Global health care systems and practices

¶ … Socially Progressive Countries have the Right and/or Responsibility to Intervene in Instances of Human Rights Violations

Human rights has been at the forefront of social consciousness since early civilization. More than five thousand years ago, Menes, the first Pharaoh of Egypt, established a societal code of conduct. A millenia later, the Babylonian king, Hammurabi, issued the Code of Hammurabi, based on a revelation he had received from the Babylonian god of justice, Shamash ("Human rights timeline: From antiquity," n.d.). These ancient beginnings of concern for human rights are still felt in society today; however, with the continued globalization of the world, new concerns regarding the nuances of human rights come into question. Despite the decrease in State boundaries, due to globalization, there are still significant cultural and societal boundaries in place.

The question then becomes, do socially progressive countries, such as the United States, have the right and/or responsibility to intervene when they feel that common cultural practices in another country are violating basic human rights, or should each country be free to practice its ethnic and/or cultural traditions? If these human rights violations are politically motivated, how does that change the situation?

A New Reality for Human Rights:

In a world where the Internet and 24-hour-a-day, global news stations are common in most households, certainly the plight of those located in the farthest reaches of the globe can now be common knowledge. Not long ago, like a bad Las Vegas marketing tagline spin-off, what happened within a country's borders stayed inside a country's borders. From the Indian Removal Act in the 1830s, in America, to the Ottoman Empire's genocide of the Armenian people in the early 20th century ("Human rights timeline: From the Indian," n.d.), citizens in countries located sometimes tens of thousands of miles away did not necessarily have knowledge that these atrocities were occurring, often until it was too late and there was little that could be done. Today, not only can everyday citizens in other countries be privy to the violations of human rights in nearly every country, but global organizations have been formed to address these issues.

The United Nations was founded in 1945, by 51 countries, as a means of promoting international peace, relationships among nations, social progress, improved living standards, and human rights. There are currently 192 Member States who review the multitude of programs and policies administered through this international organization ("UN at a glance," 2009). The preamble to the UN's Declaration of Human Rights gives a clear picture of the organization's mission.

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law ("The Universal Declaration," 1948).

Clearly, this is a new reality for those who wish to continue to violate human rights. However, although it is arguable that a multi-national organization, such as the UN, may have the right to supersede State actions when it violated human rights, does a singular 'socially progressive' country have the same right and/or responsibility?

The Rights and/or Responsibilities of Socially Progressive Countries in Instances of Human Rights Violations:

Citing a Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention study, as well as Black, Cowens-Alvarado, Gershman and Weir, Alley, Fairley, Cardinez, and Pordell (2007) note that for the past decade, "the knowledge to reduce the burden of cancer in the United States by about 50%" (p. 302), yet this knowledge has not been applied equally across the country, let alone globally. If one were to think of a socially progressive country, like the United States, hoarding this life saving information and preventing these cures from reaching other countries, most would agree that, as people died needlessly, this would be morally reprehensible. In fact, most would argue that as a world leader the United States had an ethical responsibility to make this knowledge available. Can this same idea of sharing of life saving knowledge be equated to the prevention of human rights violations? Regretfully, the answer is not as black and white.

Two complicating factors come into play, when discussing whether or not one country should intervene in what they perceive to be human rights violations -- State sovereignty and cultural custom. Herz (1957) compares the recent evolution of the Nation State to the atom. Not long ago, the atom was influenced by outside forces, but was impenetrable. This, Herz surmises, was the completely sovereign Nation State of only a few decades ago. He uses the analogy of the Nation State being a hard-shelled, impenetrable, political atom. However, due to the changing geo-political landscape and increasing globalization, as science has evolved to now be able to penetrate the atom and split it -- forever changing it, so too the Nation State is now subject to penetration by outsiders, forever changing the concepts of sovereignty and independence. No longer do countries operate within a vacuum. Yet, this does not necessarily mean a singular nation, no matter how socially progressive, has the right to necessarily directly intervene.

The reason for this is simple -- cultural custom. Despite the continued dissolving of State boundaries, cultural and societal boundaries are still firmly in place in many areas of the world. So much of the human rights violations have occurred over history simply because one culture saw another culture as inferior. Christians, Muslims, Native Americans, Jews -- the list goes on and on. These violations were often conducted by societies that had codes of conduct and/or laws in place that guaranteed at least some of their citizens certain rights. Yet, these same cultures felt justified overruling another culture, often because they felt they were more socially progressive, such as the Christianization of Native Americans and their forced relocation. One only has to look back at history to see how arrogance has led countries to commit human rights violations, even though, at the time, they often believed themselves to be justified.

One singular nation, no matter how socially progressive they believe themselves to be, cannot make an unbiased decision whether an occurrence is truly a human rights violation, or is it simply perceived to be a violation due to their cultural differences. Holz (2007) touches briefly on a well-known human rights concern that is present in today's society -- female genitalia mutilation (FGM). This practice is found to occur in multiple regions of Africa, some Asian and Middle Eastern countries, as well as within some immigrant communities in North America and Europe, affecting potentially 3 million girls each year. Although to Westerners this practice is seen as both misogynistic and cruel, for those who practice it they cite social and religious reasons for the ritual ("Eliminating female," 2008). Interestingly, as Reymond, Mohamud, and Ali (n.d.) note, "Most women who have had the FGM procedure are strongly in favor of FGM for their daughters." Clearly, one country who would see this cultural practice as alien, cannot evaluate it without bias, to make a decision whether or not it truly is a human rights violation. Add a political component to this and the potential for bias grows.