September, 14 2009, 12:03pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Sarah Dransfield, Oxfam Press Officer, 01865 472269/ 07767 085636, sdransfield@oxfam.org.uk
Too Poor to Pay: Over Sixty Organizations Call on World Leaders to Make Free Healthcare a Reality for Millions
People everywhere should have the right to free health care
LONDON
Failure to provide free public healthcare
in poor countries means that millions of people are paying with their
lives, according to a research report published today by a group of 62
NGOs and health unions. The report, "Your Money or Your Life,"
says that half a million pregnant women die each year because they do
not have access to healthcare and people are facing abuses such as
being imprisoned in clinics, because they cannot pay doctors fees.
Millions of poor people should be offered a lifeline next week, when
governments have the chance to expand free healthcare in developing
countries. World leaders will meet at the United Nations General
Assembly for a high-level event on health on the 23rd September where
they are expected to extend free health services for at least seven
countries: Burundi, Ghana, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal and
Sierra Leone.
But leading NGOs including Action Aid, Merlin, Medecins Sans
Frontieres, Oxfam, Save the Children, World Vision, and White Ribbon
Alliance are worried that announcements alone are not enough. This
initiative must be the start of a solid commitment to financial and
technical support and be extended universally to all poor countries.
Oxfam GB Chief Executive Barbara Stocking said: "How many lives will be
needlessly lost before leaders act? Poor people simply cannot afford
fees and inaction will continue to deny access to life-saving
healthcare for millions."
Jasmine Whitbread, Save the Children's Chief Executive, said: "If free
health care had been introduced in 2000 when world leaders promised to
reduce child mortality by two-thirds, the lives of more than two
million children could have been saved by now. Leaders have the power
and the responsibility to make healthcare free for poor families.
Allowing any more children to die because they can't afford treatment
is inexcusable."
For people living in these seven countries the initiative could make the difference between life and death:
- In Burundi 88 per cent of people live on just $2 a day. People have to pay for healthcare and are reportedly imprisoned by clinics if they don't have the money.
- In Ghana the average life expectancy is just 58 years. Seventy per cent of people in the three northern regions live on less than $1 a day.
- In Liberia one in nine children will not live to see their fifth birthday and less than 20 per cent of the rural population have access to health facilities.
- In Malawi one woman in every hundred will die in pregnancy and childbirth. The entire population of nearly 14 million (is looked after by just) have only 266 registered doctors.
- In Mozambique 1.3 million people are living with HIV and AIDS and 60 per cent of HIV-infected adults are women.
- In Nepal a newborn baby dies every 20 minutes and 49 per cent of children have symptoms of chronic malnutrition.
- In Sierra Leone life expectancy is only 34.3 years,
it has the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the world and
only 7 per cent of the rural population has access to safe sanitation
facilities.
Progress on health is desperately off track and the 2015 Millennium
Development Goals deadline is fast approaching. Every year 4 million
newborn babies die within 28 days of birth* and the number of women
dying in pregnancy and childbirth has barely changed since 1990*,
despite the MDG commitment to reduce the number of deaths by three
quarters.
Governments need new funding to scale up and expand services, recruit
and retain more doctors and health workers and provide more facilities
that are easy to reach and accessible to everyone.
Adrienne Germain, President of the International Women's Health
Coalition said, "I've seen myself the impact of imposing-and
lifting-user fees on women, children and families. We urgently need the
carefully designed action called for in "Your Money or Your Life."
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said, "People everywhere should
have the right to free health care and access to qualified health
workers. Quality public health services are also vital to economic
growth and prosperity."
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
LATEST NEWS
800+ Jewish Professors Urge Biden, Senate to Oppose 'Dangerous' Antisemitism Bill
"Criticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not—in and of itself—antisemitic," reads a new letter.
May 09, 2024
A Dartmouth University professor who once served as the school's head of Jewish studies and was violently arrested at a Palestinian rights protest last week was among more than 800 Jewish educators who had signed a letter as of Thursday, demanding that lawmakers and U.S. President Joe Biden oppose a bill claiming to combat antisemitism.
The Awareness of Antisemitism Act, said the letter, would actually "amplify the real threats Jewish Americans already face" by "conflating antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel."
The bill, which was passed by the Republican-controlled House last week over the objections of 70 progressive Democrats and 21 Republicans, would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which includes "targeting of the state of Israel" and "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
The Awareness of Antisemitism Act, which could soon be taken up by the Senate, would require the Department of Education to consider the group's working definition when determining whether harassment is motivated by antisemitism.
The professors noted that the working definition has been "internationally criticized," with more than 100 civil society organizations—including some Israeli groups—calling on the United Nations last year to reject the IHRA's interpretation because it has been "misused" to shield Israel from legitimate criticism.
"We hold varied opinions on Israel," reads the letter. "Whatever our differences, we oppose the IHRA's definition of antisemitism. If imported into federal law, the IHRA definition will delegitimize and silence Jewish Americans—among others—who advocate for Palestinian human rights or otherwise criticize Israeli policies."
The professors pointed out the irony that by using the IHRA definition—which also includes "accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel" than their own home countries—the bill "hardens the dangerous notion that Jewish identity is inextricably linked to every decision of Israel's government."
"Far from combating antisemitism, this dynamic promises to amplify the real threats Jewish Americans already face," the letter reads.
Annelise Orleck, the Dartmouth professor who was arrested last week, was joined by other Jewish academics including City University of New York professor Peter Beinart and professor emeritus Avishai Margalit of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in signing the letter.
Orleck, a labor historian, told ABC affiliate WMUR after her arrest that she hopes Dartmouth and other schools that have cracked down on and condemned pro-Palestinian protests in recent weeks will "stop weaponizing antisemitism."
The professors urged political leaders who are "earnestly concerned with antisemitism" to "join hundreds of Jewish scholars from across the globe who have endorsed alternative definitions of antisemitism—such as those contained in the Nexus Document or Jerusalem Declaration. Unlike the IHRA definition, these documents offer meaningful tools to combat antisemitism without undermining Jewish safety and civil rights by insulating Israel from legitimate criticism."
When the Antisemitism Awareness Act was passed by the House last week, Jewish-led Palestinian rights groups were among those that condemned the proposal.
Biden has angered pro-Palestinian rights groups by suggesting the campus protests that have spread across the U.S. in recent weeks, with students and faculty demanding an end to U.S. support for Israel as it bombards Gaza, are inherently antisemitic.
"Criticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not—in and of itself—antisemitic," reads the professors' letter, which was first publicized Wednesday. "We accordingly urge our political leaders to reject any effort to codify into federal law a definition of antisemitism that conflates antisemitism with criticism of the state of Israel."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biodiversity and Climate Crises 'Increase the Risks of Future Pandemics': Study
"New study in Nature confirms that if we want to avoid the next pandemic—we should stop destroying biodiversity, heating, and polluting the planet," one expert said.
May 09, 2024
Biodiversity loss, the introduction of invasive species, the climate emergency, and chemical pollution all increase the risk of infectious disease, a first-of-its-kind analysis has found.
The paper, published in Nature Wednesday, reviewed 972 studies and 2,938 observations on how human-driven environmental change had impacted the spread of disease, looking specifically at 1,497 host-parasite relationships.
"New study in Nature confirms that if we want to avoid the next pandemic—we should stop destroying biodiversity, heating, and polluting the planet," Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, who leads the World Health Organization's climate change unit and was not involved with the study, wrote on social media. "Just one more reason to go for a greener, healthier future."
"This adds to a very long list of reasons we should be rapidly moving away from fossil fuels and trying to mitigate the impacts of climate change."
The Covid-19 pandemic, which some scientists believe passed from bats to humans, has led to increased interest in how diseases emerge and spread. At the same time, research research has pointed to a larger range for pathogens and their hosts as one of the health dangers of the climate emergency. For example, The Lancet's most recent report on climate change and health predicted that, if temperatures rise by 2°C above preindustrial levels by 2100, the ideal conditions for Vibrio would expand by 17-25% and the risk of catching dengue fever would go up by 36-37%.
While previous studies had considered how certain types of environmental change—like deforestation or global heating—impacted disease spread, no study had considered the risk for plants, animals, and humans across the different ways that industrial society has altered the environment.
"This literature gap is critical to fill because resources for infectious disease management will always be limited and could be poorly targeted without knowledge of which global change drivers most affect infectious diseaserisk," the study authors write.
The researchers looked at four major drivers of change: biodiversity loss, the introduction of new species, the climate crisis, and habitat loss or alteration. They found that human-driven biodiversity loss increased illness and death by almost nine times compared with areas where biodiversity remained intact. The next most impactful changes were the introduction of new species, global heating and increased carbon dioxide levels, and chemical pollution such as pesticides and fertilizers, which can put additional pressure on plants' and animals' immune systems.
"It could mean that by modifying the environment, we increase the risks of future pandemics," study co-author Jason Rohr, a University of Notre Dame biology professor, toldThe Washington Post of the results.
One way that the loss of species can increase disease is by eliminating rare species, Rohr explained toThe New York Times. As parasites and pathogens tend to evolve to infect more common species, when these species are all that remain, the risk of infection goes up. One example is the rise of white-footed mice, who host Lyme disease. One theory is that as these mice have proliferated in comparison with other, rarer mammals, the rates of Lyme disease in the U.S. have gone up. Of course, the spread of Lyme disease has also been linked to the expansion of the range of ticks due to warming temperatures, in an example of how different environmental alterations can interact to increase illness.
"This adds to a very long list of reasons we should be rapidly moving away from fossil fuels and trying to mitigate the impacts of climate change," Bard College professor Felicia Keesing, who was not a part of the study, told the Post in response to its findings.
One of the study's more surprising discoveries was that habitat loss actually decreased disease. The authors think this is due to the rise and expansion of cities, as urban areas tend to have better public health and fewer opportunities for humans and animals to mix and exchange germs.
"In urban areas with lots of concrete, there is a much smaller number of species that can thrive in that environment," Rohr toldThe Guardian. "From a human disease perspective, there is often greater sanitation and health infrastructure than in rural environments."
Colin Carlson, a Georgetown University biologist who was not part of the research team, told the Times that the lack of urban biodiversity was "not a good thing."
Next, the researchers hope to explore more about the connections between the different drivers of change.
"Importantly, greater effort is needed to identify win-win solutions that address multiple societal stressors, such as disease, food, energy, water, sustainability, and poverty challenges," they write.
However, the study already points the way toward some recommendations: "Specifically, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, managing ecosystem health, and preventing biological invasions and biodiversityloss could help to reduce the burden of plant, animal, and humandiseases,especially when coupled with improvements to social and economic determinants of health," the researchers advise.
Carlson told the Times that the study was "a big step forward in the science."
"This paper is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that I think has been published that shows how important it is health systems start getting ready to exist in a world with climate change, with biodiversity loss," Carlson said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump to Big Oil Execs: Give Me $1 Billion and I'll Help You Wreck the Planet
"You won't read a more important story today," said one commentator. "Trump is willing to literally destroy the planet for $1 billion."
May 09, 2024
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump made a straightforward offer to some of the top fossil fuel executives in the United States during a dinner at his Mar-a-Lago club last month, which marked the hottest April on record.
According to new reporting, Trump pledged to swiftly gut climate regulations put in place by the Biden administration if the oil and gas industry raises $1 billion for his 2024 presidential campaign.
The "remarkably blunt and transactional pitch," reported by The Washington Post, was Trump's latest explicit statement of his intention to give the fossil fuel industry free rein to wreck the planet if he wins a second term in power. Executives from Exxon, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, and other prominent fossil fuel companies reportedly attended the Mar-a-Lago dinner.
Late last year, Trump said he would be a dictator on the first day of his second term, vowing to use his executive authority to "close the border" and "drill, drill, drill" for the fossil fuels that are driving global temperatures to catastrophic extremes and imperiling hopes for a livable future.
The Post reported Thursday that Trump said a $1 billion investment in his run against Democratic President Joe Biden would be a "deal" for Big Oil "because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him."
"The contrast between the two candidates on climate policy could not be more stark," the Post noted. "Biden has called global warming an 'existential threat' and over the last three years, his administration has finalized 100 new environmental regulations aimed at cutting air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, restricting toxic chemicals, and conserving public lands and waters. In comparison, Trump has called climate change a 'hoax,' and his administration weakened or wiped out more than 125 environmental rules and policies over four years."
Will Bunch, a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, wrote in response to the Post's reporting that "you won't read a more important story today."
"Trump is willing to literally destroy the planet for $1 billion," Bunch added.
"Republicans want to sell you out to Big Oil to line their pockets."
In recent months, Trump and his allies have laid out how they intend to resume and accelerate that destructive deregulatory blitz if the former president wins another term in November.
Project 2025, a coalition of dozens of right-wing organizations including the Heritage Foundation, crafted a detailed presidential transition guide that calls for a dramatic expansion of U.S. fossil fuel infrastructure, aggressive rollbacks of climate rules, and steep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Meanwhile, as Politicoreported Wednesday, fossil fuel industry lawyers and lobbyists are in the process of "drawing up ready-to-sign executive orders for Donald Trump aimed at pushing natural gas exports, cutting drilling costs, and increasing offshore oil leases in case he wins a second term."
"Six energy industry lawyers and lobbyists interviewed by Politico described the effort to craft executive orders and other policy paperwork that they see as more effective than anything a second Trump administration could devise on its own," the outlet noted. "Those include a quick reversal of Biden's pause on new natural gas export permits and preparations for wider and cheaper access to federal lands and waters for drilling."
A
recent study estimated that a Trump victory in 2024 could result in an additional 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by the end of the decade, inflicting more than $900 billion in global climate damages.
So far, the fossil fuel industry and their allies have donated more than $6.4 million to Trump's joint fundraising committee in the first three months of 2024, the Post noted Thursday, citing an analysis by Climate Power.
The Texas Tribunereported earlier this week that the oil and gas sector "has contributed more than $25 million to the GOP and conservative groups compared to $3.6 million to Democrats" thus far in the 2024 election cycle.
Harold Hamm, a billionaire oil tycoon, is planning to hold a fundraiser for Trump's reelection bid later this year, according to the
Post.
Citing the Post's reporting, Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-N.J.) said Thursday that Trump "demanded a straight-up billion-dollar bribe from oil executives."
"Republicans want to sell you out to Big Oil to line their pockets," said Pascrell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular