January 15, 2009 | Read Time: 1 minute
Two blog writers have struck up a cordial debate about how best to deliver medicine and provide aid to improve people’s health in developing countries.
Alanna Shaikh, a veteran international aid worker, identifies misguided ways to offer medical assistance to needy people abroad on the Global Health blog of Change.org. They are: sending excess pharmaceuticals and medical equipment overseas; deploying a hospital ship; building hospitals that focus on cancer and other specialized needs; and transporting sick people to America for care.
“In my opinion,” she writes, “saving fewer lives than you could have is almost as immoral as not helping at all. In that context, it’s important to look at the things that don’t work.”
But Isaac Holeman disagrees.
Mr. Holeman, who is studying biochemistry and molecular biology at Lewis and Clark College and has worked for charities in South America, writes on his blog that such aid projects may be “irrational” but they help because they provide immediate, personal stories that attract donors and build goodwill among the people charities are trying to serve.
“I agree that the programs she describes would play a very small role in an ideal global-health care service, but ultimately what we need more than any specific program is for people to give a damn. Some people have excess resources; we need them to care enough that they are willing to share some of those resources with the rest of the human family. If irrational programs will occasionally inspire people, perhaps they are worth the cost.”
What do you think? What are the drawbacks or benefits of these “irrational” aid efforts? Click on the comments button below to share your views.
