Here's an interesting ethical conundrum, and I would love to hear people's opinion on the matter.
Many patients here are poor. With their minimal wages, we see a great number of people who have difficulty sustaining an income at the same time as taking care of their children. This leads to plenty of problems. Some medical investigation or treatment that they need but cannot afford. Not having the chance to follow vaccination programs. Malnutrition.
They need money, we have money. Sure, we're students and don't exactly have splurge economies, but we have enough to be able to give. In fact, we probably wouldn't even notice the change in our wallets' weight. So, should we do it? Should we give them money at all?
One could say that on an individual basis, helping a few is better than helping none at all. No one would blame us if we didn't give money, but should we feel so comfortable with our hands firmly planted behind our backs?
There are arguments against giving, too. Question: if we say yes to one, how do we choose to say no to the next? Would it not be preferable to save up the money and donate it to sustainable projects instead, rather than to give it to individual cases? Are we really doing anyone a service in the long run by coming here as "saviors" to this new world, like a rich uncle coming to save the day?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My mom had an acupuncture teacher who used to say (he ran a free clinic in Sri Lanka (Columbus) ): Dont do charity until you have earned your first million.
ReplyDeleteNow you could take that literally or figuratively. I take it figuratively because then it holds more meaning and speaks about what you talked about.
Its so funny. I hadnt read this post, and i was going to ask you on facebook chat just before i read this, what you felt about the financial aid situation in uganda? and if your opinions had changed at any point?
It is great to see how such questions come up and grow as you are faced with these problems. You definitely are getting the most out of your trip there.
ReplyDeleteI have grown up in a country that had received a considerable amount of financial and social aid from abroad some 20 years ago. All I can say from what I've seen and what I've learned is that funding sustainable projects is the way to go. Were you there at the presentation in Berlin of this English girl who went to Zimbabwe for some peds project? She also very nicely explained the point - leaving a footprint means: leaving a system, a know-how and a minimal fueling to make it start work.
I also read some articles on how non-sustainable financial aid results in a similar state as that of institutionalized children, resulting in the same psychological deficiencies they suffer from (guess you can read about that in your peds/psy books).
I guess you'll never ever feel comfortable again, just forget about it... :) but i'd love to read about your opinion.
It's a without a doubt a tough question. If you see someone in need, and you have what it takes, it's hard not to help. But at some point, you'll run out of money, food or whatever it is. The fact of the matter is: we cannot share the wealth of today with all the world. It would mean lowering the living standard for the entire world to Africa's level.
ReplyDeleteIt's that old saying, "give a man a fish, and he'll have food for a day, teach a man to fish, and he'll never starve again". I'm a huge fan of microcredit; helping people help themselves, not just giving them food. It seems to me that alot of todays foreign aid isn't helping in long run. And here's your ethical dilemma: If we focus on building up economies and businesses - won't that mean that we take food away from starving people? Is it possible to do both?
It's one of the greatest dilemmas of all time. If I give you food today, won't you still be hungry tomorrow? We should be able to build these parts of the world to feed themselves. We should teach them to fish.
Definitely good points. But then there's the question about whether these are mutually exclusive things. That is, that it'd be even better to give a man a fish AND teach him how to fish. Do we really have to decide between them?
ReplyDeleteThoughts?
Viv, I'd love to read these articles you mention, if you have any of them available?
Oh, just need to emphasize that I'm talking about whether or not to hand money directly to people, rather than about how rich countries should give aid.
ReplyDelete