Natasha Fernandez – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Who Gets to Decide? Prescription Laws, Public Health, and the Ethics of Medical Gatekeeping

In a world where people are expected to take responsibility for their health, the systems meant to support them too often stand in the way. Around the globe, and especially in the United States, access to essential medications is tightly controlled by prescription laws. These laws are often justified on the grounds of safety, but they also raise a pressing human rights concern: What happens when gatekeeping itself becomes a barrier to health, autonomy, and dignity?

This blog argues that prescription drug laws, as they currently function, too often violate the core principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These include the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being (Article 25), the right to autonomy and freedom from arbitrary interference (Article 3 and 12), and the right to equal access to public services and protection (Article 21). By rethinking how access to medications is regulated, we can move toward a more equitable and compassionate model of care.

Prescription Control as a Barrier to Rights

At their best, prescription requirements aim to protect people from misuse, medical harm, and exploitation. But in practice, these laws create systemic barriers, particularly for marginalized communities, by requiring time, money, and proximity to healthcare providers simply to access medications that are safe, well understood, and often urgently needed.

This structure assumes that people cannot be trusted to manage their own care without professional oversight. But that assumption is increasingly at odds with both ethics and evidence. Many people understand the medications they rely on. They know the risks. Studies show that patients with chronic conditions often develop a high level of medication literacy and risk awareness through long-term use and counseling. And yet, they are asked to justify their needs to clinicians who may not share their urgency, or even their values. Prescription laws, in these cases, do more than inconvenience. They function as a form of medical disenfranchisement, denying individuals the right to act in their own best interest simply because they are not deemed qualified to make decisions for themselves.

Pretty sparkly pills — Image 1: An assortment of pills. Source: Yahoo Images

In the United States, prescription requirements are enforced through a legal and regulatory structure that delegates authority over medication access to licensed healthcare providers. The system is primarily governed by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938, which granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to require certain drugs to be dispensed only by prescription. In 1951, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment formally distinguished between “prescription” (legend) drugs and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, mandating that certain medications could only be obtained with the written authorization of a licensed practitioner.

Today, the FDA, along with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and state medical boards, determines which medications require prescriptions. These typically include:

Drugs with a high potential for abuse or dependence, such as opioids
Medications with significant side effects or narrow therapeutic windows, like warfarin or lithium
- A narrow therapeutic window (or therapeutic index) means there is a small range between a drug’s effective dose and its toxic dose, making precise dosing essential to avoid under-treatment or dangerous side effects
Substances that require monitoring or diagnostic oversight, such as antidepressants, antibiotics, and hormonal therapies

For a medication to transition from prescription-only to OTC, the manufacturer must submit a New Drug Application (NDA) with evidence that average consumers can safely use the drug without a clinician’s supervision. This review process is lengthy, costly, and highly restrictive. Even well-established medications often remain prescription-only due to regulatory or political reasons, rather than clinical necessity. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has advocated since 2012 for over-the-counter access to hormonal contraception due to its safety profile, yet access remains restricted in many states due to political and regulatory inertia.

While intended as safeguards, these laws impose significant barriers, especially for people in rural areas, uninsured individuals, undocumented immigrants, and those with chronic conditions who need long-term medication access.

Access Denied: Real-World Consequences

To illustrate how this plays out, consider two examples: insulin and oral contraceptives.

Insulin, a century-old medication essential for people with diabetes, remains locked behind prescription requirements in the United States. The result is tragic: according to the American Diabetes Association, 1 in 4 Americans with diabetes has rationed insulin due to cost or access barriers. Delayed prescriptions, expired scripts, and unnecessary office visits put lives at risk—not because insulin is inherently dangerous, but because the system around it is.

Image 2: Insulin and injection supplies. Source: Yahoo Images

Now consider oral contraceptives. Major medical bodies like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the World Health Organization have long advocated for over-the-counter access to birth control, citing overwhelming evidence of safety and efficacy. Yet millions must still navigate clinical appointments, insurance requirements, or geographic isolation just to avoid an unintended pregnancy.

In both cases, prescription requirements do not enhance public safety—they undermine the right to health and self-determination. They increase cost, delay care, and disproportionately burden people with the fewest resources. These are not minor inefficiencies. They are rights violations with life-altering consequences.

Image 3: Monthly birth control pills. Source: Yahoo Images

The UDHR states in Article 25 that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including medical care and necessary social services. But health is not merely about access to care; it also includes freedom and agency.

As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasizes, the right to health includes:

Availability: functioning healthcare services and medications
Accessibility: free from discrimination and within financial/physical reach
Acceptability: respectful of autonomy, culture, and identity
Quality: scientifically appropriate and safe

Prescription laws often fail all four. When a person cannot afford or reach a provider to refill their birth control, their care is not accessible. When a person is denied insulin because their script has expired, their treatment is not available. When gatekeeping assumes incompetence instead of encouraging informed decision-making, care becomes unacceptable in a rights-based framework.

Rethinking Risk, Rethinking Responsibility

None of this means all drugs should be available without limits. Medications with high risks of misuse, like opioids or antibiotics, require thoughtful regulation. However, the current system treats risk as a universal, rather than a spectrum. It places the burden of proof on patients rather than regulators and too often assumes incompetence by default.

We trust people to make countless risky decisions every day: driving, drinking, even refusing life-saving treatment. So why does buying an oral contraceptive or refilling a long-used insulin prescription require a professional sign-off?

A better model by human rights standards would be tiered and rights-conscious:

Expand over-the-counter and pharmacist-prescribed access for lower-risk, widely used medications
Increase public health education and harm reduction tools
Preserve professional guidance as an option, not an obstacle

This model would treat people not just as patients, but as rights-bearing agents.

Conclusion: The Right to Decide

Prescription drug laws were built with good intentions. However, when these laws block access, restrict autonomy, and exacerbate inequality, the human rights point of view holds that they must be reevaluated. Health is not just about surviving illness; it is also about having the freedom and support to shape one’s life. Access to medication is not simply a medical issue. It is a matter of freedom, equality, and dignity. The right to health also includes the right to decide. We don’t need to eliminate medical expertise, but, from a human rights perspective, we do need to stop making it the price of entry to healthcare.

Alterations to the State Department’s Human Rights Reports Threatens Global Accountability

In a move that has alarmed human rights advocates and foreign policy experts alike, the U.S. State Department is undergoing a dramatic reorganization—one that includes stripping key content from its annual human rights reports. As NPR reported on April 18, 2025, internal memos instructed staff to remove references to over 20 categories of human rights violations, including prison conditions, restrictions on freedom of assembly, political corruption, and violence against marginalized groups.

These reports have long served as a global standard, used by scholars, advocates, journalists, and international institutions to assess rights conditions worldwide. Their sudden dilution is not just bureaucratic streamlining; it’s a quiet dismantling of accountability.

Image 1: A shocked reporter holding a camera. Source: Yahoo Images.

What’s Changing—and Why It Matters

Since 1977, the U.S. Department of State has released detailed annual country reports on human rights practices. Though sometimes criticized for political inconsistency, these reports have been broadly recognized as crucial documentation of abuses across the globe—from extrajudicial killings in authoritarian states to censorship, labor exploitation, and systemic discrimination.

But under the new directive, entire categories of analysis are being erased. Sources within the department confirmed that topics such as discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, abuse of asylum seekers, and politically motivated arrests will no longer be discussed. These are not fringe issues—they reflect core violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), including:

Article 5: Protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest
Article 19: Freedom of expression
Article 21: Equal access to public service and fair governance
Article 2: Freedom from discrimination on any basis

When the U.S. selectively omits these rights from its assessments of other nations, it undermines the very foundation of universal human rights—that they are indivisible, interdependent, and apply to all people, everywhere.

The Chilling Effect of Omission

The most dangerous censorship is often the quietest. When a government stops discussing certain abuses, the signal to others, particularly authoritarian regimes, is clear: these violations no longer matter enough to be named.

In countries where local journalists, dissidents, or NGOs depend on international validation to draw attention to abuses, U.S. human rights reports can serve as a shield. Without public acknowledgment from a prominent diplomatic actor, local violations are easier to obscure, deny, or normalize. Human Rights Watch, for example, has long cited State Department reports as part of its advocacy efforts, particularly in places where press freedom is under threat.

This shift will also hinder asylum claims, many of which rely on credible evidence of persecution or unsafe conditions. When categories like “political persecution” or “anti-LGBTQ+ violence” are scrubbed from official reports, it becomes harder for individuals to prove their eligibility for protection under international refugee law.

Even beyond humanitarian concerns, this policy shift has strategic costs. The U.S. has historically positioned itself, however imperfectly, as a moral voice in international affairs. This voice is now compromised. Diplomats and foreign service officers will be asked to promote democratic values abroad without the backing of their own agency’s complete assessment of those values.

Former ambassador Tom Malinowski noted that this move “betrays the people in repressive countries who depend on the U.S. to tell the truth about what they’re facing”. It also gives foreign governments an easy out: why heed U.S. criticism when that criticism is suddenly partial and politically selective?

A Broader Retrenchment of Rights Infrastructure

These changes aren’t occurring in isolation. They’re part of a broader rollback. As Reuters and AP have reported, the State Department’s ongoing reorganization includes eliminating 132 offices and slashing 15% of domestic staff, with many of the cuts affecting divisions focused on human rights, democracy, and civil security.

The office of the Undersecretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights has been dissolved, with responsibilities now folded under a new, less focused Coordinator of Foreign and Humanitarian Affairs. Programs on global women’s rights, diversity and inclusion, and atrocity prevention have been defunded or absorbed into more general roles.

Image 3: People protesting for their democratic freedom. Source: Yahoo Images.

Taken together, this appears to be a conscious effort to deemphasize rights-based diplomacy at a time when such diplomacy is critical for millions of people around the world. From a human rights perspective, this shift represents a failure of positive obligation. Governments that claim leadership in human rights are not merely expected to avoid violations—they are also responsible for upholding, promoting, and defending these rights domestically and internationally.

The United States’ retreat from honest human rights reporting signals that some lives and liberties are no longer worth documenting, let alone defending. This undermines Article 1 of the UDHR itself: that all people are “endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Instead, the new approach views human rights as selective and strategic tools, rather than universal moral commitments. That’s not just an administrative shift. It’s an ideological one.

Woman with tape over her mouth — Image 4: Woman silenced with tape over her mouth. Source: Yahoo Images.

Conclusion: What Happens When the Witnesses Go Silent?

Human rights reporting isn’t just about keeping records. It’s about bearing witness, recognizing suffering, and giving people living under oppression the affirmation that they are seen. When a government as influential as the United States chooses to omit entire categories of injustice from its global reports, it effectively tells victims: “Your pain doesn’t count.”

In the long arc of justice, documentation is everything. We cannot fight abuses we refuse to name. And we cannot claim to protect rights if we edit them for convenience. If we want to live in a world where power is held accountable, the act of recording the truth must remain sacred. Otherwise, silence becomes complicity—and complicity, policy.

Marriage, Inequality, and Human Rights: Rethinking a Cultural Norm 

As a philosophy student, I find the debate around marriage fascinating because it’s something almost everyone has personal experience with—whether through their own relationships, family, or society at large. On the surface, marriage might seem like a simple institution built on love and commitment, but when we dig deeper, we start to see cracks in its foundation. 

Marriage has long been regarded as a cornerstone of social life, providing structure for intimate relationships, legal benefits, and a framework for raising children. But as legal scholars and human rights advocates have increasingly pointed out, marriage also functions as a gatekeeper to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and it does not serve everyone equally. This raises serious ethical questions: Does marriage reinforce systemic inequality, particularly for women and non-traditional families? Is it time to reform, replace, or abandon it altogether? In this blog, we’ll explore three contemporary philosophical arguments about marriage and their implications for justice and human rights. 

Susan Okin: Marriage Makes Women Vulnerable

Susan Okin argues that marriage, as it exists today, creates and reinforces gender-based vulnerabilities, particularly for women. In Vulnerability by Marriage, she explores how society expects women to take on most of the caregiving responsibilities, which leads to an unfair division of labor both at home and in the workplace.  

According to the American Time Use Survey by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2022, women spent an average of 2.4 hours per day on household activities, compared to 1.5 hours for men. Women were also far more likely to provide unpaid caregiving for children and elderly family members. Even in so-called egalitarian households, studies show that men’s careers tend to take priority, affecting decisions about where to live and how to divide time and resources. 

A woman overwhelmed during a tense office meeting. Her head is down and people are yelling at her. — Image 2: An overwhelming woman in a workplace. Source: Yahoo Images.

These patterns have real economic consequences. Women who step back from paid work to care for children often experience long-term wage penalties and loss of retirement savings. After divorce, the gender wealth gap becomes even more stark. A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that women’s household income fell by 41% after divorce, compared to just 23% for men. 

Okin’s critique points to a larger human rights issue: economic dependency can limit women’s autonomy and political participation. Without systemic support, such as paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, or equitable divorce laws, marriage remains a structural disadvantage for many women. 

Laurie Shrage: Should the State Be Involved in Marriage at All?

In her piece, The End of Marriage, Laurie Shrage takes Okin’s critique even further. Rather than just reforming marriage to be more equitable, she questions the role of the State in structuring intimate relationships. Shrage argues that marriage, as a state-sanctioned institution, provides legal and social privileges to some relationships while marginalizing others. If you’re married, you get tax breaks, easier access to healthcare, and legal rights over your partner’s well-being. But what about people in non-traditional relationships, cohabiting partners, or polyamorous families that don’t fit into the legal mold? 

Consider this: The U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 1,138 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. But for unmarried partners—even those in long-term caregiving relationships—those same protections are often unavailable. This creates a system of legal exclusion that disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ individuals, lower-income families, and those outside traditional family structures. 

Shrage does not argue that the state should entirely remove itself from intimate relationships. Instead, she believes the law should be restructured so that protections and benefits are not solely tied to marriage. Instead of privileging marriage, we could develop alternative legal structures that support all kinds of caregiving relationships without requiring people to fit into a specific mold. Some states have made attempts to implement this. For instance, Colorado’s Designated Beneficiary Agreements allow individuals to assign rights such as hospital visitation or inheritance without marriage. Yet these reforms are patchwork and often limited in scope. 

Scissors cutting through a marriage contract — Image 3: Restructuring the Institute of Marriage. Source: Yahoo Images.

Shrage’s argument forces us to rethink what marriage actually does. If it’s primarily about securing legal and financial benefits, then why should it be tied to romantic relationships at all? Shouldn’t anyone be able to create binding legal partnerships that reflect their chosen family structures? Shrage proposes an alternative: decoupling legal benefits from marital status. Legal agreements could allow individuals to designate financial partners, medical proxies, or co-parents without needing a state-sanctioned marriage. By ensuring equal access to legal protections regardless of relationship type, we could create a system that better serves the diverse ways people build their lives together. 

Claudia Card: Tear It All Down

While Okin and Shrage suggest ways to reform or restructure marriage, Claudia Card takes a more radical approach in Against Marriage and Motherhood. She argues that marriage is not merely flawed but fundamentally coercive—and often serves as a mechanism for control and abuse. 

One of Card’s most powerful arguments is that marriage can trap individuals in violent or exploitative relationships. Because marriage is a legal contract that binds two people together, leaving an abusive marriage often requires legal intervention—something that can be expensive, slow, and emotionally exhausting. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey by the CDC, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men have experienced severe intimate partner violence. Due to financial dependency and legal entanglement, many people find it difficult to leave abusive marriages. A 2020 study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that economic abuse, like controlling access to money or employment, was a key barrier to leaving. In many cases, the legal system inadvertently works to sustain abusive relationships by making it harder for the abused partner to leave, which is the fundamental reason why Card believes marriage, in any form, is beyond repair.   

A sad child looks at the camera as her distressed parents sit behind her — Image 4: A visual representation of the harms marriage can bring. Source: Yahoo Images.

Additionally, Card critiques the cultural glorification of motherhood. While motherhood is often idealized, mothers in the U.S. face one of the highest unpaid caregiving burdens in the developed world. The U.S. is the only wealthy country without guaranteed paid maternity leave. Women, especially single mothers, are left to shoulder the costs of caregiving without adequate support, leading to heightened rates of poverty, stress, and burnout. 

Card’s radical proposal—to abolish marriage as a legal institution—calls for building new social structures based on mutual care and autonomy rather than control and dependency. From a human rights standpoint, her argument challenges us to rethink whether any institution should have the power to limit freedom, security, or self-determination.

Where Do We Go From Here?

In philosophy, we often come back to the same fundamental question: Should we work within the system to make it more just, or should we tear it down and start over? Okin, Shrage, and Card each offer different visions for the future of marriage, but they all agree on one thing—the way things are now isn’t working. 

At its core, the debate about marriage is a human rights issue. Who gets access to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and at what cost? And marriage laws don’t just reinforce inequality for adults; they also impact vulnerable populations in ways we rarely acknowledge. For example, child marriage remains legal in parts of the U.S.—a reality that raises serious ethical concerns. 

Our three authors all highlight different ways in which marriage has historically marginalized certain groups, particularly women, and ask us to consider alternative frameworks that promote justice and equality. Whether through reforming marriage, removing state involvement, or abandoning it altogether, the goal should be to ensure that all individuals—regardless of their relationship status—have equal rights, protection, and autonomy. As we continue to challenge traditional norms, we must prioritize human dignity, fairness, and inclusivity in the ways we structure relationships and social institutions. 

Greenland is Melting! Temperatures are Sweltering!

Greenland, home to the world’s second-largest ice sheet, is rapidly losing its ice. This isn’t just a faraway problem for scientists to worry about—it’s a global issue that affects all of us. But why is this happening, and what does it mean? Let’s break it down.

An image of greenland with no snow — Image 1: The snowless, changing landscape of Greenland. Source: Yahoo Images.

Why Is Greenland’s Ice Melting?

Greenland’s ice sheet covers about 80% of the country. It’s so big that if it melted completely, sea levels around the world would rise by about 7.4 meters (24 feet). Over the last few decades, temperatures in the Arctic have been rising twice as fast as the global average. Warmer air melts the ice from above, while warmer ocean water melts it from below. These processes are speeding up, causing Greenland to lose billions of tons of ice yearly.

One key concept in understanding the melting ice is albedo. Albedo is a measure of how much sunlight a surface reflects. Think about it this way:

Ice and snow are bright and white, reflecting most sunlight back into space and cooling the planet.
Darker surfaces like ocean water or bare ground absorb more sunlight, causing them to heat up.

As Greenland’s ice melts, it exposes darker surfaces, which absorb more heat. This causes even more ice to melt—a dangerous feedback loop. To be specific, Greenland is losing, on average, 269 billion metric tons of ice annually.

The merciless albedo feedback loop. The loop proceeds as follows: "Melting of sea ice" --> "Lowered albedo" --> "Increase in absorbed sunlight" --> "Melting of sea ice" — Image 2: The merciless albedo feedback loop. Source: Yahoo Images.

The formation of an ice sheet isn’t random; it depends on Earth’s geography and climate. The movement of Earth’s continents, known as continental drift, plays a key role in ice sheet formation. Continents near the poles (like Greenland and Antarctica) are ideal because they receive less sunlight, creating cooler conditions. The most essential requirement for an ice sheet to grow is cool summer temperatures. Snow that falls during winter must not melt entirely during the summer. Instead, it compacts and builds up over thousands of years, forming thick layers of ice.

How Does This Affect Climate Change?

The melting ice in Greenland contributes to climate change in several ways:

Rising Sea Levels. When ice sheets melt, water flows into the ocean, significantly elevating sea levels. This poses a direct threat to coastal communities worldwide, putting them at risk of flooding and erosion.

Disrupted Ocean Currents. Melting ice adds massive amounts of freshwater to the salty ocean, disrupting critical ocean currents like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which helps regulate the Earth’s climate. If these currents slow down, they could lead to more extreme weather patterns, such as harsher winters in some places and stronger hurricanes in others.

More Greenhouse Gases. Melting ice can release trapped greenhouse gases, like methane, from the frozen ground beneath it (called permafrost). These gases contribute to further warming, making the problem even worse.

Oceans are Rising! How are people surviving?

While Greenland may seem far away, its melting ice affects everyone. Rising sea levels threaten millions of people living in coastal cities, from Miami to Mumbai. Disrupted weather patterns can lead to more severe storms, droughts, and heatwaves, which impact food supplies and economies. We are all part of this global community, and we all share the consequences of climate change.

The melting of Greenland’s ice sheet is not just an environmental issue—it’s a human rights issue. Climate change, driven by the loss of ice sheets and rising global temperatures, threatens people’s right to life, health, food, water, and security. Communities around the world, particularly those in coastal and marginalized areas, are already experiencing the devastating consequences.

The United Nations recognizes climate change as a human rights issue because it disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. As the ice melts, coastal communities are being swallowed by the sea. Small island nations like Tuvalu and the Maldives are at risk of disappearing. Millions of people in low-lying regions (Bangladesh, Florida, Louisiana) could be displaced, creating climate refugees who have nowhere to go.

Even with ambitious climate change policies like the Paris Agreement, sea levels are projected to rise between 20 to 60 cm (7.8 to 23.6 inches) by 2100. This rise poses a significant threat to coastal communities, as up to 216 million people (2.6% of the earth’s population) currently live on land that will be below sea level or experience regular flooding by the end of the century.

A person holding up a sign that says "Climate Change = More Climate Refugees" — Image 3: Climate change advocates. Source: Yahoo Images.

Greenhouse gases trap heat and keep the planet warm. The most common are carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Ozone (O3), and water. Without them, Earth would be too cold for humans and most life to survive, but with too much, we are slowly roasting the planet. This raises an ethical dilemma: Are we morally obligated to rehome climate refugees? If giving up air conditioning could save thousands of lives, should people’s basic needs for food and shelter outweigh our desire for convenience?

Wealthy countries and corporations have contributed the most to climate change, yet poorer nations are more likely to bear the brunt of the damage. Those with fewer resources—marginalized communities, Indigenous groups, and low-income families—struggle the most to adapt and recover.

The biggest contributors to global emissions are China, the United States, and India, together responsible for 42.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. alone accounts for 13.5% of global emissions, making it the world’s second-largest carbon emitter. If the U.S. is responsible for 13.5% of lost islander homes, should we also be 13.5% responsible for their survival? Should we take action even if no other country accepts accountability? Even if it requires more than what we are “technically” obligated to do?

What Can We Do?

The good news is that there are solutions. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the most essential step. This means using cleaner energy sources like wind and solar, improving energy efficiency, and protecting forests. On an individual level, even small actions make a difference—using less energy, advocating for climate policies, and spreading awareness. One of the most powerful things you can do is start a conversation. Simply talking about climate change can introduce new ideas and inspire action.

Greenland’s melting ice may seem far away, but its impact is a stark reminder that we are all connected. If we act now, we can protect our planet and future generations. The question is not whether we can make a difference but whether we will.

Griefbots: Blurring the Reality of Death and the Illusion of Life

Griefbots are an emerging technological phenomenon designed to mimic deceased individuals’ speech, behaviors, and even personalities. These digital entities are often powered by artificial intelligence, trained on data such as text messages, social media posts, and recorded conversations of the deceased. The concept of griefbots gained traction in the popular imagination through portrayals in television and film, such as the episode “Be Right Back” from the TV series Black Mirror. As advancements in AI continue to accelerate, griefbots have shifted from speculative fiction to a budding reality, raising profound ethical and human rights questions.

Griefbots are marketed as tools to comfort the grieving, offering an opportunity to maintain a sense of connection with lost loved ones. However, their implementation brings complex challenges that transcend technology and delve into the realms of morality, autonomy, and exploitation. While the intentions behind griefbots might seem compassionate, their broader implications require careful consideration. With the rising intricacy of the morality of AI, I want to explore some of the ethical aspects of griefbots and ask questions to push the conversation along. My goal is not to strongly advocate for or against their usage but to engage in philosophical debate.

Ethical and Human Rights Ramifications of Grief Bots

Commercial Exploitation of Grief

The commercialization of griefbots raises significant concerns about exploitation. Grieving individuals, in their emotional vulnerability, may be susceptible to expensive services marketed as tools for solace. This commodification of mourning could be seen as taking advantage of grief for profit. Additionally, if griefbots are exploitative, it prompts us to reconsider the ethicality of other death-related industries, such as funeral services and memorialization practices, which also operate within a profit-driven framework.

However, the difference between how companies currently capitalize on griefbots and how the death industry generates profit is easier to tackle than the other implications of this service. Most companies producing and selling griefbots charge for their services through subscriptions or minute-by-minute payments, distinguishing them from other death-related industries. Companies may have financial incentives to keep grieving individuals engaged with their services. To achieve this, algorithms could be designed to optimize interactions, maximizing the time a grieving person spends with the chatbot and ensuring long-term subscriptions. These algorithms might even subtly adjust the bot’s personality to make it more appealing over time, creating a pleasing caricature rather than an accurate reflection of the deceased.

As these interactions become increasingly tailored to highlight what users most liked about their loved ones, the griefbot may unintentionally alter or oversimplify memories of the deceased, fostering emotional dependency. This optimization could transform genuine mourning into a form of addiction. In contrast, if companies opted to charge a one-time activation fee rather than ongoing payments, would this shift the ethical implications? In such a case, could griefbots be equated to services like cremation—a one-time fee for closure—or would the potential for misuse still pose moral concerns?

Posthumous Harm and Dignity

Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher, famously argued that death is not harmful to the deceased because, once dead, they no longer exist to experience harm. Griefbots challenge the assumption that deceased individuals are beyond harm. From Epicurus’s perspective, griefbots would not harm the dead, as there is no conscious subject to be wronged. However, the contemporary philosopher Joel Feinberg contests this view by suggesting that posthumous harm is possible when an individual’s reputation, wishes, or legacy are violated. Misrepresentation or misuse of a griefbot could distort a person’s memory or values, altering how loved ones and society remember them. These distortions may result from incomplete or biased data, creating an inaccurate portrayal of the deceased. Such inaccuracies could harm the deceased’s dignity and legacy, raising concerns about how we ethically represent and honor the dead.

a version of Michelangelo's famous painting "The Creation of Adam" but with a robot hand instead of Adam's — Image 2: A robot version of Michelangelo’s painting “the Creation of Adam” Source: Yahoo Images

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Because griefbots are supposed to represent a deceased person, they have the potential to disrespect people’s dignity by falsifying that person’s reason and consciousness. By creating an artificial version of someone’s reasoning or personality that may not align with their true self, griefbots risk distorting their essence and reducing the person’s memory to a fabrication.

But imagine a case in which an expert programmer develops a chatbot to represent himself. He perfectly understands every line of coding and can predict how the griefbot will honor his legacy. If there is no risk to the harm of his dignity, is there still an ethical issue at hand?

Consent and Autonomy

Various companies allow people to commission an AI ghost before their death by answering a set of questions and uploading their information. If individuals consent to create a griefbot during their lifetime, it might seem to address questions of autonomy. However, consent provided before death cannot account for unforeseen uses or misuse of the technology. How informed can consent truly be when the long-term implications and potential misuse of the technology are not fully understood when consent is given? Someone agreeing to create a griefbot may envision it as a comforting tool for loved ones. Yet, they cannot anticipate future technological advancements that could repurpose their digital likeness in ways they never intended.

This issue also intersects with questions of autonomy after death. While living individuals are afforded the right to make decisions about their posthumous digital presence, their inability to adapt or revoke these decisions as circumstances change raises ethical concerns. In HI-PHI Nation’s Podcast, The Wishes of the Dead, they explore how the wishes of deceased individuals, particularly wealthy ones, continue to shape the world long after their death. The episode uses Milton Hershey, founder of Hershey Chocolate, as a case study. Hershey created a charitable trust to fund a school for orphaned boys and endowed it with his company’s profits. Despite changes in societal norms and the needs of the community, the trust still operates according to Hershey’s original stipulations. Critics questioned whether continuing to operate according to Hershey’s 20th-century ideals was still relevant in the modern era, where gender equality and broader educational access have become more central concerns.

Chatbots do not have the ability to evolve and grow the way that humans do. Barry explains the foundation of this concept by saying, “One problem with executing deeds in perpetuity is that dead people are products of their own times. They don’t change what they want when the world changes.” And even if growth was implemented into the algorithm, there is no guarantee it would be reflective of how a person changes. Griefbots might preserve a deceased person’s digital presence in ways that could become problematic or irrelevant over time. Although griefbots do not have the legal status of an estate or will, they still preserve a person’s legacy in a similar fashion. If Hershey was alive today, would he modify his estate to reflect his legacy?

It could be argued that the difference between Hershey’s case and Chatbots is that wills and estates are designed to execute a person’s final wishes, but they are inherently limited in scope and duration. Griefbots, by contrast, have the potential to persist indefinitely, amplifying the damage to one’s reputation. Does this difference encompass the true scope of the issue at hand, or would it be viable to argue that if chatbots are unethical, then persisting estates would be equally unethical as well?

A picture of someone having a conversation with a chatbot — Image 3: A person having a conversation with a chatbot. Source: Yahoo Images

Impact on Mourning and Healing

Griefbots have the potential to fundamentally alter the mourning process by offering an illusion of continued presence. Traditionally, grieving involves accepting the absence of a loved one, allowing individuals to process their emotions and move toward healing. However, interacting with a griefbot may disrupt or delay this natural progression. By creating a sense of ongoing connection with the deceased, these digital avatars could prevent individuals from fully confronting the reality of the loss, potentially prolonging the pain of bereavement.

At the same time, griefbots could serve as a therapeutic tool for some individuals, providing comfort during difficult times. Grief is a deeply personal experience and for certain people, using chatbots as a means of processing loss might offer a temporary coping mechanism. In some cases, they might help people navigate the early, overwhelming stages of grief by allowing them to “speak” with a version of their loved one, helping them feel less isolated. Given the personal nature of mourning, it is essential to acknowledge that each individual has the right to determine the most effective way for them to manage their grief, including whether or not they choose to use this technology.

However, the decision to engage with griefbots is not always straightforward. It is unclear whether individuals in the throes of grief can make fully autonomous decisions, as emotions can cloud judgment during such a vulnerable time. Grief may impair an individual’s ability to think clearly, and thus, the use of griefbots might not always be a conscious, rational choice but rather one driven by overwhelming emotion.

Nora Freya Lindemann, a doctoral student researching the ethics of AI, proposes that griefbots could be classified as medical devices designed to assist in managing prolonged grief disorder (PGD). PGD is characterized by intense, persistent sorrow and difficulty accepting the death of a loved one. Symptoms of this disorder could potentially be alleviated with the use of griefbots, provided they are carefully regulated. Lindemann suggests that in this context, griefbots would require stringent guidelines to ensure their safety and effectiveness. This would involve rigorous testing to prove that these digital companions are genuinely beneficial and do not cause harm. Moreover, they should only be made available to individuals diagnosed with PGD rather than to anyone newly bereaved to prevent unhealthy attachments and over-reliance.

Despite the potential benefits, the psychological impact of griefbots remains largely unexplored. It is crucial to consider how these technologies affect emotional healing in the long term. While they may offer short-term comfort, the risk remains that they could hinder the natural grieving process, leading individuals to avoid the painful yet necessary work of acceptance and moving forward. As the technology develops, further research will be essential to determine the full implications of griefbots on the grieving process and to ensure that they are used responsibly and effectively.

Conclusion

Griefbots are at the intersection of cutting-edge technology and age-old human concerns about mortality, memory, and ethics. While they hold potential for comfort and connection, their implementation poses significant ethical and human rights challenges. The concepts I explored only scratch the surface of the iceberg. As society navigates this uncharted territory, we must critically examine its implications and find ways to use AI responsibly. The questions it raises are complex, but they offer an opportunity to redefine how we approach death and the digital legacies we leave behind.

Brighter Futures for Little Blazers at UAB: A Youth Mentoring Program

Introduction

The clamor of tiny voices filled the UAB lecture hall, a space usually reserved for undergraduates and professors. At the front of the room, a small hand shot up. “What’s college like?” one of our mentees asked, eyes wide with curiosity. In that moment, I realized the importance of our work—not just mentoring but planting the seeds of possibility in young minds.

In a previous blog, How Youth Mentoring Can Instill Resilience in the Next Generation, I shared the story of my time mentoring a young girl through Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS). That experience illuminated the transformative power of mentorship and the deeper systemic barriers that prevent many children from accessing quality education. Today, I want to expand on those themes, exploring how these barriers represent a fundamental human rights issue and how initiatives like my student organization, Brighter Futures for Little Blazers at UAB (BFLB), are working to address these inequities.

The Inaccessibility of Education

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “everyone has the right to education.” Yet, for millions of children in the United States, this right remains elusive, especially those from marginalized communities. According to the U.S. Department of Education, students from the lowest income quartile are five times less likely to complete a bachelor’s degree than those from the highest.

For children experiencing Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), such as poverty, neglect, or violence, the barriers to education are even more significant. These experiences correlate with reduced academic performance, lower high school graduation rates, and limited access to higher education. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that nearly 61% of adults have experienced at least one ACE, and these adverse experiences disproportionately affect children of color and those living in low-income households.

Systemic inequities further compound these challenges. Schools in underfunded districts often lack essential resources, such as experienced teachers, extracurricular programs, and adequate infrastructure. A study by the Education Law Center found that schools serving predominantly low-income and minority students receive $1,800 less per student annually than those in wealthier districts despite having greater needs.

These inequities not only violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination but also perpetuate cycles of poverty. Without access to quality education, children face limited career opportunities, which in turn limits their earning potential and ability to improve their socioeconomic status.

The Role of Brighter Futures for Little Blazers at UAB

I founded Brighter Futures for Little Blazers at UAB (BFLB) in the Fall of 2023 in response to the systemic challenges children in Birmingham face. As a student at UAB and a mentor with BBBS, I saw firsthand how a lack of volunteers, compounded by logistical barriers like transportation, limited children’s access to mentoring opportunities. BFLB was designed to bridge these gaps by leveraging the resources and enthusiasm of college students.

Big Brothers Big Sisters pairs Bigs (mentors) with Littles (mentees) to connect kids who have faced ACEs with mentors who can provide an extra support system. BFLB is not an isolated initiative but rather a tailored offshoot of BBBS’s Beyond School Walls program. This program connects youth with workplace mentors to help them develop professional skills, explore career opportunities, and build confidence. At its core, Beyond School Walls is about exposing children to environments that inspire and prepare them for the future. While BBBS traditionally partners with corporations and businesses for this initiative, BFLB brings the concept to a university setting. Instead of pairing Littles with corporate employees, BFLB pairs them with college students, creating a relatable and aspirational mentoring dynamic. This modification aligns perfectly with Beyond School Walls’s goals while addressing our community’s specific needs.

Our program buses Littles to UAB twice a month, creating a space where mentorship and education intersect. While the primary goal is to instill resilience and emotional support, BFLB also seeks to inspire children to envision a future that includes higher education. During their visits, Littles participate in STEM activities, career preparation workshops, and campus tours, helping them associate college with possibilities rather than obstacles.

This image is an example of one of the STEM activities Bigs and Littles worked on together. Their goal was to produce the balloon that could travel the fastest on a string. — Image 2: This image is an example of one of the STEM activities Bigs and Littles worked on together. They aimed to produce a balloon that could travel the fastest on a string. Source: Natasha Fernandez

This approach aligns with research showing that mentoring programs tied to real-world experiences significantly improve youth outcomes. Exposure to higher education environments substantially increases the likelihood that children from low-income backgrounds will aspire to attend college. A study by the National Mentoring Partnership found that mentored youth are 55% more likely to enroll in college and develop career aspirations than their non-mentored peers.

Education as a Tool for Change

The systemic inequities necessitating programs like BBBS and BFLB are deeply rooted in broader social and economic disparities. In the United States, low-income children are often concentrated in underfunded schools, where limited resources exacerbate the challenges posed by poverty and ACEs. These inequities are not accidental but are the result of decades of policies that have prioritized affluent communities over marginalized ones.

Mentorship programs like BFLB are not a substitute for systemic reform but serve as an intervention to mitigate the immediate effects of these inequities. For example, Schools with mentoring programs report 52% higher graduation rates compared to those without. However, the impact of mentorship extends beyond individual success. Programs like BFLB and Beyond School Walls challenge the systemic barriers that perpetuate educational inequities by building community partnerships and advocating for policy changes.

While education cannot single-handedly solve systemic inequality, it remains one of the most effective tools for breaking the cycle of poverty. Each additional year of schooling increases an individual’s earning potential by an average of 10%. Yet, for education to serve as a pathway to economic mobility, it must be accessible to all.

Initiatives like BFLB illustrate how community-driven efforts can address accessibility challenges. By combining mentorship with exposure to higher education, BFLB helps Littles overcome the psychological and logistical barriers that prevent many low-income students from pursuing college. At the same time, these initiatives highlight the need for systemic change. Policymakers must prioritize equitable funding for public schools, expand access to mental health resources, and invest in programs that support children facing ACEs. These changes are essential for ensuring that the right to education is not just an ideal but a reality for all children.

In This activity, Bigs helped Littles plan out and the build the tallest tower out of household supplies. — Image 3: In this activity, Bigs helped Littles plan and then build the tallest tower out of household supplies. Source: Natasha Fernandez

Conclusion

The right to education is a cornerstone of human dignity and progress, but systemic barriers deny this right to many children. Initiatives like BBBS’s Beyond School Walls program and BFLB demonstrate the power of mentorship to address these challenges and inspire hope for a brighter future.

However, achieving true educational equity is not a task for one person or organization. It demands a collective effort to dismantle systemic inequities and create a society where every child, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to succeed.

As individuals, we can contribute by volunteering, donating, or advocating for policies that promote educational access. Together, we can ensure that the transformative power of education is available to all, fulfilling its promise as a fundamental human right. As we work toward a more equitable world, civil society organizations must continue to intervene where systems fail.

It takes just one mentor, organization, or program to light the spark that can transform a child’s life.

How Youth Mentoring Can Instill Resilience in the Next Generation

Introduction

The summer heat made itself known even as the AC blew full blast. Amidst the brown, dilapidated apartments, the heat waves emitting off the asphalt appeared like an endless ocean. I exited the car and made my way toward the school tucked among the federal housing apartments. The playground equipment was rusty, trash floated down the streets, and the smell of smoke burned my nose. A secretary greeted me with a toothy smile and asked me to sit while I waited.

Then, she walked in. Her braids bounced off the sides of her head as she looked everywhere in the room except into my eyes. This was my first interaction with my Little (To protect her privacy, I will use a fake name, Shae, to refer to her). Shae is the sweetest, most curious, and energetic person I know. Whenever we meet, she asks me questions, eager to learn about my life, college, hometown, and family.

Yet, getting to this point took work. As we sat together in an empty classroom that first day, she did not speak once. I watched her curious eyes soak me in as she looked me up and down. She studied the intricate embroidery of my purple keychain and spent minutes staring at my hair. I gave her crayons and paper, and while she hesitantly heeded my request to color with her, she did not look into my eyes. I first tried to engage with her by asking questions about her life. Yet, receiving no response each time, I realized I needed to earn her trust first. So, I talked to her about who I am, what I am doing here, and what my life is like.

In this image, Shae is smiling with a christmas cookie we decorated together at her school — Image 1: This was the first picture I took of Shae. We decorated the Christmas cookie together, and she was proud of herself, so I asked if I could take a photo of her holding it. (Shae’s parent authorized to publish the picture by signing UAB’s media release form) Source: Natasha Fernandez

Adverse Childhood Experiences

I met Shae as part of Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS), an organization that seeks to connect kids who have faced adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) with mentors who can provide an extra support system. According to the CDC‘s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) definition, ACEs refer to potentially traumatic events that occur during childhood, such as abuse, neglect, or household dysfunction (e.g., domestic violence and substance abuse). These experiences can have long-term effects on physical and mental health, increasing the risk of chronic illnesses, mental health disorders, and negative behaviors such as substance abuse, as well as impacting educational and socioeconomic outcomes in adulthood.

Certain demographics are more at risk of experiencing ACEs due to a range of socioeconomic, familial, and community factors. Studies have shown that these experiences disproportionately impact children from specific backgrounds, often due to systemic inequalities, lack of access to resources, and heightened exposure to stressors. Children from low-income households are significantly more likely to experience ACEs. Financial instability often results in chronic stress, food insecurity, limited access to healthcare, and housing instability—all of which can exacerbate family conflict and increase exposure to violence or neglect. In addition to economic status, research consistently shows that children from Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous communities have a higher likelihood of experiencing ACEs. In the United States, 61% of black non-Hispanic children and 51% of Hispanic children have experienced at least one ACE. In comparison, 40% of white non-Hispanic children and 23% of Asian non-Hispanic children have experienced at least one ACE. ACEs are more prevalent among racial minorities because of issues like housing discrimination, limited healthcare access, and higher exposure to community violence. These groups are often more vulnerable due to systemic racism, discrimination, and fewer opportunities for economic and social mobility.

Mentoring programs like BBBS show evidence of academic and social benefits for mentees. These relationships encourage academic engagement, improving grades and attendance while reducing dropout rates. A mentor’s encouragement instills a belief in the child’s ability to succeed academically, directly impacting self-esteem and future aspirations. Additionally, social guidance helps children navigate relationships, develop empathy, and build trust in others—all critical components for lifelong success and resilience. At BBBS, 91% of our Littles reported feeling a strong sense of belonging among peers, and 93% plan to graduate high school and attend college.

My Personal Experience

This image depicts my first picture with Shae. We are on the playground and smiling — Image 2: This is the first picture Shae and I took together. When we were playing on the school’s playground she asked to take a selfie. (Shae’s parent authorized authorized to publish the picture by signing UAB’s media release form) Source: Natasha Fernandez

I completed an initiation process with BBBS, including a background check, references, an interview, and training. Once everything was in order, I was paired up with Shae.

On that first day, I was filled with a mix of nerves and uncertainty. As I sat in my car, I couldn’t help but wonder, did I do a good job? Does she even like me? However, after a reassuring conversation with my match support coordinator at BBBS, I realized that my experience was not unique. I needed to stay strong and committed to my work, and with time, I would earn Shae’s trust.

Week by week, with each visit, coloring activity, game, and snack, Shae started to warm up to me. She slowly took down her barriers, starting by looking into my eyes. Then, she responded to my questions with yes or no answers and later in complete sentences.

The day Shae started asking me questions about my life, I was overwhelmed with joy. My Little took the lead, instructing me to ask her a question, and then she would reciprocate. We engaged in a lively back-and-forth for almost an hour. It was at that moment that I truly felt our bond had formed. Despite the three-month journey to reach this point, the reward was immeasurable.

Over the next year, Shae opened up, and we formed a close friendship. When the new school year began, her third-grade teacher said they were starting a new school-wide program, and I could only visit my Little during restricted time periods. Finding the perfect time to visit her was difficult with my already packed schedule. Somedays, upon arrival at the elementary school, the secretary would inform me that her mother did not bring her in that day. Somedays, when I brought Shae to the multipurpose room, they were holding a conference, and I could not bring her to the playground because another class was using it. At one point, the school completely repurposed the multipurpose room, and I could only visit on the days the school counselor was not using her office. For the next two months, I was not able to meet with Shae due to the problems with the resource-poor school. Therefore, I requested to transfer to BBBS’s community program, where I could bring Shae to my home. Through this program, I can engage in even more exciting activities with her that she normally wouldn’t be able to do at her home or school. She loves to bake, so we’ve made just about everything from cupcakes and cookies to homemade ice cream and caramel apples.

In this image, Shae is eating a candy apple she insisted would taste better if it was dyed blue — Image 3: This image depicts Shae eating a candy apple that she insisted would taste better if it was dyed blue. (Shae’s parent authorized to publish the picture by signing UAB’s media release form) Source: Natasha Fernandez

I have been with Shae for almost four years now and have seen dramatic changes in her behavior and demeanor. She is prone to emotional outbursts, especially if she is losing a game. But, while she hasn’t completely lost this behavior, I have noticed differences over time. For example, last week, when we were playing Roblox, she became frustrated because the game started before she could finish getting ready. I started to calm her down, but before I could say a word, she said, “It’s okay because I will still have fun.” This brought tears to my eyes because she used my exact phrasing to self-soothe. I have also noticed an improvement in Shae’s communication and ability to express her needs. She now verbally expresses her emotions to me instead of becoming withdrawn or aggressive.

The Effects of Youth Mentoring

Youth mentoring can play a transformative role in the lives of children who have experienced ACEs. These children often lack consistent, supportive relationships with adults. A mentor provides a stable, caring figure who models positive behavior, emotional regulation, and healthy decision-making. Studies show that mentors offer critical emotional support, which can counterbalance the effects of past trauma by reducing feelings of isolation and promoting a sense of belonging. For instance, a meta-analysis on youth mentoring found that children with mentors exhibit better psychological adjustment and emotional well-being than their non-mentored peers.

According to Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child, “The single most common factor for children who develop resilience is at least one stable and committed relationship with a supportive parent, caregiver, or other adult.” Through mentorship, children are exposed to new coping strategies and problem-solving skills vital for resilience. Mentors can guide mentees in identifying their strengths, expressing emotions healthily, and navigating challenges. For children facing stressors, learning to manage emotions and reframe experiences can reduce anxiety, depression, and the likelihood of developing mental health disorders. Coping mechanisms gained through mentoring contribute to a child’s adaptability and perseverance in the face of adversity.

Children with ACEs are more likely to engage in risky behaviors as a coping mechanism. Mentoring relationships offer an alternative by providing a positive outlet and reducing the likelihood of substance abuse, delinquency, and violence. Mentors provide accountability and serve as advocates for healthier choices, which contributes to improved quality of life and fewer risk factors associated with ACEs.

In this picture, Shae and I are sitting in my car and she asked me to take a picture of her trying on my sunglasses. — Image 4: This is the first time I took Shae to my apartment. We were sitting in my car, and she asked me to take a picture of her trying on my sunglasses. (Shae’s parent authorized to publish the picture by signing UAB’s media release form) Source: Natasha Fernandez

Conclusion

There is a profound sense of satisfaction that comes with watching someone grow and knowing that a part of your best self lives in that person. I continue to meet with Shae weekly, and while some days are challenging and draining, I wouldn’t trade my time with her for anything. The progress she has made fills me with a deep sense of pride and accomplishment. It doesn’t take a lot to make a change: just one hour a week and enough love to share.

The Aftermath of Hurricane Helene

In this image, people scramble to collect themselves as a storm hits — Image 1: People scrambling to collect themselves as a storm hits. Source: Yahoo Images

Overview of the Issue

A raft carries a crying girl as she desperately clings onto the last remaining threads of her former life; her puppy licks away her tears even as the rain replaces them. As the wind carries away her hoarse cries for her mother, a kind woman offers her a warm blanket and reassuring words.

This image depicts a girl sitting alone at the edge of the water — Image 2: This picture depicts a girl sitting alone at the edge of the water. Source: Yahoo Images

While this story is completely fictional, its core is based on reality. Due to Hurricane Helene, more than 375,000 households were displaced, and those were the lucky ones – the ones who survived. An AI-generated image currently circulating on the internet illustrates a girl in a raft holding her puppy and crying. It depicts the realities of many families that were impacted by Hurricane Helene. While the image itself is not real, thousands of people online are empathizing with it, claiming that they imagine the baby could be their own.

Hurricane Helene made landfall on September 26, 2024, near Perry, Florida, as a powerful Category 4 storm with winds reaching 140 mph; it then moved into Georgia with continued Category 2 winds the following day. Helene caused widespread devastation, particularly through Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. This led to severe flooding and significant landslides in the southern Appalachians, with wind damage and tornadoes reported in parts of the Carolinas. The overall impact included hundreds of fatalities, substantial property damage, power outages, and displacement of thousands of residents. The death toll exceeded 200, with many still unaccounted for as recovery efforts continue. The economic impact is estimated to be between $95 billion and $110 billion.

The Impact on Marginalized Communities

What this image doesn’t show is that not everyone is equally affected by these disasters. Natural disasters like Hurricane Helene have a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities due to pre-existing social, economic, and geographic vulnerabilities. These communities, including low-income groups, immigrants, people of color, and indigenous populations, frequently live in areas that are more susceptible to flooding, landslides, and other natural hazards due to less expensive land or poorer infrastructure. When disasters strike, the lack of resources such as savings, insurance, and access to emergency services makes recovery significantly more difficult. Additionally, disparities in disaster preparedness and access to information can hinder evacuation efforts, leaving these groups at higher risk of injury or death. Post-disaster, marginalized communities often face greater challenges in accessing relief aid, rebuilding homes, and recovering livelihoods, further exacerbating cycles of poverty and inequality. This uneven burden underscores the need for more equitable disaster preparedness and response strategies that address the specific needs of the most vulnerable populations.

In addition to the challenges faced by marginalized groups during natural disasters, Spanish-speaking and immigrant communities in South Florida are particularly vulnerable. These populations often experience language barriers that prevent them from accessing crucial information about evacuation orders, emergency services, and disaster relief efforts. Many rely on informal networks, which may not always provide timely or comprehensive updates. This can lead to delays in taking protective measures, putting lives at risk.

This image displays the wreckage a hurricane can leave in its wake — Image 3: The photo above displays the wreckage a hurricane can leave in its wake. Source: Yahoo Images

The large immigrant population in South Florida, including many undocumented individuals, may hesitate to seek assistance due to fears of immigration enforcement. This fear can prevent them from accessing shelters or applying for federal aid programs, such as those offered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), despite being in dire need. Additionally, many immigrants work in sectors that are highly vulnerable to the economic impacts of disasters, such as agriculture, hospitality, and construction. The destruction of agricultural land and small businesses not only leads to a loss of income but also leaves these communities with limited options for recovery, as many lack the financial safety nets or legal protections afforded to other workers.

Furthermore, the weakening of infrastructure and social order during a disaster increases risks of violence, exploitation, and trafficking, which can be especially dangerous for undocumented individuals and those without strong social safety nets. Without strong social support systems or the ability to navigate the bureaucratic processes of disaster recovery, these groups may be more susceptible to labor exploitation or abuse in their efforts to rebuild. These compounded vulnerabilities highlight the urgent need for targeted disaster response efforts that consider the specific needs of non-English-speaking and immigrant communities. Effective response includes offering bilingual communication, ensuring that relief services are accessible to all, regardless of immigration status, and providing economic support to help rebuild livelihoods and restore stability. By addressing these gaps, relief efforts can better serve these at-risk populations and work towards more equitable disaster recovery.

What is Being Done on Site

Government efforts have been widespread in disaster relief. On October 2, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched a website to provide resources and information about the EPA’s efforts to assist communities affected by Hurricane Helene. The EPA’s Hurricane Helene website is updated with real-time information on response and recovery efforts for communities most at risk. Another resource is provided by FEMA. Individuals living in areas designated as presidentially declared disaster zones can apply for aid, which may cover temporary housing, home repairs, and other essential needs like medical care and transportation. FEMA also supports infrastructure repairs for communities, such as fixing roads and utilities, to restore access to critical services. These efforts aim to alleviate immediate hardships, promote recovery, and ensure that resources reach those most affected by the hurricane. To apply for assistance online, visit disasterassistance.gov.

Displayed is a flooded suburban neighborhood — Image 4: Depicted is a flooded suburban neighborhood. Source: Yahoo Images

The International Economic Development Council (IEDC) has been involved in coordinating international aid and economic recovery efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene. Their role primarily includes facilitating the mobilization of funds and support from international donors to help rebuild critical infrastructure, restore economic stability, and support affected communities. This involves working closely with other global organizations and governments to ensure that economic relief is efficiently distributed and reaches the communities most in need.

The IEC’s efforts complement domestic recovery measures, such as those led by FEMA and other federal agencies, by focusing on broader economic recovery. This includes addressing disruptions in trade, ensuring the stability of financial markets, and providing support for small businesses and agricultural sectors that have suffered losses due to the hurricane. Their involvement helps to bolster the financial resources available for recovery, contributing to a more robust response to the economic challenges that follow such large-scale natural disasters.

In addition to government efforts, many humanitarian groups are also on-site to help with harm reduction. Private organizations such as Greater Good Charities have been on site and have already “deployed 48 truckloads of assistance, millions of dollars in aid, including food, water, hygiene products, and pet vaccines, with many more trucks of aid on the way.”

The above image shows hurricane victims being rescued on rafts by a humanitarian group. In the first raft, a family of 7 paddles to safety while behind it, the second raft holds 4 flood victims — Image 5: The above image shows hurricane victims being rescued by a humanitarian group. Source: Yahoo Images

The American Red Cross is actively involved in assisting people affected by Hurricane Helene through its reunification services. This support is particularly crucial for those separated from loved ones during evacuation and rescue efforts. The Red Cross’s assistance includes tools and resources to help individuals reconnect with family and friends who may have been displaced or gone missing due to the storm.

Their services involve a dedicated online platform where people can register themselves as “safe and well” or search for information on missing relatives. This system allows both evacuees and those searching for them to exchange information, offering a vital means of communication when traditional lines might be disrupted due to infrastructure damage. The Red Cross also collaborates with local shelters and emergency services to ensure displaced individuals are accounted for and can be reached by family members.

Some businesses have adapted their operations to focus on disaster relief in the aftermath of natural disasters. For example, National Coating Inc. shifted its services during Hurricane Helene to support communities affected by the storm by rescuing stranded families and providing supplies to unreachable locations. The CEO, Zeb Hadley, started these rescue missions when he discovered a baby was born right before Helene struck and was in an unreachable area. He personally flew his private helicopter for 60 hours searching for the trapped baby and its family, and he arrived just in time. Paramedics documented that the baby was blue upon arrival, and they were able to stabilize it with oxygen.

Companies like National Coating Inc. exemplify the true spirit of corporate responsibility. They step up in times of crisis, using their expertise and resources for relief work. This commitment enables them to supply specialized equipment, personnel, and services crucial for recovery efforts in disaster-stricken areas.

This trend of businesses reframing their services to contribute to disaster relief can significantly improve the speed and effectiveness of recovery efforts, especially when public and nonprofit resources are stretched thin. It reflects a broader effort where companies leverage their skills and infrastructure to support both immediate needs and longer-term rebuilding initiatives. Such efforts complement those of humanitarian organizations and government agencies, creating a more collaborative approach to disaster relief and recovery.

Conclusion

In the wake of natural disasters like Hurricane Helene, marginalized communities face heightened vulnerabilities that can complicate their recovery and survival. Pre-existing economic and social inequalities, language barriers, and fear of seeking assistance make them more susceptible to prolonged displacement, loss of livelihoods, and even risks of exploitation and trafficking as social order deteriorates. As climate change worsens and the predicted severity of storms increases, this story is destined to repeat itself, and its impacts will be amplified. Addressing these disparities requires a concerted effort from government agencies, international organizations, businesses, and local relief efforts to ensure that disaster responses are inclusive and adequately address the specific needs of these vulnerable populations. Prioritizing equitable aid distribution and protection measures can help mitigate the adverse effects of disasters and support a more just recovery for all affected communities.