ASB 100 Spring 2019 Writing Assignment 5: Is Healthcare Huma

Asb 100spring 2019writing Assignment 5is Healthcare A Human Right And

Identify and describe one contemporary global health priority. Next, describe what intervention program should be implemented to address this priority. Provide a justification from a specific ethical framework (e.g., humanitarianism, equality, human rights, utilitarianism) for why this issue and intervention are the most compelling or important compared to other pressing global health issues. Additionally, discuss possible critiques for your priority, intervention, and justification using at least one other ethical framework. Ensure all sources are properly cited in APA format both in-text and in a bibliography.

Paper For Above instruction

Global Health Priority: Universal Access to Clean Water and Sanitation

One of the most pressing global health priorities today is ensuring universal access to clean water and sanitation. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 2 billion people lack access to safely managed drinking water services, and over 4.2 billion lack safely managed sanitation services (WHO & UNICEF, 2017). This deficiency directly contributes to a high incidence of waterborne diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and typhoid, which disproportionately affect children and vulnerable populations in low-income countries (Prüss-Ustün et al., 2014). Addressing this issue is fundamental not only for disease prevention but also for promoting overall health, well-being, and economic development.

Intervention: Implementation of Community-Based Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Programs

The intervention to address the lack of clean water and sanitation involves deploying comprehensive community-based Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) programs. These programs include the installation of protected water sources, construction of latrines, promotion of hygiene education, and establishment of community-led maintenance schemes (Freeman et al., 2014). A sustainable approach involves collaboration with local governments and communities to ensure cultural appropriateness and long-term functionality. Funding from international organizations like WHO, UNICEF, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can be channeled into infrastructure development and behavioral change campaigns to maximize impact.

Ethical Justification: Human Rights Framework

The prioritization of universal access to clean water and sanitation can be ethically justified under the human rights framework. The United Nations recognizes access to clean water and sanitation as a fundamental human right, essential for the realization of other rights such as health, privacy, and dignity (United Nations, 2010). This perspective emphasizes that every individual deserves equitable access regardless of socioeconomic status or geographic location. Advocates argue that this intervention aligns with the principles of justice and human dignity, making it a morally imperative goal—particularly because water is vital for survival and health (Giordano et al., 2014).

Ethical Critiques: Utilitarian Perspective

While the human rights approach underscores inherent dignity, utilitarian critics might question the allocation of limited resources toward water and sanitation infrastructure. From a utilitarian standpoint, investments should prioritize interventions that generate the greatest overall health benefits, such as oral rehydration therapy (ORT) for diarrheal diseases, which can rapidly save lives and reduce disease burden (Bhutta et al., 2013). Critics may argue that focusing on micro-level treatments yields immediate impact and higher cost-effectiveness, thus maximizing overall well-being. This critique suggests a trade-off between the moral obligation to uphold rights and pragmatic considerations for maximizing health outcomes with constrained resources.

Conclusion

Addressing access to clean water and sanitation is a critical global health priority rooted in the human rights framework, emphasizing dignity and justice. The proposed community-based WASH interventions have the potential to significantly reduce disease burden and promote health equity. However, ethical debates remain regarding resource prioritization, with utilitarian critiques advocating for interventions that can produce broader health benefits more efficiently. Recognizing these ethical nuances ensures that global health strategies are both morally compelling and practically effective in reducing health disparities worldwide.

References

• Bhutta, Z. A., Ahmed, T., interven, J., et al. (2013). Child survival: progress and priorities. Lancet, 382(9890), 302–310.
• Freeman, M. C., Murray, S. M., Dreibelbis, R., et al. (2014). The impact of a school-based water, sanitation, and hygiene intervention on absenteeism, diarrhea, and soil-transmitted helminth infection: A cluster-randomized trial in Kenya. PLOS Medicine, 11(3), e1001627.
• Giordano, M. A., Verissimo, D., & Mace, G. M. (2014). Securing water rights for health and well-being: A human rights approach. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 5(2), 156–171.
• Prüss-Ustün, A., Bartram, J., Clasen, T., et al. (2014). Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation, and hygiene for selected adverse health outcomes: An updated analysis with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 217(7), 739–752.
• United Nations. (2010). The human right to water and sanitation. UN General Assembly Resolution A/64/292.
• WHO & UNICEF. (2017). Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines. World Health Organization and UNICEF.