healthcare – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Accessible, Affordable, and AI: How Artificial Intelligence Can Advance Healthcare Access

Between the Constitution of the World Health Organization, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the human right to a high standard of physical and mental health has been determinedly codified in international law. Providing this is more difficult. According to the World Health Organization, mostly low and lower-middle income countries will experience a healthcare shortage of 11 million workers within five years, and an estimated 4.5 billion people already lacked access to affordable essential care in 2021. Evidently, the global healthcare system needs a lifeline; with staff shortages and unmet needs, this help cannot come soon enough. Despite my criticisms of Artificial Intelligence’s implementation in healthcare due to data failures and biases, there is real potential for Artificial Intelligence to make the human right to health more accessible, affordable, and efficient. From wearable devices to Telehealth to risk and data analysis, the implementation of AI within healthcare systems can help relieve medical professionals from menial tasks, provide better access to health services for the disadvantaged, and aid in the overall efficiency of often bottlenecked healthcare systems.

REMOTE SERVICES & WEARABLE PRODUCTS

The access to one’s human right to adequate healthcare can be largely determined by geolocation; rural populations suffer significantly worse health outcomes than their urban counterparts, largely due to isolation from hospitals and medical professionals. People living in rural areas may not have the time or financial means to access efficient, affordable health services. Artificial Intelligence can help address this disparity by powering remote services such as Telehealth, aiding individuals in contacting physicians, and even potentially generating diagnoses without patients’ having to sacrifice their time or resources to travel. The primary use of AI within Telehealth aims to alleviate scheduling problems by training algorithms to match patients with the proper providers and ensure the smoothness of scheduling and accessing virtual appointments. This could significantly reduce the delay in access to Telehealth services that rural patients can experience.

Adobe Stock, DenPhoto, #290469935
A man measures his heart rate on an Apple Watch

In addition, wearable products utilizing Artificial Intelligence have shown potential in monitoring chronic conditions, eliminating the need for frequent check-ups, and reducing the burden on healthcare providers. Using data collected by wearable devices, AI algorithms can potentially detect signs of health problems and alert those with chronic conditions if their vitals are amiss. Patients can also receive AI-generated reminders to take medications and health check-ins to ensure proper care on a day-to-day basis.

The use of remote Artificial Intelligence technology to provide healthcare services also has the potential to increase access to mental health resources, especially in rural areas, where psychological help may be expensive, far away, or overly stigmatized. AI-driven personal therapists show potential to improve access to mental health services that traditionally are difficult to schedule and afford. Artificial intelligence has been used to analyze sleep and activity data, assess the likelihood of mental illness, and provide services related to mindfulness, symptom management, mood regulation, and sleep aid.

ACCESSIBILITY

On top of increased accessibility for rural residents, various employments of Artificial Intelligence in healthcare have the potential to cater to the needs of those with cognitive or physical disabilities. Models can aid in simplifying text, generating text to speech audio, and providing visual aids to assist patients with disabilities as they receive care and monitor their conditions. The ability of Artificial Intelligence to streamline potentially incomprehensible healthcare interfaces and simplify information can also assist elderly patients in accessing health services. Older people can often be intimidated by the complexity of online healthcare’s technological hurdles, preventing them from effectively accessing their doctors, health records, or other important resources; Artificial Intelligence can be harnessed to adapt user personalization on websites and interfaces to best accommodate the problems an elderly or disabled person may experience trying to access online care.

Generative language models, a particular type of Artificial Intelligence that uses training data to generate content based on pattern recognition, has also been employed to overcome language barriers within medical education. The ability of Artificial Intelligence models to effectively translate educational curriculum has contributed to the standardization of medical practices and standards across countries. The digitalization of this process also makes medical educational material more accessible to those without direct access to a wealth of resources, furthering the World Health Organization’s Digital Health Guidelines, which aims to encourage “digitally enabled healthcare education.” The use of AI as a translation tool within healthcare also shows broader potential to be utilized for patient care, eliminating the need for costly translators and ensuring that non-native speakers fully comprehend their diagnoses and treatments. One example of this is the American company “No Barrier AI”, which employs an AI-driven interpreter to provide immediate, accurate, and cost-effective translation for those with little proficiency in English seeking healthcare.

Side view of a focused elderly man sitting before his laptop — Adobe Stock, Viacheslav Yakobchuk, #390382830
Elderly man accesses health portal from his laptop

PATIENT AND DATA ANALYSIS

A whole other blog post could be dedicated entirely to the use of Artificial Intelligence in hospitals and as an aid to medical professionals. Broadly, the integration of Artificial Intelligence into clerical and administrative tasks, health data analysis, and care recommendations has reduced the time and money spent on the slow, bureaucratic processes that weigh down medical professionals. Nearly 25% of healthcare spending in the United States is devoted to administrative tasks, but according to a McKinsey & Company study, the adoption of AI and machine learning could save the American healthcare industry $360 billion, mostly by assisting with clerical and administrative tasks. For instance, AI systems have proved effective in boosting appointment scheduling efficiency, speeding up an infamously difficult process. Because of its ability to detect, analyze, and predict patterns, Artificial Intelligence has also been utilized to track inventory and increase supply chain efficiency, ensuring proper amounts of essential medical supplies and medicines are in stock when they are most needed.

Beyond managerial and administrative duties, Artificial Intelligence has also been integrated into clinical decision-making, data and visual analysis, risk evaluation, and even the development of medicines. Trained models have proven capable of analyzing data from brain scans, X-rays, other tests, and patient records to detect and predict health problems; this ability to detect patterns and predict outcomes has also enabled early detection of diseases and conditions such as sepsis and heart failure. Medical professionals can take the model’s analysis into account while also considering treatment suggestions from Artificial Intelligence as they proceed with patient care. This can reduce the likelihood of clinical mistakes as doctors can compare their findings with those of the AI model. Artificial Intelligence has also been used in telesurgical techniques to improve accuracy and supervise surgeons as they operate. The integration of Artificial Intelligence has also advanced vaccine development, as it aids in identifying antigen targets, helps predict a particular patient’s immune response to specific vaccinations, creates vaccines tailored to an individual’s genetic makeup and medical needs, and increases the efficiency of vaccine storage and distribution.

These are only a few examples of the potential usefulness of Artificial Intelligence within healthcare settings. The examples are countless and increasing every day, and, as I believe, the potential for further advancement is immeasurable.

Two doctors analyze brain scans on a tablet. — Adobe Stock, peopleimages.com, #1599787893
Two doctors analyze a brain scan with suggestions from AI tech

WHAT WE MUST KEEP IN MIND

While these advancements in the accessibility, affordability, and efficiency of healthcare systems show undeniable promise in accessing the human right to health, the development and integration of these Artificial Intelligence technologies must be undertaken with equality at the center of all efforts. As I highlighted in my last post, it is imperative that underlying societal biases be accounted for and curbed within these models to prevent inaccurate results and further harm to individuals from marginalized groups. A survey at the University of Minnesota found that only 44% of hospitals in the United States conducted evaluations on system bias in the Artificial Intelligence models they employed. It is essential to pursue efforts to ensure that Artificial Intelligence promotes not only the human right to health, but also the human right to freedom from discrimination within healthcare practices, especially those aided by systems potentially riddled with bias based on age, race, ethnicity, nationality, and gender.

These technologies are as practical as they are exciting. Still, as the healthcare industry moves forward, Artificial Intelligence developers and healthcare providers alike must maintain the core ideals of the Human Rights framework– equality, freedom, and justice.

Morocco’s Gen Z Protests – A Fight for Human Rights

On a September night, hundreds of young Moroccans gathered outside Hassan II Hospital in Agadir. In hand? Candles for a woman who recently passed while giving birth due to delayed medical advice. Her death was not just a tragedy; instead, it was a spark that brought hundreds of Moroccan youth together, demanding better healthcare, education, and dignity.

Beginning on September 27th, 2025, hundreds of protesters stormed the streets in Rabat, Casablanca, Agadir, Meknes, and Tangier. Of these individuals, 400+ arrests have been made, and at least two have been killed. The extent of the protest makes it the most significant youth movement in Morocco since 2011.

Photo 1: Protestor getting detained in Meknes, Morocco.
Credit: Yousra Bounuar

What is Gen Z?

Gen Z is made up of young individuals born between 1997 and 2012. Equipped with technological savvy, Gen Z is known to be the most digitally immersed group to date. This unique knowledge strengthens their ability to connect and elicit change.

Global Protests

The protests in Morocco come at a time when Gen Z around the world are organizing with one another. Examples around the world include Nepal, where a recent ban on social media to silence an anti-corruption campaign sparked backlash; Madagascar, where youth are demanding that the government address high levels of poverty and corruption; and Peru, where protesters are also demanding that the state fight corruption. All of this represents a historic trend of Gen Z being known as a generation that seeks momentous change.

The Beginning

The protests in Morocco represent anger towards a system stretched thin. Over the past few years, Morocco has faced myriad burdens that have impacted the community significantly. There is significant youth unemployment, with around 22.1% of youth in the country being unemployed. This limits their ability to support their families and to find opportunities that would support upward socioeconomic mobility.

Beyond this, there are additional burdens that impact Morocco’s healthcare abilities. One is the low doctor-to-patient ratio; especially in the more southern regions, 7.8 doctors can serve around 10,000 patients, which is quite far from the WHO’s recommended ratio. This is seen in tandem with the high maternal mortality rate of women in the country, which stands at around 70 deaths per 100,000 births. Clearly, there are significant disparities that impact the health outcomes of those around the country.

Whilst all of this was happening, the state continued to invest in the FIFA 2030 World Cup stadium. This investment was significant, with billions of dirhams being allocated to build stadiums at the same time that hundreds of healthcare facilities were underfunded.

The Turning Point

The nuances of the burdens faced by Moroccans across the country elicited tensions that bubbled into a full-on protest, catalyzed by the death of a young expectant mother. As the vigil began, hashtags began to flood Moroccan social media. From #GenZ212 to #WeDeserveBetter, thousands were speaking out for the need for investment in the community rather than in stadiums. From education to healthcare, protestors across the country were advocating for additional resources to be funneled to communities, rather than foreign investors. These protests mobilized throughout the entire country, and, as expected, the increased presence of activists led to a corresponding rise in police presence.

Though many protesters were peaceful, armed police used armored vehicles and tear gas to impact the protestors. Videos circulated of rubber bullets and tear gas being administered to protestors. This, in combination with the detention of journalists, resulted in public disorder. The infringement of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression resulted in dangerous outcomes for many involved. With over 400 detained, 37 charged, and at least two deaths, the effects of government intervention are undeniable. It is true that, as a way to address the qualms of the young protestors, the government worked to mobilize social reforms to support development across the country, mainly in rural areas. However, this was in conjunction with the critical increase of police conducting mass arrests and abusing peaceful demonstrators.

The World Is Watching

The violation of various human rights has met with protests in Morocco. By limiting freedom of assembly and engaging in increased policing of expression with the censorship of journalists, there are many explicit violations of human rights that have occurred as a result of the protests. Additionally, the right to health and work are being violated by the underfunded healthcare facilities and unemployment crisis, which creates the need for action. As Morocco is a signatory to both the ICCPR and ICESCR, it is integral that the country upholds these rights not just on paper, but in practice as well. Right now, the current situation is rife with suppression, neglect, and censorship — in direct opposition to the mandates of the ICCPR and ICESCR.

Most recently, the United Nations Human Rights Office called for restraint. This was focused on being able to respect citizens’ right to assembly. With Morocco’s current rank as 129th out of 180 countries on the 2024 World Press Freedom Index, the crisis demonstrates the need for sustainable change in the country.

The Need for Reform

Morocco can work and explore ways to improve the outcomes for its country. The youth in Morocco are not calling for a revolution: they are calling for reform. With improved hospital systems and jobs that sustain families, they want a country that enforces institutions and protects and uplifts its citizenry.

It is essential that Morocco upholds its human rights obligations over international partnerships. When working with the international community, all partners should work to ensure that sports and trade do not come at the expense of the community, accountability, and justice.

Construction and Consequences: The Human Impacts of Artificial Intelligence Data Centers

This summer, I worked with a few different advocacy organizations during Louisiana’s 2025 Congressional Session. The amount of policy issues flying around was mind-spinning, but a constant murmur about the new Meta data center popping up in Richland Parish always seemed to pierce through the chaos. I couldn’t help but think, “Of all the state issues we could be debating, what could be so provocative about a data center?”

Data centers are nothing new; ever since the birth of the Internet, they have been used for the large-scale computing that comes with ever-advancing technology. With the rapid expansion of generative AI, our country is seeing more and more of these processing centers pop up, especially in rural areas. Governments, researchers, and communities alike have been forced to face the glaring reality that comes with the construction and maintenance of new AI data centers: where there are new data centers, there are human lives directly impacted by their creation. Debate on whether these effects are a net positive or negative to these communities has prompted closer examination on the human impact of data centers. Only through a thorough analysis of this ongoing research can we determine the nature and scope of these impacts and explore proper policy responses.

WATER

We rely on water; it’s as simple as that. We need water to drink, bathe, flush the toilet, wash our hands and dishes, and water our crops; it’s a necessity to life, and an officially recognized human right. As much as we need water, data centers are even thirstier. It takes a lot of water to cool down all of the computing that takes place in these buildings. In 2021, just one of Google’s data centers in Oregon used up 355 million gallons of water. In 2023, all of Meta’s data centers worldwide guzzled around 1.4 billion gallons of water. Where is this water coming from? Of Meta’s 1.4 billion gallons, about 672 million gallons came from local water sources. The extraction process is permanent, meaning data centers deplete millions of gallons of water from communities’ local water supply yearly, and with the industry’s rapid expansion, its water consumption will only grow. Some residents living nearby these new data centers, such as Beverley Morris in Mansfield, Georgia, believe that these centers are draining wells and aquifers, leaving locals without drinkable or fully functional running water in their homes. For communities in the Southwest, this could pose an especially pressing threat during droughts as the scarce water supply is divided between industrial and civilian use.

Landon Marston, a professor in environmental and water resources engineering at Virginia Tech University, points out that since companies like Meta and Google tend to choose areas outside of cities to construct these data centers, the surge in water demand could also necessitate water infrastructure updates, the costs of which could fall partly on local ratepayers.

ENERGY

AI data centers require tons of energy. We’re talking 200 trillion watts an hour, and that was only in 2016. The power usage of these data centers is projected to rise to nearly 2967 trillion watts an hour by 2030. The previously flatlined demand for electricity has been increasing nationally since 2023 partly due to the energy-intensive operations of growing data centers. The majority of data centers’ energy relies on fossil fuels and power plants, putting pressure on local energy grids. This increased pressure poses the threat of more frequent, long-lasting, and expensive blackouts for the communities surrounding these energy-hungry data centers.

More pressure on the grid naturally means more pressure to update the grid. Local belief and research alike contend that the cost of these grid updates, as well as the price tag of the extra energy demand, will show up in locals’ energy bills. A Harvard study provides evidence that under-the-table agreements between utilities and Big Tech consumers could be partly responsible for increased rates on everyday residents’ bills. Additionally, in places like Louisiana, the combination of prolonged need for air conditioning and damage to energy infrastructure due to storms drive energy bills up as it is; the intense energy demands of the new data center will serve only to exacerbate the steep cost of energy and amenities in nearby homes and businesses. Utilities are essential to decent quality of life and even employment, tying their accessibility directly to human rights.

A person with a calculator in one hand and a utility bill in the other attempts to calculate what they owe. — Source: Adobe Express, Anna, #529027855

PUBLIC HEALTH

Since AI data centers rely heavily on the fossil-fuel energy of power plants, they run the risk of increasing local pollution and threatening public health in already vulnerable rural locations. AI centers, on top of their energy use from the grid, also employ backup generators in case of grid failure; these diesel generators can release 200 to 600 times more nitrous oxides (NOx) than a natural gas plant while producing the same amount of energy. NOx pollution can cause irritation in the eyes, throat, and nose, as well as more severe cases of respiratory infection, reduced metabolism, and even death. According to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE, data centers caused about $6 billion in public health damages due to this type of air pollution in 2023. That being said, location matters. Often, these data centers choose rural areas, and in cases like that of Bessemer, Alabama, these areas are often home to a large Black population. Black Americans already suffer disproportionately from air pollution and other environmental injustices; in fact, low-income Black Americans have the highest mortality rate due to fine particulate matter air pollution. The emergence of data centers in rural Black communities only serves to exacerbate this phenomenon. This can be directly traced to industrial zoning policies, which often result in the sacrifice of poor, rural, often Black areas to attract business and wealth to cities. The result? Higher rates of asthma, respiratory issues, even pollution-related death, and a direct violation of the human right to clean air.

Smog plumes out of a large plant, polluting the sky. — Source: Adobe Express, Jaroslav Pachý Sr., #175217425

ECONOMY

While industrial zoning and property value are the most important location factors, choosing a lower income, rural area also poses possible economic advantage for the communities. The construction of processing centers can require thousands of workers, offering steady employment opportunities for locals. After construction, companies like Meta, Google, and Microsoft will have to hire employees to keep their data centers managed and running properly, another new job opening for those in the surrounding area. Some locals have expressed excitement over the new economic growth data centers will bring, especially in areas with dwindling industries like coal and timber. Working in data centers is an attractive alternative to the low-paying, dangerous agricultural jobs some of these areas rely on. Others have raised concerns that while many jobs will certainly appear during the construction period of the centers, employment opportunities from data centers seem to fall off afterwards. Depending on the size, each data center building could operate with as little as fifty employees, according to Microsoft. Larger ones like the one developing in Louisiana are required to employ 500 locals, but even that opportunity seems small to some residents in comparison to the harm the center could bring to their community. Members of communities impacted by the development of data centers have also expressed concerns about land usage, pointing out that the extensive land taken up by these new data centers had potential to be used for farming or other less health-damaging economic development. The right to employment good working conditions are outlined directly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these economic impacts could very well jeopardize them for those living in surrounding areas.

What Now?

Artificial Intelligence isn’t going away; in fact, we can expect its rapid expansion in the coming years, including the construction of dozens of new data centers. Behind AI’s captivating technologies, there are human lives impacted by the processes it takes to power its functions. Considering the damage data centers can do to local resources, it certainly seems like measures need to be taken to ensure the escalating growth of AI doesn’t come at the expense of communities, especially those that already face disadvantage. First and foremost, companies establishing these centers should focus on using renewable energy for much of their power, thereby decreasing their environmental impact on local communities. In addition, companies should adopt initiatives to maintain the local water supply’s integrity, recycle water when possible, and ultimately, improve the efficiency of their computing to save resources like water and electricity. Local governments must ensure that the price of increased pressure on electricity and water infrastructure does not end up on ratepayers’ bills; this means more transparency from large companies and their agreements with local utility providers and governments regarding the construction and maintenance of these centers and the impacts on local residents’ well-being. These centers, if built sustainably and with people in mind, could ultimately have a positive impact on industry and economy within these communities. The development of data centers must not concentrate solely on maximum profit and computing power but also on the adverse effects the center has on utility bills, air quality, water demands, the power grid, and public health as a whole.

So, really, it’s no wonder advocates, lobbyists, and policymakers couldn’t stop talking about Richland Parish’s new data center. It’s nearly as big as Manhattan, and its effects on the surrounding community may end up being just as sizable.

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.

Navigating the Impact of NIH Cancer Research Funding Cuts

In early 2025, the U.S. biomedical research community faced significant changes due to substantial reductions in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), particularly affecting cancer research. These developments have sparked widespread discussion among scientists, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public. This blog will aim to provide a balanced examination of the recent NIH funding cuts, their implications for cancer research, and the broader context surrounding these decisions.

Understanding the NIH Funding Reductions

The NIH, a cornerstone of U.S. medical research, has traditionally supported a vast array of studies, including those focused on cancer. In 2025, the administration implemented significant budgetary changes, notably reducing indirect cost reimbursements for research institutions from an average of 60% to a capped rate of 15%. Indirect costs cover essential expenses such as facility maintenance, utilities, and administrative support, which are crucial for the everyday operations of research labs.

These adjustments were part of a broader initiative led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk, aiming to streamline federal spending. The administration projected that these cuts would save approximately $4 billion annually. While fiscal responsibility is important, the abrupt nature of these changes has raised questions about the potential risks to the nation’s biomedical infrastructure.

Implications for Cancer Research

Cancer research is an area where sustained investment has historically led to life-saving innovations. Advances in immunotherapy, targeted drug therapies, and precision medicine have dramatically improved survival rates for several types of cancer. However, these breakthroughs result from years of incremental research, often supported by NIH grants.

The reductions in NIH support have led to concerns about the future of ongoing studies, the initiation of new projects, and the overall momentum in the fight against cancer. Institutions like the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) have expressed apprehension that these funding cuts could delay the development of new therapies and hinder access to clinical trials, especially in underserved communities. Moreover, the potential slowdown in research progress raises concerns about the long-term impact on patient outcomes and the country’s ability to maintain its leadership in biomedical innovation.

Additionally, early-phase research, which often carries the highest risk but also the most potential for groundbreaking discoveries, is especially vulnerable to funding cuts. Many of these projects rely on public funding because they cannot have private investment yet. Without sufficient support, promising leads may never get the chance to be explored.

Economic and Workforce Considerations

Beyond the scientific implications, the funding reductions have economic ramifications. Research institutions across the country rely on NIH grants not only for scientific purposes but also as a large source of employment. The cuts have led to hiring freezes, layoffs, and a general sense of uncertainty within the research community.

Early-career scientists, in particular, face challenges in securing positions and funding, potentially leading to a decline in talent ranging from academics to industry or even other sectors. This shift could have long-term effects on the innovation pipeline and the diversity of research perspectives. The potential loss of highly trained researchers might also compromise the quality of mentorship available to future generations of scientists.

Legal and Political Responses

The funding changes have prompted legal actions and political debates. A coalition of 22 states filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the abrupt changes to NIH funding policies could jeopardize critical research and violate administrative procedures.

In Congress, reactions have been mixed. Some lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to the cuts, emphasizing the importance of sustained investment in medical research. Others have supported the administration’s efforts to reduce federal spending, highlighting the need for fiscal responsibility. The political discourse that’s happening reflects a broader national conversation about the balance between economic efficiency and public investment in science.

People researching in a lab — Image 2: Researchers working in a science lab. Source: Yahoo! Images

International Context and Competitiveness

Another dimension of the funding debate involves the global landscape of cancer research. The United States has long been a leader in biomedical innovation, attracting top talent from around the world. However, as other countries increase their investments in science and technology, funding instability in the U.S. could lead to a shift in the global research balance.

Nations like China, Germany, and South Korea have been expanding their research funding, particularly in emerging areas like gene editing and personalized medicine. Reduced NIH funding could make the U.S. less competitive in these fields, potentially leading to fewer international collaborations and a decline in scientific influence.

Historical Precedents and Lessons

This is not the first time NIH funding has faced uncertainty. Historical data shows that flat or declining NIH budgets have correlated with decreased research productivity and fewer grant applications being funded. During the budget sequestration of 2013, many research projects were delayed or canceled, and similar consequences are anticipated in the wake of the 2025 cuts.

However, the scientific community has also shown resilience. Philanthropic organizations, private foundations, and public-private partnerships have started stepping in to fill funding gaps. For example, the Cancer Moonshot initiative, launched in 2016, allowed both government and private resources to accelerate research. Examples like this may become increasingly important in the future.

Patient Perspectives and Public Engagement

From the perspective of patients and advocacy groups, the funding cuts represent not just a policy shift but a personal concern. Many patients rely on cutting-edge treatments developed through NIH-supported research. Delays in trials or the discontinuation of research programs could directly impact access to new therapies.

Public engagement has become a critical component of the response to the cuts. Grassroots campaigns, petitions, and awareness events have emerged to advocate for restored funding. Organizations like the American Cancer Society and Stand Up To Cancer have mobilized supporters to contact legislators and raise public awareness about the stakes involved.

Looking Ahead: Balancing Efficiency and Innovation

The recent NIH funding cuts show the complex interplay between government policy and scientific advancement. While efforts to streamline government spending are a legitimate aspect of public administration, it’s essential to consider the possible long-term consequences of these actions on critical areas like cancer research.

As the nation navigates these changes, continuing conversations among stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, patients, and the public, is necessary to ensure that the U.S. continues encouraging innovation while maintaining fiscal prudence. Collaborative funding models, greater transparency in policy decisions, and increased support for early-career researchers should ideally all play a role in adapting to the new funding landscape.

Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that scientific progress continues and that the U.S. remains a major player in cancer research and healthcare innovation.

The Human Rights Concerns of Migration into North Africa

The human rights violations noted against Sub-Saharan African migrants have been increasing exponentially across North Africa, specifically in Tunisia. Tunisia is a transit country for many migrants to reach Europe, being the most significant departure point for migrants crossing the Mediterranean; the physical actions against migrants and the political bias have inherently made it difficult for many different communities to continue their journey.

History of Sub-Saharan Immigration

Photo 1: Photo of a refugee camp.Source: Flickr — Photo 1: Photo of a refugee camp.
Source: Flickr

For hundreds of years, people have migrated from Sub-Saharan Africa to Northern Africa; in 2020, it was estimated that 61 percent of migrants into North Africa were from Africa. Tunisia has been a key destination because it is relatively stable both socioeconomically and politically. Irregular migration into the country has been pertinent since the early 1990s. However, a surge in migration was observed in 2011, when over 27,000 migrants were intercepted in Tunisia with plans to continue to Europe. A similar spike was noted in early 2020, with over 35,000 migrants intercepted when departing from the country. These values tell the story of those who were intercepted by the government and do not account for those who weren’t able to complete their journey beyond Tunisia.

Largely, migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa are males who have taken the step into a new journey to hopefully promise a better life for their families; these individuals are quite young, being anywhere from 18 to 35 years old. Generally, there are varying reasons why people migrate to Tunisia; data collected in 2018 suggests that 52% of migrants emigrated for economic reasons, 22 percent migrated to study, and 25 percent are potential victims of human trafficking. All of these come via different routes; though land routes are quite popular, an overwhelming majority of migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa come by air travel, leveraging visa-on-arrival opportunities. As these are often three-month tourist visas, many overstay the visa to work in different fields ranging from tourism to hospitality to construction. Beyond those visas, other avenues are explored by migrants to enter Tunisia; one is that of human-smuggling networks. These networks are oftentimes characterized by two-fold movements: into Tunisia via land and then outside of Tunisia via maritime routes. For those without passports, many individuals pay hundreds of dollars to get to North Africa.

Drivers of Migration

When faced with difficulties, many people seek out-migration as an avenue to explore. One reason why migration into Tunisia has increased is economic burdens. The World Bank has estimated that youth unemployment in Sub-Saharan Africa is around 10.2 percent. This has resulted in many youths moving to North Africa to seek out new opportunities.

Another factor is environmental factors. With increased burdens associated with climate change, such as increased temperatures and deteriorating soil quality, it is observed as a driver, as well. By 2025, Sub-Saharan Africa could see as many as 86 million climate migrants; though this number is represented by a value of internal and external migration, this has been a force that has impacted current migration patterns into Tunisia.

Domestic Concerns

To respond to the increased migration, the Tunisian government has had a unique role in the development of action. While Tunisia has been vocal about human rights and has demonstrated international support, the application of their signatures often falls short.

Raids and arrests, outlining attacks against human rights, have been increasing significantly. This, coupled with improper immigration-specialized facilities, has resulted in many people not being treated fairly. These centers have not met international standards, according to international observers like OMCT (World Organization Against Torture), due to inadequate sanitary conditions and poor infrastructure. To respond to these abuses and oversight, the government of Tunisia established the National Authority for the Prevention of Torture, which has unfortunately faced limited access to detention centers, further allowing continuous attacks against the human rights of those in detainment.

Human Right Abuses

Different abuses have been noted against Sub-Saharan migrants in Tunisia. Physical violence has been most prominent during arrests, raids, and detainment. Over 85 percent of Black Africans had reported violence from these security forces. These abuses have been conducted by police, the National Guard, and many other entities.

Medical abuse is also quite prominent as well, especially for those in detention facilities. Many migrants are uneducated about the nuances of Tunisian healthcare in the country and their access rights. This results in inaccurate information being more accessible than a healthcare professional. Within the conversation of accessing healthcare, there is a unique level of pressure put on female migrants; though there are not as many women who migrate to Tunisia, those who do face challenges ranging from building rapport with the health system, accessing insurance information for prenatal care, and navigating social implications of feminine care.

Mental health is also a huge issue for many migrants in Tunisia; an overwhelming 47 percent of migrants experience depression, 10 percent experience adaptation stress, and 9 percent experience PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). These, coupled with the general stress of migration and the expectation to reach Europe, can have overwhelming effects on their mental health. Without the resources necessary to treat it, they are left even more vulnerable than when they came.

Economic exploitation is another abuse noted against Sub-Saharan African Migrants in Tunisia. 35% of migrant workers experience poor working conditions, many of whom eventually change jobs for a plethora of reasons ranging from exploitation, which is the most frequent incident, to violence to harassment. As many of these workers participate in the informal economy, as young people generally make up 32 percent of the informal sector, they are not equally as protected compared to those who are in the formal sector.

When looking at the abuses against communities, it is integral that international communities advocate against these injustices and work to support vulnerable communities like migrant ones. Without checks and balances, support is limited for these communities, allowing systematic discrimination to take precedence.

Japan’s Public Health Diplomacy: A Pillar for Advancing Global Human Rights

When thinking about Japan, remembrance of its rich history and culture may come to mind. However, unknown to most is Japan’s role on the global stage for public health diplomacy. Ranging from international development to research investments, Japan has contributed to the expansion of health as a fundamental right, as stated by Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Japan’s commitment to human rights is prominent through expanding global health equity, prioritizing universal access, improving technological innovation, and assisting with disaster relief.

Background of Japan’s Public Health Diplomacy

Public health diplomacy is the use of diplomatic channels and strategies to help address global health challenges. This ranges from the development of multilateral partnerships, domestic offices, funding opportunities, and more; with the main focus on addressing health issues, any avenue can be explored to address the nuances. The cultural foundation of Japan emphasizes its role as an international power; Japan’s ethos of wa, meaning harmony, and omotenashi, meaning hospitality, has further accelerated its role in space.

Japan’s emergence as a global health power began after World War II when it was developing its own healthcare infrastructure. In 1922, the Health Insurance Act was developed; this was in parallel to the German social insurance model that was managed jointly between employers and employees. In 1961, under this act, Japan finally achieved a universal healthcare system. This was done by developing the same fee schedules for all plans and requiring providers to maintain equity through contained costs. To further support underrepresented communities, subsidies were available for elderly people and children.

The strong domestic foundation developed by Japan opened up an opportunity for it to serve as a global leader as well. Since joining the WHO (World Health Organization) in 1956, it has contributed millions of dollars, giving over US$ 218 million in the 2020-2021 year to the WHO and US$ 50 million to the Contingency Fund for Emergencies; it has mobilized a lot of financial support, which has then supported humanitarian crisis in countries across the world.

Photo 1: Photo of Japan Medical Assistance Team jacket.Source: Flickr — Photo 1: Photo of Japan Medical Assistance Team jacket.
Source: Flickr

Japan’s Current Initiatives

With the successful implementation of universal health coverage, Japan has been a leader in mobilizing it in other countries. One way it has done so was through the 2017 UHC (Universal Healthcare) Forum in Tokyo. This forum, organized in collaboration with JICA (Japanese International Cooperation Agency), UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), and the World Bank Group, discussed the urgency of making progress towards universal health coverage by engaging over 40 countries to motivate action towards equity for all communities. Beyond that of programmatic support, the World Bank-Japan Joint UHC Initiative has developed the analytics needed to contribute to the progress towards international UHC. This support has also been tried through bilateral collaborations; for example, Myanmar received around US$ 19 million in universal health coverage support from Japan, helping build its international health portfolio. With universal health coverage, health equities can be reduced across the globe.

Beyond that of universal health coverage, Japan has contributed to the development of valuable maternal and child health initiatives across the globe. Through programs and partnerships with entities like JICA, people can receive the training they need to support women and children who are systematically vulnerable communities. An example of their specific support is noted in Cambodia; by providing financial support and programmatic avenues, maternal mortality rates decreased significantly from the increased training for midwives and the improved clinics.

Even beyond that of the Asian continent, Japan has worked to develop programs in Africa to improve maternal health outcomes. An example of this is the Safe Motherhood program in Kenya. The program, developed in 1987, helped reduce maternal mortality by 50% in the country. Analyzing maternal and child healthcare is foundational to achieving gender equality and prioritizing sustainable development.

Japan is also strong in mobilizing support for disease relief and recovery assistance. The Japan Disaster Medical Assistance Teams have been trained to address domestic and international issues; rooted in Japan’s own history in disaster relief, their role on the global stage is prominent. For example, after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, Japan provided over US$ 320 million in support that was mobilized as emergency assistance after the earthquake or in development assistance; this ranged from providing emergency relief goods, like jerry cans, to assisting with rehabilitating the water supply system. Another example is the US$ 500 million pledge to assist with the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami; the multilateral support to all impacted countries was integral to their redevelopment and solidified Japan’s role as a key actor in global health diplomacy, helping restore health services to ensure affected populations are able to come back to their normal health levels.

Japan’s Model for Success

Japan is a leader in global health diplomacy and can share many insights with other nations and entities to improve their presence on the global stage as well. Despite domestic challenges of aging populations and criticisms for low refugee intake, their holistic approach is a strong suit. By combining technological innovations, hospitality, and multilateralism, they have been able to provide culturally sensitive care to countries around the world. As they contribute to work in health diplomacy, it is valuable to underline all efforts with the continued advocacy for health as a fundamental human right, addressing challenges that might exist proactively. By working to play their role, Japan has improved not only the health but the lives of millions of people across the world.

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.

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 2^nd, 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 2^nd. 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.

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

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.

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.

American Psychiatric Abuses: Residential Treatment Facilities

Content warning: this blog will include mentions of child abuse, child self-harm, child suicide, and child sexual abuse.

Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities (PRTFs) are in-patient institutions that provide inpatient psychiatric care to people under the age of 21. They are a common form of short-term psychiatric care for young people. Children do not choose to be committed to these facilities, and they do not want to be. Two children said they were being treated like animals. Many said, “I don’t feel safe.”

Physical Abuse

Children in PRTFs are extremely vulnerable due to both psychiatric issues and the nature of living in institutionalized care. Facilities are often understaffed, leading to minimal supervision and increased opportunities for abuse – by staff and other children.

Staff members at PRTFs have frequent opportunities to abuse their charges. A staff member at Cumberland Hospital in Virginia “poured scalding water on a non-verbal 16-year-old.” An 11-year-old boy from Arkansas was pushed down, had his hair pulled, and had a staff member place her foot in his back. A staff member at Devereaux Brandywine in Pennsylvania was found guilty of assault after she “punched and kicked a 14-year-old in the head, face, and body until the child was unconscious.” In December 2023, a staff member at a facility in Arkansas told a police officer, “I went in there, and I basically twisted his ear real hard in order to get him off the bed, which we’re not supposed to touch them.” A staffer at a facility in South Carolina “hit the child twice, including punching the child in the head.” At a Devereux facility in Viera, Florida, a staff member hit a boy on his neck, leaving marks. It is sad that state governments pay pay thousands of dollars daily for children to be abused by their caretakers.

Further, due to apathy and unawareness from staff, children are also able to abuse other children in PRTFs. At Riverside Hospital in Virginia, a child was “repeatedly stabbed by another child.” At North Star Behavioral Health in Alaska, after two children were accidentally placed in seclusion together, one child gave the other a bloody nose. At the same Alaska facility, a child was “punched, slapped in the eye, and kicked by other children.”

None of these instances of abuse were reported to the children’s guardians in a timely manner. Some parents were never notified.

Sexual Abuse

A caregiver at Lighthouse Care Center of Augusta, in Augusta, Georgia, was arrested and convicted of child molestation. An employee at a facility in Alabama was sentenced after sexually abusing a 13-year-old boy she should have been caring for. A man working at a facility in Chicago was charged with three counts after sexually assaulting minors in his care. A Utah man pled guilty to sexually abusing three male students at a residential school he worked at.

Staff members also allow sexual abuse to occur between children. At Devereux Brandywine in Pennsylvania, a 13-year-old boy asked not to be placed in a room with an older boy he was afraid of. They were placed as roommates, and “the older boy forced the younger child to perform oral sex on him on three successive nights in a walk-in closet.” This is one of many equally disturbing instances of staff enabling sexual abuse at facilities. One facility in New Mexico closed partially due to “the unchecked spread of HIV among patients” – something that brings to mind the hepatitis experiments of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s at Willowbrook State School, an infamous institution in New York.

Image 2: A postcard from Willowbrook State School. Source: Yahoo Images

Neglect and Unsafe Environments

Staff at PRTFs are often unable or unwilling to prevent children from harming themselves. Disability Rights Arkansas, the Protection & Advocacy Agency for Arkansas, reported that one girl “still had access to items to cut her arms. There were numerous new scars over her old scars.” The staff did not care. Another child at the same facility said that she had “used the second stall [with cracked and sharp shower tiles] to self-harm.” The staff did not care. If they had, the children in their care would be safe. A child at Palmetto Pines Behavioral Health in South Carolina “barricaded themselves inside of his suicide watch room…[and] used the plastics piece to cut his neck in an attempt to kill himself, but it was not sharp enough.” The staff did not care. A child at Provo Canyon School in Utah “caused personal injury during self-harm, with wounds that were one and two inches in length… through the fatty tissue.” At Oak Plains Academy in Tennessee, two 15-year-olds overdosed on Benadryl. The mother of one of them said, “I’ll never see her again; I just want justice for her; I just want her story told. And I want – I never want this to happen again to anyone.”

Image 3: A box of Benadryl. Source: Yahoo Images

Minority Children

Children who are also members of minoritized groups, especially children of color and LGBTQIA+ children, have even greater difficulties in PRTFs.

According to a Senate report, “[T]he longer an RTF stay, the longer a child is at risk of exposure to harms, including the use of restraints and seclusion, physical and sexual abuse, insufficient education, and substandard living conditions. This risk is heightened for children of color, LGBTQIA+ youth, and children with I/DD (intellectual/developmental disabilities) who are most likely to live in these settings.” Black children are 35% more likely than white children to be placed in institutionalized care facilities.

Cornelius Frederick, a 16-year-old Black boy from Michigan, was killed at a facility in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in April 2020. Seven male staff members restrained Frederick for 12 minutes. The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide – asphyxiation.

In 2018, a gay 16-year-old was attacked while residing at St. John’s Academy, a Sequel facility in Florida. His attacker told him that he “didn’t want a fa***t in the pod.” Disability Rights Washington reported that two “crisis plans” for children residing at PRTFs used incorrect gendered pronouns when referring to the child. In 2020, two transgender girls resided at Sequel Courtland in Courtland, Alabama – a boys’ facility. One girl was being stalked by other residents. She did not feel safe.

Further Information

For further reading about the kinds of abuses that go on in these facilities, consider reading a blog I wrote in April about group homes. You can also reach out to local representatives about ending or reducing out-of-state institutionalizations, which are harder to investigate than in-state institutions.

Tragic Killing of a Corporal and the Urgent Need to End Female Genital Mutilation

by Grace Ndanu

The Kenya Girls Guide Association hosted a rally against FGM during 16 Days of Activism in 2011. Source: Yahoo Images

The killing of Corporal Mushote Boma on December 15, 2023, in Elgeyo Marakwet County, Kenya, has brought to light the deeply entrenched issue of female genital mutilation (FGM) and the urgent need for increased awareness and action to eliminate this harmful practice. The tragic incident, where Corporal Boma was stoned to death by a mob of young men after rescuing a group of girls who had been forced to undergo FGM, signifies a significant setback in the fight against this violation of human rights in Kenya.

Female genital mutilation, also known as female genital cutting or female circumcision, is a practice that involves altering or injuring the female genitalia for non-medical reasons. FGM is a harmful practice and a violation of the rights of girls and women. It can lead to severe physical, emotional, and psychological consequences, including but not limited to severe bleeding, infections, complications during childbirth, and long-term psychological trauma. The World Health Organization (WHO) has classified FGM into four types, with type 3 being the most severe, involving the removal of all external genitalia and the stitching of the vaginal opening.

According to reports, the incident involving the Corporal occurred when the police were taking the rescued girls to the hospital after the illegal FGM procedure. It is a grim reminder of the challenges faced by law enforcement officers and activists in combating such deeply rooted harmful practices. Despite the ban on FGM in Kenya, the practice still persists in certain areas, often conducted during school holidays, using crude methods and tools by individuals who continue to defy the law.

It is essential to understand that the practice of FGM is not limited to Kenya but is prevalent in many African countries, as well as in some parts of Asia and the Middle East. The complexity of cultural, social, and traditional beliefs and practices surrounding FGM makes the fight against it particularly challenging.

An infographic on FGM, including information about how many girls and women are impacted by it, practiced in over 30 different countries around the world. Source: Yahoo Images — An infographic on FGM, including information about how many girls and women are impacted by it, is practiced in over 30 different countries around the world. Source: Yahoo Images

In the wake of Corporal Boma’s tragic killing, there is an urgent need for heightened awareness and education about the dangers of FGM. The involvement of communities, religious leaders, and other stakeholders is crucial in effectively addressing and eliminating this harmful practice. There is a pressing need for community-based interventions focused on education, awareness, and empowering women and girls.

Furthermore, it is imperative for the Kenyan government and other relevant authorities to take decisive action and strengthen the enforcement of laws against FGM. Perpetrators of FGM must be brought to justice to send a clear message that this harmful practice will not be tolerated in any form. The government should collaborate closely with local organizations and international partners to develop and implement comprehensive strategies to combat FGM effectively.

The media can play a pivotal role in raising awareness about FGM and shaping public opinion on the issue. Media campaigns and educational programs can provide crucial information on the physical and psychological consequences of FGM, dispel myths and misconceptions, and promote positive social norms around the issue. Additionally, the media can highlight success stories of communities that have abandoned the practice of FGM, inspiring others to follow suit.

At the global level, the international community plays a vital role in supporting efforts to combat FGM. International organizations, including the United Nations and its specialized agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations, have been advocating for the elimination of FGM through various programs and initiatives. These efforts range from providing direct assistance to affected communities, conducting research and data collection, advocating for policy changes, and supporting grassroots organizations working at the local level.

Some resources laid out for community members to learn about the dangers of FGM. It includes pamphlets, brochures, and a 3D model used to teach about different types of FGM. — Some resources are laid out for community members to learn about the dangers of FGM. It includes pamphlets, brochures, and a 3D model used to teach about different types of FGM. Source: Yahoo Images

The killing of Corporal Mushote Boma serves as a stark reminder of the urgent action needed to eliminate the harmful practice of female genital mutilation. It is crucial to work collectively to raise awareness, educate communities, and enforce laws to protect the rights of girls and women. This tragic incident must galvanize individuals, communities, and governments to address FGM comprehensively and put an end to this barbaric practice.

The world must unite to protect the rights and well-being of girls and women globally and ensure that no one else suffers the same fate as Corporal Mushote Boma. By fostering a culture of respect for human rights and gender equality and by promoting positive social norms and behaviors, we can strive to create a world where every girl and woman has the right to live free from the fear and trauma of female genital mutilation. Together, we can work towards a future where every girl and woman can fulfill her potential without being subjected to the physical and emotional pain of FGM.

The tragic killing of Corporal Boma is a solemn call to action, and it must be responded to with determination, compassion, and unwavering commitment to bringing an end to the harmful practice of female genital mutilation once and for all.