healthcare – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

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

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

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

Prescription Control as a Barrier to Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Access Denied: Real-World Consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rethinking Risk, Rethinking Responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: The Right to Decide

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

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.

Disproportionate Deaths: Black Mothers

by Abigail Shumate

*The use of gender-affirming language is incredibly important, and it is vital to remember that women are not the only people capable of giving birth or the only people subjected to maternal risks. Unfortunately, research on transgender, intersex, and nonbinary births is incredibly limited, so for the sake of concision, this post will refer to the maternal mortality crisis largely in the context of women. *

Maternal Mortality

Maternal mortality is perceived as a thing of the past. In the 21^st century few feel as apprehensive about the idea of them or a loved one giving birth as they would have in centuries prior. One group that does not share this same luxury is black mothers. In America, black women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women. Causing these issues are years’ worth of issues, including differences in the quality of healthcare, implicit bias, and structural racism.

With 80% of pregnancy-related deaths being preventable, it empowers no one to learn that Alabama is one of the greatest perpetrators of maternal mortality with the third highest rate in the country. A piece of anecdotal evidence that I stumbled upon while researching this topic is local to not only Birmingham, but to UAB as well. A former faculty member of UAB, Angelica Lyons, was subjected to pregnancy-related trauma that was, simply put, unnecessary and preventable. Lyons, after emphatically describing her symptoms to her doctors, was brushed off and the severity of her symptoms was not realized. Because of this neglect, she was forced to live with an undiagnosed case of sepsis that resulted in an emergency C-section months before her due date. Fortunately, both she and her baby survived although it was a close call for the Lyons mother. This is not an atypical experience for women of color, and black women specifically. Historical bias against black women results in many doctors dismissing their pain as typical or as something they can handle.

To understand the racism incorporated in the gynecological field, it is important to briefly address the history of gynecology. Gynecological science began in the 1840s, when J. Marion Sims, the so-called “father of gynecology,” performed experimental C-sections on black slaves without any anesthetics. This inhumane treatment continued after the abolition of slavery, with unnecessary hysterectomies being performed on black women. Dr. Deirdre Cooper Owens said it best when she stated, “the advancement of obstetrics and gynecology had such an intimate relationship with slavery, and was literally built on the wounds of Black women,” Following this, black families were kept from white hospitals with substantial funding until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act did not completely eliminate the disparity, and healthcare discrimination still follows us to this day.

Alternate Text: Photo of a University of Alabama at Birmingham building, displaying the words “University Hospital.” Source: Flickr — Photo of a University of Alabama at Birmingham building, displaying the words “University Hospital.” Source: Flickr

Maternity Deserts

One cause of inadequate care for all mothers is maternity deserts. Maternity deserts are counties that have no hospitals offering obstetric care, no birthing centers, and no obstetric providers. Over two million women between the ages of 15 and 44 live in these maternity deserts, and between 2020 and 2022, the number of counties determined to be maternity deserts increased. Maternity deserts disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic neighborhoods (although, this post focuses on black mothers, as the difference between black and white mothers tends to be starker). Maternity deserts often have lower access to transportation as well, and these transportation barriers can hinder the utilization of prenatal care.

Alternate Text: Photo of an industrial city, featuring train tracks, cranes, and various types of buildings. Source: Flickr — Photo of an industrial city, featuring train tracks, cranes, and various types of buildings. Source: Flickr

A Broader Scale

Health disparities amongst black people are not isolated to maternal issues. Black people must struggle with medical practitioners throughout their entire lives. Doctors habitually brush away the concerns of black people of all ages, causing them to be misdiagnosed, and resulting in worse treatment than their white counterparts, or no treatment at all. As written about in this post, this begins when black people are in utero and can lead to lifelong health conditions that are misunderstood and under-addressed.

For example, black children are more likely to have asthma and less likely to have treatment. There are many reasons for this; however, I am choosing to focus on the long-term effects of Jim Crow laws. Unfortunately, many areas with below-average housing (or areas located near toxic sites) are the same areas that were the result of previous redlining. Comparatively, 4 in 10 black children live in areas plagued by poor environmental factors, as opposed to just 1 in 10 white children. People are quick to discount the social factors that play into conditions such as asthma; however, many scientists agree that structural conditions can worsen asthma and cause certain groups to be unable to obtain treatment.

Later in life, black people are more likely not only to have Alzheimer’s, but they are also less likely to be properly diagnosed, which delays or prevents their ability to get treatment (not dissimilar to the conditions referenced above). Statistically, black people who are over 65 are 4% more likely to have Alzheimer’s than white people (14% versus 10%), but it is likely that this disparity is even larger due to said misdiagnosis.

Alternate Text: Photo of a blue inhaler. Source: Flickr — Photo of a blue inhaler. Source: Flickr

Progress

While black maternal mortality is still an incredibly pertinent issue, progress has been made in recent years. In 2019, two members of the House of Representatives, Lauren Underwood and Alma Adams, created the Black Maternal Health Caucus. This caucus is one of the largest bipartisan groups in Congress, and its goal is to “work with…partners in industry, nonprofits, and the Administration to find solutions to ending disparities and achieving optimal birth outcomes for all families”. One creation by the caucus is the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act, or more casually, the Momnibus. The Momnibus aims to address the maternal mortality crisis through investments in every aspect that may exacerbate mortality rates. It includes 13 bills that aim to enlarge the perinatal workforce so that it addresses diversity needs, extend the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) eligibility so that mothers can have support for longer periods of time after giving birth, increase support for mothers who are incarcerated, invest in federal programs that benefit mothers and infants during public health crises, promote vaccination among mothers, and more.

Another move towards progress is with President Biden’s proposed 2024 budget. This budget incorporates $471 million in funding. One of the tangible things that it will include is Medicaid for twelve months postpartum. These efforts are admirable beginning steps; however, the work is far from complete.

Shackling and Psychosocial Disabilities

by Blue Teague

An empty room with three windows, all with long, sheer curtains. The two ceiling lights are off. Nothing but light can be seen outside the windows. Photo by Hans Eiskonen on Unsplash.

Mental Health, Autonomy, and Psychosocial Disability

In 1887, Elizabeth Seaman—better known as Nellie Bly—published Ten Days in a Mad-House, a collection of articles she had previously written for Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World. Along with cementing her status as a World journalist, her raw, unfiltered reporting offered thousands of readers a rare glimpse into a mysterious frontier: American mental asylums.

A Pennsylvania native, Bly’s anonymous newspaper pieces championing women’s rights soon evolved into a career based on investigative journalism. However, complaints from her subjects resulted in newspaper executives assigning her to less controversial topics. After years of rejection and gender discrimination, Bly made a last-ditch attempt to save her career by approaching Pulitzer directly and weaseling her way into a novel undercover assignment. Critics had called her insane her entire life for her risky stories, and now she had to play the part.

Bly’s articles quickly garnered attention for numerous reasons. For one, the story itself was sensational. After successfully feigning insanity with odd mannerisms and facial expressions, Bly found herself in New York City’s Women’s Lunatic Asylum after a medical professional declared her clinically insane. There she remained for ten days despite immediately dropping the act. During this period, staff allegedly attributed her every move, including normal behavior, to her supposed mental illness. This would have perpetually prevented her release had outside contacts not stepped into vouch for her sanity. By this time, Bly had risen to minor celebrity as New York questioned where this “pretty crazy girl” had even come from.

However, it was Bly’s description of the institution’s conditions that quickly spread through the masses. Her multi-page articles detailed the physical abuse, gross negligence, and psychological harm patients endured.

Sanitation was poor. Disease was rampant. Food and potable water were scarce, and the staff frequently resorted to physical and verbal beatings when dealing with those under their care. Upon her exit, Bly stated that she believed many women there were as sane as herself. If anything, the asylum’s treatment of already vulnerable women caused insanity.

Eventually, a grand jury launched its own investigation into Blackwell Island’s institution, the parent of the Women’s Lunatic Asylum. Despite immense budget increases, the institution shut down a few years later in 1894.

A dilapidated wooden shed with some white paint on the door and bottom boards. It has two windows with broken glass and rusty frames. Behind it its dense woods. Photo by Lilartsy on Unsplash.

Life in Mental and Physical Shackles

Despite Bly’s work sparking outrage over a century ago, inhumane treatment of those with mental health disorders—or psychosocial disabilities—continues today. According to the World Health Organization, 1 in 8 people live with mental health issues. Without adequate support and resources, these conditions can quickly become disabling. Psychosocial disabilities share strong correlations with higher poverty rates, increased medical discrimination, occupational inequity, and other factors contributing to a generally lower quality of life.

In 2020, Human Rights Watch released 56-page document reporting rights violations of the mentally ill. “Shackling,” a recurring theme, was found in 60 countries across six continents.

Shackling is an involuntary type of hyper-restrictive housing. Although it does not include shackles specifically, restraints such as ropes, chains, and wires are commonplace methods in keeping the victim in extremely close quarters. These areas can be sheds, closets, or even caves. Similar to the asylums in Bly’s era, sanitation is a luxury. The detained person often eats, drinks, and defecates in the same space with little ability to prevent contamination.

The motives and background around shackling is a complex cultural issue. Some offenders tend to be family members who, despite loving the person, lack the resources and/or education to deal with mental health crises. Keeping the person confined can appear to be the safest option when confronted with the possibility of them hurting themselves or others.

Additionally, social stigma can create even more danger for the family as a whole as well as the mentally ill individual. Instead of risking exile or ostracization from the community, families may seek alternative healing methods at home, such as herbal remedies, that lack significant medical backing. This, in turn, can intensify psychosocial disability, leaving the family overwhelmed and confused with few options.

A photograph of a medical IV stand holding and empty IV bag on a dark background. Photo by Marcelo Leal on Unsplash.

Abuse at the Systemic Level

However, abuse does not just occur at the familial level. Mistreatment and abuse flourish in large institutions. The institutions go by many names: asylums, mental hospitals, psychiatric healing centers, etc. These are establishments, often state-funded, purposefully keeping those with psychosocial disabilities away from the general population. Although the institutions usually operate under the pretext of healing and protecting the mentally ill, many criticize the asylum system for blatant human rights offenses.

The abuse is systemic when many perpetrators organize and hide the mistreatment of victims. One such man, “Paul,” shared his experience with reporter Kriti Sharma from HRW’s Disability Rights Division. Paul had lived for five years in a religious healing center in Kenya. He said, “It makes me sad…It’s not how a human being is supposed to be. A human being should be free.”

Paul and his companions walked in chains—literal shackles—and were not allowed clothing. His restroom was a bucket.

In the USA, a wave of deinstitutionalization in the 1970s shuttered many mental asylums, and psychiatric facilities still operating do so with varying levels of success. New York City’s mayor Eric Adams recently announced an expansion of a law allowing months-long involuntary commitment to hospitals for those who, due to mental illness, failed to acquire “basic needs” such as shelter and food. Hospitalization would, in theory, provide the psychosocially disabled with the time and education to recover and start anew.

Opponents quickly pointed out flaws in this process.

As with shackling, involuntary hospitalization represents a loss of autonomy. In a 2022 article in The Guardian, Ruth Sangree reflects on the USA’s changing legislation by connecting it to her own experiences. She describes the monotonous isolation, undercurrent of fear, confusion resulting by the sudden loss of control over her own life. As a nineteen-year-old with no idea of when she would be “set free,” Sangree focused on appearing normal in fear of indefinite hospitalization, regardless of the effectiveness of treatments.

There stands the argument of many critics of institutions: the system is ineffective at best and traumatic at worst. Still, rebuttals exist. In one Times piece, retired employees from a California asylum vouch for the happiness of their patients, stating they “blossomed” when provided with regimen and shelter. This view forms the defense for New York’s law revision, which frames involuntary hospitalization as a compassionate action for the patient’s own well-being.

Objectively, both sides claim to want the same thing: a better quality of life for those with psychosocial disabilities. It has always been the how that stirs debate.

Eight people of varying skin and sleeve colors standing in a circle with one hand each stacked on top of each other's. — Eight people of varying skin and sleeve colors standing in a circle with one hand each stacked on top of each other’s. Photo by Hannah Busing on Unsplash.

The Future of Mental Health Care

One factor in the corruption of institutional systems lies in language. Terms like “healing center” and “asylum” have historically protected potential perpetrators from legal action. Nellie Bly’s work helped lift the veil around mental health and disability, peeling away the euphemisms to reveal the abuse of a vulnerable population.

Today, watch groups exist for this reason. Organizations such as the Alabama Disability Advocacy Program (ADAP) examine the care of people with disabilities in facilities like hospitals, nursing homes, and schools, where caregivers can easily take advantage of those under their care. If rights violations are found, they can work with the facility to improve conditions or take legal action. These organizations exist on a state and national level in the USA.

Individuals can make a difference by simply learning about mental health and advocating for equal treatment of those with mental health conditions. #BreakTheChains is a movement led by Human Rights Watch with goals of educating communities to prevent the chaining of men, women, and children with psychosocial disabilities.

Additionally, awareness is key—October is recognized as mental health awareness month, and invisible disabilities week is in late October. Psychosocial disability month specifically takes place in July.

International Day of Science and Peace

by Wajiha Mekki

November 10 is the International Day of Science and Peace (IDSP), also known as the World Science Day for Peace and Development. The United Nations host this international event.

History of IDSP

Established in 1986, this historical day was initially developed to commemorate the birth of Marie Curie, a notable physicist and humanitarian. Curie was known for her innovative work within radioactivity, contributing to the discovery of radium and polonium. By 1999, its purpose changed to reflect the global needs of the scientific and humanitarian community, utilizing the day to affirm the global commitment to attaining the goals of the Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge. The day and annual summit unite governmental, intervention mental, and non-governmental organizations meaningfully to promote international solidarity for shared sciences between countries and renew the global commitment to use science to benefit communities that need it most.

The overall goal of IDSP is to help achieve the UN 2030 Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, creating a plan for prosperity for people and the planet.

ISDP 2023

The 2023 theme for IDSP will be “Bridging the Gap: Science, Peace, and Human Rights.” This emphasizes the interconnectedness between science and peace, having a role in advancing human rights. Science is a valuable tool for making technological advancements, but it is also helpful in helping address social issues, reducing conflicts, and sustainably promoting human rights.

Photo of space shuttle near body of water.
Source: Flickr

Science and Human Rights

Science is frequently associated with helping improve medical interventions, solving coding bugs, and completing mathematical equations. However, contrary to popular belief, science is essential to human rights. Firstly, science has a valuable role in promoting sustainable development. Utilizing scientific methods, data can be collected to quantify the progress toward fulfilling the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ranging from climate change to poverty to infant mortality, scientific data collection and analysis methods are needed to efficiently and effectively respond to global issues. Research and innovation also contribute to the mobilization of resources to historically underserved communities, allowing them to gain access to necessities.

Within innovation, shared desires and interests help unite countries with singular goals. Scientific diplomacy is valuable in bringing countries to the table of collaboration. This deepens connections between countries as it relates to trade and commercial interests and helps foster peaceful relationships, prioritizing human rights.

With the appropriate distribution of resources, scientific advancements help improve the quality of life for communities internationally. Applying what is traditionally “scientific” to communities gives them a chance to live a better quality of life in a cleaner environment.

It is available to educate the public about the vital role of science and encourage innovation to solve global challenges.

How Countries Can Get Involved

Beyond participating in IDSP, countries can have a role in unifying science and human rights through many different avenues. One route is to protect and invest in scientific diplomacy. By allocating funding to scientific innovation and multilateral collaborations, governments can ensure that they can focus on shared goals with their international counterparts, working collaboratively to promote peace and cooperation. Another route is developing policies that protect innovation while developing guardrails for its usage, ensuring it is mobilized to those who need it most. States have a responsibility to be an advocate and protectors of their citizens, and by working to ensure that scientific diplomacy is used for the betterment of people abroad, they can elicit change in a meaningful way.

INTL and MAST Students Visit US Department of State Source: GU Blog

How Citizens Can Get Involved

Citizens have a responsibility to promote peace with science, as well. The role of a community member is to primarily use one’s voice to advocate for innovation and peace; by doing so and mobilizing one’s own story, organizations are held accountable for their actions. From governmental entities, non-profit organizations, and grassroots movements, stakeholders are supported by the citizenry. It is also important to have open conversations to explore further the nuanced introspection of science, peace, and human rights, continuing to promote awareness and understanding.