Totally Drug Resistant Strain of Tuberculosis in India's Slums
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46010460/ns/today-today_health/t/india-reports-new-strain-totally-drug-resistant-tuberculosis/#.Tyiy_XGspX8
There has been a fair amount of discussion in class about the influence social class has on where people live. Those who are affluent tend to live in cleaner environments with access to better healthcare, education, and technology; while those who are impoverished are forced to inhabit environments which often fail to provide life's basic necessities. Is this just? Shouldn't there be a definitive line that distinguishes environments that are not fit for people to call home? This framed my perspective while reading the article on tuberculosis in India.
Recently, 12 cases of totally drug resistant tuberculosis were discovered in India. This means that the disease is untreatable by any drugs. It means death for the people with the disease. Sadly, this disease is completely curable, but since India has highly unregulated and unqualified physicians and drugs, patients do not receive the care that they need.
The Indian government (and the World Health Organization) is refuting the claim that these people are infected with "totally drug resistant" tuberculosis. Although they admit the patients are sick, they refuse to acknowledge the disease is totally incurable. But why? One reason is that these infected individuals are all from Indian slums. As stated in the article, "They have had no help from the Indian TB system. They are the untouchables, so no one is making a fuss. They don't have the power to vocalize."
So I urge the next person who reads this article to question the impact of the environment on our health. Is it just that the poor in India are forced to live in slums and are exposed to diseases like tuberculosis? This may seem like an article strictly about an issue with global health - but it is much more. This is a multifaceted article that deals with issues relating to health, justice, societal values, politics, and the environment.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46010460/ns/today-today_health/t/india-reports-new-strain-totally-drug-resistant-tuberculosis/#.Tyiy_XGspX8
There has been a fair amount of discussion in class about the influence social class has on where people live. Those who are affluent tend to live in cleaner environments with access to better healthcare, education, and technology; while those who are impoverished are forced to inhabit environments which often fail to provide life's basic necessities. Is this just? Shouldn't there be a definitive line that distinguishes environments that are not fit for people to call home? This framed my perspective while reading the article on tuberculosis in India.
Recently, 12 cases of totally drug resistant tuberculosis were discovered in India. This means that the disease is untreatable by any drugs. It means death for the people with the disease. Sadly, this disease is completely curable, but since India has highly unregulated and unqualified physicians and drugs, patients do not receive the care that they need.
The Indian government (and the World Health Organization) is refuting the claim that these people are infected with "totally drug resistant" tuberculosis. Although they admit the patients are sick, they refuse to acknowledge the disease is totally incurable. But why? One reason is that these infected individuals are all from Indian slums. As stated in the article, "They have had no help from the Indian TB system. They are the untouchables, so no one is making a fuss. They don't have the power to vocalize."
So I urge the next person who reads this article to question the impact of the environment on our health. Is it just that the poor in India are forced to live in slums and are exposed to diseases like tuberculosis? This may seem like an article strictly about an issue with global health - but it is much more. This is a multifaceted article that deals with issues relating to health, justice, societal values, politics, and the environment.
This is a tragic case where something completely treatable and preventable has evolved for lack of basic resources and people's circumstances. I think this is an example where the "environment" consists not just of the physical world, but the social and economic realms as well. If environmental justice really prevailed here, then the fact that the infected individuals are untouchables would not have any influence on their ability to receive proper care.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore I think this is a great example of the very prevalent misconceptions about the use of antibiotics and the dangers of drug resistance. Most often this is discussed about the use of pesticides and herbicides in agriculture, but here is an example that is directly related to humans. Many people, and apparently these doctors in India, do not understand the biological consequences of using too little or too many antibiotics. When people think of medicine, they usually assume more is better, which is not always the case. Instead of worrying about how to classify certain TB cases, the WHO and the Indian government should be putting more of their effort towards educating their physicians and those most susceptible in order to prevent the further spread of this drug-resistant disease.