all the major global sporting events coming to its doorstep. In case you haven’t heard, Brazil will be hosting the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics. Having the two largest sporting events in the world in Brazil within the span of three years can mean one major boost (although history shows that major sporting events have sometimes hurt host countries’ economies) to an already emerging economy. But it also means major preparations must be made to get the country’s infrastructure ready for an influx of millions of tourists. Brazil has been doing just this, although with major ethical implications.

 

Preparing for events of this magnitude require millions of spending on public transportation, security, and mega event facilities. As a result, job opportunities flourish (albeit temporarily for the construction), tourism increases (boosting the economy) and social development activities (in poorer areas). All seemingly great, right? Enter ethical issues. So what exactly are these ethically questionable preparations Brazil is engaging in and are the world sports organizations acting accordingly to ensure ethical preparations are upheld?

 

Brazil has received quite a bit of bad press over the last year for the bulldozing of slums and forced evictions to prepare for the upcoming sporting events. The government may defend itself by claiming people are given fair warning, compensated, and relocated; but reports show otherwise. People don’t know their house is being razed until the bulldozers are at their front yard, compensation either undervalues people’s property or is not received at all, and many are relocated far away from their homes or left homeless.

 

This isn’t something new. Displacement of poorer people for major sporting events has a track record; and more recently occurred (and received a lot of attention) in preparation for the 2010 South African World Cup and the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics. So, here we have a pattern of similar Continue reading

Share