On Sunday last, the world observed World Health Day, the 76th anniversary of the founding of the World Health Organisation (WHO), under the theme ‘My health, my right’. This theme was chosen, according to WHO to “champion the right of everyone, everywhere to have access to quality health services, education, and information, as well as safe drinking water, clean air, good nutrition, quality housing, decent working and environmental conditions, and freedom from discrimination.” In correctly linking health to all the other rights above, the WHO draws attention to the fact that the absence of any of them could easily prevent one from enjoying good health.
For example, someone with poor education might be unable to properly understand their own health issues (including mental health) and could neglect paths to healing. Lack of access to health information could lead to unwitting exposure to diseases. The unavailability of safe drinking water exposes households and sometimes entire communities to outbreaks of otherwise preventable diseases like diarrhoea, dysentery, typhoid, hepatitis A, E.Coli among others. Poor air quality leads to a host of respiratory illnesses, some of which become chronic and last throughout one’s lifetime. The list goes on.
In many places these rights have been hard won and today threats to any and all of them loom in the face of wars and the effects of the climate crisis, including natural disasters. Under-neath the physical devastation that can readily be seen in affected areas like Gaza, Ukraine, Haiti, Syria and Sudan to name a few, is the unimaginable mental distress caused by feeling unsafe and being unsure of what one’s next steps should be. It is an experience many endured in the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis, but magnified 1,000 times by the reality of bombs and bullets.
Even where war and disaster are not present, the right to good health can be challenging. According to WHO data, in 2021 some 4.5 billion people lacked access to essential health services. Further, another 2 billion who did have access were unable to afford the services they needed or might need because of high healthcare costs. Those aware that they are one illness away from bankruptcy could well be living under tremendous stress, but would also be unable to afford to tap into mental health care, which makes for a vicious cycle.
Noting that political will is a positive driver of progress, the WHO challenged governments everywhere to move beyond simply recognising the right to health in their constitutions. It called on them to make meaningful investments “to scale up primary health care; to ensure transparency and accountability; and to meaningfully involve individuals and communities in decision-making around health.”
Here in Guyana, there has been a flurry of health-related activity in certain areas recently that appears to be in line with what the WHO is advocating. For instance, the Ministry of Health has been pushing the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, particularly on social media, and has promised to make testing for the virus free. A success story in decentralising health services was recorded with the Upper Mazaruni District Hospital at Kamarang performing its first major surgery in its newly constructed surgical theatre. There was also a high-level engagement with medical professionals at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre last week, where President Irfaan Ali spoke of establishing a hotline to field and address complaints about poor health services. Then on Tuesday, the Ministry of Health launched a national mental health action plan and suicide prevention plan for 2024-2030, in collaboration with PAHO/WHO.
Taken at face value, these recent events could be deemed a good start, but with the exception of the Kamarang hospital accomplishment they still need real action as proof that they are more than just talk. There is also a dire need for recognition of the link between health and other rights as outlined by WHO.
As a case in point, the Ministry of Housing and Water recently commissioned a new well in a Rupununi Village, touting on its Facebook page that “residents” were given improved access to water. A few paragraphs down, the ministry clarified that the well caters for 60% of the community and the others could not be accommodated because of “geographical challenges”. One wonders at a decision that immediately relegates a section of a community to be the have-nots. The intention to drill a second well was expressed, but whether the geographically distanced villagers were given a time frame for when they would be included was not stated. Two wells at the same time would have afforded all residents the same right at the same time, the importance of which should be obvious.
Providing these services to communities is an obligation the government must fulfil as steward of our patrimony. It is not a gift and should not be portrayed thus. Furthermore, the actions should be thoughtful and intentional. It is what citizens deserve. Nothing less.
