Category: General

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.

Insulin and injection supplies
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.

Monthly birth control pills
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.

A person made of medicine, consuming a pill.
Image 4: A person made of medicine, consuming a pill. Source: Yahoo Images.

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.

A shocked reporter holding a camera.
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.

An image of a Human Rights protest
Image 2: An image of a Human Rights protest. Source: Yahoo images.

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.

People protesting for their democratic freedom
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.

Peace Constitutions: Costa Rica and Japan

What do you know about peace and peace-building processes? If you have previously studied the concept of peace, you may have encountered peace constitutions and their role in promoting both positive and negative peace.

In peace studies, peace is not limited to the absence of violence (negative peace); it also includes the social and economic institutions and structures that sustain societies (positive peace). In other words, as Martin Luther King put it in his response to an accusation that he was disturbing the peace during the Montgomery Bus Boycott, “True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” Learn more about peace from the fifth edition of David P. Barash and Charles P. Webel’s Peace and Conflict Studies, which elaborates on the aspects of positive peace, historical and current conflicts, nationalism, and terrorism.

Constitution on paper
Image 1: A written constitution. Source: Yahoo Images.

Constitution-building is the process of creating or amending that involves negotiating, drafting, and implementing fundamental principles and frameworks for a nation to work, according to PeaceRep. Peace agreements can be a constitution or have the constitution included within them. Charlotte Fiedler from the German Institute of Development and Sustainability analyzes the effects of writing a new constitution after conflict. This political scientist argues that constitution-making is part of the peace-building process, and empirical evidence indicates that it allows countries to start anew with a new governance framework, rethink previous regimes, and, therefore, improve their societal peace outlook. According to Fiedler, post-conflict constitutions are linked to trust-building, meaning that longer constitution-making processes are more successful in sustaining peace than shorter, forced processes. Both Japan’s and Costa Rica’s peace constitutions were drafted after conflicts, and both countries have seen respective benefits.

Japan’s Postwar Constitution

The 1947 constitution introduced more power to Japanese society by placing the military under civilian control, granting new rights to women, and reformulating the responsibilities of the imperial family. After WWII, Japanese cities were devastated, and post-conflict planning started. The U.S. diplomat Hugh Borton, who was part of these plans, claimed that Japan needed a new one: “to truly steer away from the imperial institution.” The Japanese wanted to amend their 1889 Meiji Constitution, but the Allies didn’t think this was enough. Therefore, General MacArthur created three principles to serve as an outline for a new constitution: no longer being able to wage war, a parliamentary system, and more power to the people.

After a lot of back and forth between the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers staff (SCAP), the Japanese cabinet, and the first post-war general election, a new constitution was drafted. The SCAP included in Article 9 that Japan would renounce the use of force as a tool for addressing international issues. Some agreed with this article, showing Japan’s commitment to peace, but others weren’t keen on the idea. Ultimately, it was amended to read that Japan would not keep armed forces strong enough for any acts of aggression

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution includes a no-war clause, in which the government renounces war as a means of sovereignty and refuses to settle disputes using military force. It also includes wording such as “We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time… we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world.” Because of the language in it, the constitution played a major role in shaping Japan’s national identity of pacifism.

Lessons from Japan

Japan Self-Defense Forces
Image 2: Japan Self-Defense Forces in the forest. Source: Yahoo Images.

As established in “Peace in Theory and Practice” under Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution, a review by Lawrence W. Beer, an expert on the politics of Japan and other Asian countries, reveals a few lessons that these peace constitutions teach the world. First, a renunciation of war is acceptable, desirable, and realistic. Second, the military does not have to be the center of international and national planning; instead, the economy, democracy, human rights, and the environment should be the center of national security concerns. Third, major peaceful changes in culture and system are possible even in the most nationalist, military-driven nations. Despite these efforts and lessons, some government officials have worked to reinstate a stronger military force and larger access to arms. Hence, time will tell how Japan will uphold its pacifist identity.

Costa Rican Constitution

Costa Rica committed to peace and democracy after years of internal conflict and unrest. Early on, after gaining independence from Spain, Costa Rica focused on its internal development, avoiding prolonged conflicts and opting for defense rather than aggression. After a period of peace when the military focused on maintaining internal order, Federico Tinoco seized power through a coup and established an authoritarian rule heavily dependent on military power. Tinoco was not well received, and this dictatorship affected public opinion on the military and its role in society. The event that pushed Costa Rica to make its final decision to abolish its military was the 1948 Civil War, which left thousands dead and had people urging for a peaceful country. The aftermath of the civil war led to the decision that same year.

Painting celebrating the peace constitution of Costa Rica
Image 3: Painting celebrating Costa Rica’s peace constitution. Source: Yahoo Images

The codification of the 1949 constitution declared Costa Rica a neutral nation, prohibiting the use of force by its army. Article 12 states, “The Army as a permanent institution is abolished,” and instructs the funds to be allocated to public welfare programs instead. What was before the job of the military became the job of the civilian police force, whose main objective is community policing and human rights?

Finally, the Costa Rican Constitution, in Article 50, guarantees the right to live in a healthy and environmentally balanced environment, making both the state and the public responsible for conserving their natural resources. Following this article, the country has passed legislation to address fishing and mining, as well as utilizing renewable sources for a large portion of its energy.

Lessons from Costa Rica

Without the burden of military expenditure, Costa Rica was able to focus more on its social services, providing better resources for its nation. This investment in education and healthcare resulted in one of the highest literacy rates in Latin America and a healthcare system with universal coverage for its citizens. What’s more, fund reallocation allowed for the development of tourism, technology, and environmental conservation. Although a lot of money and arms are still poured into the police, the shift to a more peaceful and sustainable society is evident. Ultimately, Costa Rica’s stance on peace has had an impact on the nation’s structure and its reputation in the international arena.

These two countries are not the only ones with limitations on their military forces. Iceland, Mauritius, Panama, and Vanuatu have also decided to abandon the use of the military and instead rely on alliances, diplomatic relations, and geographical isolation for national defense. For other countries and territories, such as Micronesia, defense is the responsibility of others. For example, Monaco’s defense is the responsibility of France, while the Faroe Islands are under the responsibility of Denmark.

Leaning away from raising armies for aggression may improve international harmony. How it would affect internal conflict is an aspect to consider. Moreover, the logistics of maintaining a defense army, such as limitations on size and allies, are also important factors in this conversation. A peace constitution that abolishes the military may not be a popular reform in bigger countries such as the U.S., Russia, and China. Less threat of attacks may allow for further distancing from military expenditure. Ultimately, a peace constitution not only addresses negative peace but also leads to positive peace as resources are reallocated to fit the new goals and structure of each nation.

Thailand’s Uyghur Crisis: A Decade of Detention and Desperation 

Forty-eight Uyghur men have been held in detention facilities throughout Thailand for more than ten years. Trapped in a diplomatic limbo that perfectly captures the clash of international politics, human rights violations, and the suffering of an oppressed minority. These men, who are members of a Muslim ethnic group from China’s Xinjiang province that speaks Turkic, left their country in search of safety from systemic persecution. But rather than escaping to safety, they now risk being forcibly deported back to a government notorious for its cruel treatment of Uyghurs. 

150 Uyghurs and supporters protested in Berlin after July 2009 Ürümqi riots.
Image 1: 150 Uyghurs and supporters protested in Berlin after July 2009 Ürümqi riots. Source: Claudia Himmelreich, Creative Commons

Who Are the Uyghurs? 

The northwest Chinese province of Xinjiang is home to the Uyghurs, who are an ethnic minority whose population is predominately Muslim. International human rights organizations have repeatedly reported serious violations in Xinjiang, such as forced labor, mass detentions, cultural erasure, and even accusations of genocide. The so-called “re-education camps” in China have imprisoned more than a million Uyghurs and subjected them to psychological abuse, forced sterilization, and indoctrination. 

Many Uyghurs have left China in search of safety, often going across Southeast Asia in dangerous conditions. Thailand’s close proximity has made it a popular transit country. However, many Uyghurs have been held in overcrowded facilities indefinitely instead of being granted refuge. 

Thailand’s Role: A Decade of Detention 

Nearly 350 Uyghurs, including women and children, were detained by Thai police in 2014 under the pretense of being “illegal immigrants.” Some, most notably the forty-eight men, were left behind in Thailand. Others were later sent to Turkey, a country that shares cultural and theological similarities with the Uyghurs. The individuals detained in Thailand have suffered horrendous conditions in prison over the years, with no access to healthcare, sunlight, or legal protection. 

When Thai authorities forced the captives to sign “voluntary return” forms in January 2025, their situation worsened. In a desperate protest against their protracted incarceration and impending deportation, the Uyghurs refused to comply and on January 10 began a hunger strike. 

Fears of Refoulement 

Human rights organizations are incensed by the idea of sending these men to China. The cornerstone of international refugee law, the principle of non-refoulement, would be broken by such acts, according to Human Rights Watch and other groups. Countries are not allowed to send people back to places where they risk threats of torture, cruel treatment, or persecution under the principle of non-refoulement. 

There is little uncertainty on the fate of deported Uyghurs given China’s history in Xinjiang. Prior examples have shown that repatriated individuals are subject to substantial prison sentences, forced confessions, and immediate detention. “Deporting these men to China would be a death sentence. Thailand must resist political pressure and prioritize human rights.” said Elaine Pearson, Asia Director for Human Rights Watch, urging Thailand to honor its international obligations. 

Thailand’s Political Calculations 

A larger battle to achieve a balance between national policies, international commitments, and geopolitical influences is seen in Thailand’s treatment of the Uyghur captives. Thailand has historically refrained from ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention due to worries about illegal immigration and sovereignty, and the nation’s dependence on Chinese commerce and investment makes it more difficult for it to stand firmly against Beijing. 

Despite widespread outrage, Thailand deported 109 Uyghurs to China in 2015. Chinese state media aired videos of deportees arriving in shackles and clearly distressed. The incident showed the impact of China’s global reach while also drawing harsh criticism from the UN and other international organizations. 

Uyghur children in old town Kashgar, China.
Image 2: Child’s play – Uyghur children in old town Kashgar, China. Source: Sherpas 428, Creative Commons

Hunger Strike 

The severe physical and psychological effects of indefinite incarceration are brought to light by the ongoing hunger strike. Hunger strikes, which represent the captives’ desperation, have long been used as a nonviolent protest tactic. Prolonged hunger strikes can cause organ failure, permanent health problems, and even death, according to medical professionals. However, for many Uyghurs, the risks of being detained or deported forcibly are greater than the risks of protesting. 

The detainees’ relatives have pleaded with Thai authorities to step in. In an impassioned appeal, a relative of one detained stated, “They are not criminals; they are victims… Sending them back to China is the same as signing their death warrants.” 

International Responses 

The plight of Thailand’s Uyghur prisoners has drawn attention from throughout the world. Foreign governments and advocacy organizations have called on Thailand to free the inmates and give them safe transportation to third countries that are prepared to take them in. Turkey is still a possible destination because of its sizable Uyghur diaspora. These attempts are complicated, however, given political tensions between Beijing and Ankara.  

International human rights standards are being broken by Thailand’s ongoing detention of the Uyghurs. Even though Thailand is not a member to the Refugee Convention, the UNHCR has reminded it of its duties under customary international law to prevent refoulement. 

Broader Implications 

Thailand’s Uyghur crisis is not an isolated event; rather, it is a part of a wider trend of Southeast Asian nations facing refugee challenges. Regarding their handling of Uyghur asylum seekers, Malaysia and Indonesia have also come under fire, frequently pointing to Chinese diplomatic pressure and domestic security concerns. 

Furthermore, Thailand’s actions established a concerning precedent. Global human rights frameworks are weakened if strong countries like China can apply enough pressure to compel weaker states to violate international rules. It also calls into question how international organizations hold nations responsible. 

A Path Forward 

The ongoing crisis calls for immediate action to protect the rights and lives of the detained Uyghurs. Here are some thoughts on how they should proceed: 

Release and Resettlement: Thailand should release the detainees and work with international organizations to facilitate their resettlement in third countries willing to accept them, such as Turkey or Canada. 

Strengthened Legal Protections: Thailand should consider ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, thereby aligning its policies with international human rights standards. 

Increased International Pressure: The global community, particularly Western nations, should intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent deportations and ensure the detainees’ safety. 

Monitoring and Transparency: Independent observers should be granted access to monitor the conditions of Uyghur detainees in Thailand to ensure compliance with human rights norms. 

Addressing Root Causes: The international community needs to hold China accountable for its actions in Xinjiang, addressing the root causes that force Uyghurs to flee their homeland. 

Looking Ahead 

The situation of the forty-eight Uyghur men who are being held captive in Thailand serves as an alarming example of the human cost of international indifference and geopolitical scheming. Unless Thailand and the international world step in, these people, who escaped unspeakable oppression, now face a bleak future. Respecting the values of refugee protection and human rights is not only a moral obligation but also a test of our shared humanity. 

There is, nevertheless, hope for a solution that puts human rights and international collaboration first, even though the situation is still grave. Thailand can establish a standard for treating refugees humanely and solidify its standing as a responsible global actor if it takes the appropriate actions. The future of the Uyghur captives is in jeopardy, but a fair resolution is hopefully achievable with enough advocacy. 

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?

An image of the ice caps melting
Image 4: The melting ice caps. Source: Yahoo Images.

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.

An image of a human face-to-face with an AI robot
Image 1: An image of a human face-to-face with an AI robot. Source: Yahoo Images

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.

Geography’s Facilitation of Injustice

In studying human rights, it is important to consider the factors that play a role in facilitating injustices. What makes it so easy for governments to displace thousands of people or allow its citizens to live among and ingest chemical waste for decades at a time? I have seen too many instances that could have been avoided, so let’s look at why they were not. This week, I took a deep dive into the geographical landscapes of injustice across the globe and how they play a role in facilitating nation’s violations of human rights practice.

Sudan and the Merowe Dam

My last post focused heavily on South Sudan and how the absence of positive peace practices made way for an influx of human rights violations. After further research, I found that Sudan has a history of these violations which are made more frequent by both the sociological and geographical makeup of the landscape. A study performed in 2013 by Kleinitz and Näser looks at the political narrative versus the narrative told by those on the ground, and the contradictions are astounding. The geographical landscapes in South Sudan have allowed for the government to marginalize and violate certain groups’ human rights, and despite the constant outcry for emphasis on positive change through NGOs like Amnesty International, the instances persist.

In the late 1980s, the Sudanese government devised a plan to construct the fourth of a multi-dam project, the Merowe Dam, along the Nile River meant to expand Sudan’s power grid, pushing promises of sustainability to all citizens. Despite financial issues, Sudanese officials rallied monetary support from outside countries, mainly China, and construction began in the early 2000s. Although the dam was meant to be a major technological advancement, the initiative received major pushback from locals who had been settled along the edge of the dam for decades. An effort and fight to preserve their cultural and physical heritage ensued. The government was not swayed. After years of protest met with violent and at times fatal state oppression, tens of thousands of Sudanese began to be forcibly displaced with thousands being killed in the process.

Sudan woman sits on edge of twin bed frame in flooded area

Geography cannot be ignored in this case. As the study states, those that were settled by the edge of the damn were communities of lower-class, peasants and farmers of the Sudanese society who had settled along the Nile decades before to be close to natural resources as agriculture was their main source of livelihood. As the resettlement continued, Sudanese settled along the site of the new Merowe Dam were moved to areas with little or no sanitation, the government decided what was to be salvaged and their homelands were flooded for a project that would ultimately experience several failures.

Regardless of what the reality of the situation was on the ground, the Sudanese government continued to push the Merowe Dam project as a success for the nation. Narratives of the aftermath and on the effects of the dam are strongly led by officials on the socioeconomic level that allows them to live downstream (the area of the Nile unaffected by the negative outcomes of the resettlement). The story is all too familiar and can be found in other instances of time and place across the globe.

The Bhopal Gas Disaster

Another unfortunate but applicable example of geography facilitating human rights violations is the Bhopal disaster that occurred in India the night of December 2nd, 1984. This case is devastating and never receives the coverage it deserves. Bhopal, like many other cities, is divvied up geographically by caste and class, which proved to be extremely unfortunate for some on the night of December 2nd. More than 40 tons of methyl isocyanate, a deadly gas, leaked into the city of Bhopal that night from a nearby Union Carbide factory. Coincidentally, the heavy gas settled in the city and had a deadly effect on lower-class citizens living in the valleys of Bhopal while upper-class citizens literally at a higher altitude slept through the night, most unaware that anything had taken place. At first glance, the case of the Bhopal disaster looks like a simple accident, but a closer look at the socioeconomic makeup of the city and continued violations tells us a different story.

Woman holding a sign in a crowd that reads "30 years is enough! Justice in Bhopal now!!"

I had the opportunity to talk with a survivor of the Bhopal disaster, Bixit Di, via Zoom during a Human Rights course this semester and find out more about how families were and still are being treated on the ground all these decades later. Those who lost loved ones and experience lifelong medical issues because of the Bhopal disaster are still receiving limited healthcare or acknowledgement from the government that knowingly put them in harm’s way. During a mute effort to relocate survivors of the disaster, Indian government offered inexpensive land plots to survivors and their families, knowingly exposing them to both soil and water reservoirs contaminated by the seepage of methyl isocyanide into the surrounding area. The fight for justice is still ongoing today.

Birmingham Redlining

Now let’s look at our city. Are geographical landscapes shaping any of the rights violations we see today or in the past? Of course! I have stated that it’s a global issue, so let’s take the time to sweep in front of our own front doors for once. The history of Birmingham’s geography is quite complex and heavily racially charged. In the 1930s, the United States began the illegal practice of Redlining (a term that refers to mortgage companies denying loans for homes in lower class or POC neighborhoods). Redlining was originally put in place to keep African Americans and other minorities from home ownership, but the practice had lasting effects on the geography of our city that can still be seen today.

Map of Redlined neighborhoods in Birmingham, AL, 1930
Map of Redlined neighborhoods in Birmingham, AL, 1930

Areas like Collegeville, Tarrant, Eastlake, Ensley and Mason City are at the heart of locations for Redlined neighborhoods during the 1930s. All these neighborhoods have a few things in common: they are majority POC, close vicinity to an industrial plant (whether active or inactive), and a recurrence of low income, marginalized households. The Environmental protection groups have issued several cases against Bluestone Coke, a company that has for years, despite inoperable ovens, been leaking toxic waste into the soil and waterways of these neighborhoods. Comparisons can be found across these cases both in the lack of attention they are receiving on a global scale as well as how geography facilitates the violation of human rights specifically as it pertains to articles 3, 6, 7, 22 and 25.

Infamous ABC Coke plant spits fire from its furnace in Tarrant, AL

Geography and landscapes have been used in the past and are unfortunately continuing to have negative effects in the present that actively violate citizen’s rights as listed in the UDHR. Some examples I have covered from around the globe include methods of forced resettlement, environmental injustice and health hazards as well as discrimination and lack of protection from government for marginalized groups. By acknowledging both the past and present effects of these landscapes and the power that they represent, small moves can be made toward big change starting in cities like ours.

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. 

The Death Penalty in the US: Legalized Murder?

On September 24, 2024, the state of Missouri executed an innocent Black man. Why did they kill him? 

Marcellus Williams was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Felicia Gayle. There was no physical evidence linking Williams to her murder: fingerprints, footprints, hair, and DNA found at the crime scene did not match Williams. The only evidence against Williams was testimony from two witnesses whose accounts were inconsistent and unverifiable. Gayle’s family favored life imprisonment. The county prosecutor favored life imprisonment. Only Missouri’s Attorney General wanted Williams executed – and he got his wish. 

Williams was innocent of the crime for which he was executed. He never had a fair trial. The prosecution struck 6 of 7 Black jurors, one of whom was rejected “because he looked too much like Williams.” Missouri knew they were executing an innocent man – and they did it anyway. 

History of the Death Penalty in America 

Capital punishment has been a part of the American legal system since before the United States was a country. The first person executed in the British colonies was George Kendall, who was executed by firing squad for mutiny in 1608. By the early 1900s, public support for the death penalty was beginning to wane, and some states abolished the practice. 

Utilizing capital punishment was briefly illegal nationwide. The 1972 Supreme Court Decision Furman v. Georgia ruled that existing death penalty statutes were discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. That lasted until 1976, when the Court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia that Georgia’s updated death penalty statute was constitutional, and executions resumed. Since 1976, 1,601 people have been executed. Today, only 21 states still have the death penalty, and only ten have executed people in the last decade. 

Methods for capital punishment have varied greatly over the last two centuries. Early in American history, the most common were firing squad and hanging. Over time, hangings have become associated with lynchings. Despite that history, in 2023, a Tennessee lawmaker proposed that “hanging by a tree” be used as an alternative method of execution in the state. In 1890, the first person was executed with the electric chair, which was the most common method for several decades until lethal injection became more popular after its first use in 1982.

A white room with a gurney with several thick straps used for restraining prisoners.
Image 1: A white room with a gurney and several thick straps was used to restrain prisoners. Source: Yahoo Images.

Lethal injection has faced challenges in recent years for a few reasons. Drug manufacturers do not want to be associated with homicide – and thus refuse to sell the required drugs to state governments – and medical professionals refuse to administer the medicines. Instead of medical professionals, correctional workers struggle to find veins and sometimes fail entirely, causing delayed executions. Roughly 3% of executions are botched, and people subjected to botched executions are disproportionately Black – 1/3 of executions nationwide are of Black prisoners, while 1/2 of botched executions are of Black prisoners. Even when not botched, lethal injections have been shown to be less humane than originally believed. The drugs used are painful and cause the lungs to fill with fluid – typically without proper anesthesia. 

Black prisoners are also treated differently immediately before they are executed. Jeff Hood, who has witnessed six executions – three of Black prisoners, three of white – told NPR, “I can definitely tell you that the restraints that I have seen on Black folk have been unquestionably tighter than the restraints that I have seen on white folk.” 

More recently, there has been controversy over a new execution method: nitrogen hypoxia. The state of Alabama has executed two people – Kenneth Smith and Alan Eugene Miller – by nitrogen hypoxia in the last year. The state had previously attempted to execute both Smith and Miller by lethal injection, but correctional workers were unable to place IV lines in either man over the course of several hours. There is another Institute of Human Rights blog post, published in the fall of 2023, that extensively details execution methods. 

Problems of the Death Penalty

Two of the most common reasons given for keeping the death penalty are deterrence and justice. Justice argues an eye for an eye – that, for some crimes, the only possible form of justice is death. That is a philosophical debate, and one I will not discuss today. Instead, I will focus on the effect of the death penalty on homicide rates – deterrence. Deterrence is the idea that the existence of the death penalty deters crime – it reasons that prospective murderers are logical people who will be less likely to kill others if it will result in their death. 

In 2012, the National Research Council conducted a literature review on studies examining any deterring effects executions – and the general presence of the death penalty – have on homicide rates. They concluded that studies had not yet demonstrated any effect capital punishment has on homicide rates and recommended that the “research… should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment.” 

One of the most powerful arguments used by death penalty abolitionists is about wrongful convictions. Someone who is sentenced to life in prison can be released if they are found innocent; that is not so with someone who is dead, such as Marcellus Williams. Wrongful convictions are common; for every eight executions in the United States since 1977, one person sentenced to death was exonerated. 82% of death penalty exonerations are due to official misconduct and 36% of death penalty sentences are overturned. 

Glynn Simmons was exonerated in December 2023 for a crime he did not commit. He spent 48 years in prison. The state knew when he was convicted in 1975 that Simmons was innocent; he was in Louisiana when the crime was committed in Oklahoma. Despite that, it took almost 50 years – 2/3 of Simmons’ life – for him to finally be exonerated. Imprisonment is reversible. Death is not.

A broken chain.
Image 2: A large broken chain. Source: Yahoo Images

What Can Be Changed? 

Activists have worked for decades to reform or eliminate the death penalty. Two organizations that have been involved in numerous exonerations are the Innocence Project and the Equal Justice Initiative. Both organizations provide legal aid to innocent prisoners. Other ways to support change include petitioning state and federal legislators to end or reform the death penalty.

Voting Rights are Human Rights: The Case of the U.S.

As we enter 2024, we constantly think about voting, especially in the United States. Voting is a way to engage with our political system, making our voices heard and shaping our respective country’s history and politics.

Voting is the cornerstone of democratic societies, helping protect individual freedom and collective self-determination. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects voting as a right for individuals to participate in the governance of their country through free and fair elections . However, this might only have been the case for some countries, especially throughout history.

 

Voting sign with blue text and arrow.
Voting sign with blue text and arrow. Source: Flickr

Why Voting Matters

 

Voting may seem to be another task on one’s to-do list and may be seen as a burden; with the need to take time off to vote or go through paperwork to request an absentee ballot, it indeed seems like a lot of work and time is invested into something that does not elicit any visual change. However, the reality is that every vote truly matters. When analyzing the impact of voting, history tells it best. For example, in U.S. history, the 2000 election showed the effect of voting; Al Gore narrowly lost the Electoral College vote to George W. Bush because the latter won Florida by a mere 0.0009%. With each individual vote having a role in influencing history, it is important to note the importance of voting on the national and local levels.

 

The Significance of Voting Rights

 

The importance of voting has not been something reserved for all individuals. Throughout history, voting history has been associated with social justice and human rights, specifically the acquisition of it. Domestically, in the United States, it has been associated with women’s suffrage and civil rights. When reflecting on Seneca Falls in 1848, we see that delegates focused on the idea that all “men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This realization helped birth the idea of voting rights for women, especially at a time when American women were hindered from genuinely exploring their political identity. Even amidst the conflict of World War I, women were able to stay true to their cause and showed their commitment to advancing our country’s interests. This influenced many individuals to allow a change in how women were represented democratically and elicited the ratification of the 19th Amendment of the Constitution.

Beyond suffrage for women, African American suffrage further highlights the importance of voting rights throughout history. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment granted African Americans the right to citizenship; however, this did not mean that all individuals were able to effectively cast their vote due to them being systematically turned away from the bolls. This unfairness led to individuals mobilizing to share their stories and advocate against inequality, poll taxes, literary exams, etc. The push for equity was eventually successful through the passing of the 24th Amendment and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, an encompassing act that prioritized equity in voting rights.

Women voters in Frisco.
Women voters in Frisco. Source: Flickr

Human Rights and Threats to Voting Rights

 

Voting is unequivocally a human right; expressing one’s voice without discrimination is a right, and voting is one way to do so. This action is not only a political right but also a civil right, embodying the importance of preserving and exercising one’s voice.

However, recently, significant challenges domestically and internationally have suppressed these voices. Ranging from gerrymandering  to voter ID laws , different communities are targeted. This undermines the integrity of the voting process globally. In addition, with the rise of misinformation and disinformation, public trust in elections has decreased, posing a great threat to democracy.

As we continue discussions around voting, it is important to highlight historical trends and work effectively to remedy the injustices we see. This series will highlight recent injustices in elections and the infringement on democratic and fair elections worldwide, helping us work through a more equitable global democracy.

 

Please add a hyperlink.

 

Please add a hyperlink.