Are Children in Low-income Countries, Better-off if Modern-Western Health Care Were Brought to Them?

The results are in! PULSE values the participation of all who answered, followed and wrote their comments in support of an opinion on this issue. The majority of opinions (66.9% voted yes) in the latest poll (unscientific) posted on fb by PULSE is overwhelmingly in support of the obvious, an apparent conclusion that hardly needs to be stated. 

Indeed, the infant mortality is alarmingly higher in low-income countries in contrast to the good fortune of affluent nations.  However, there is great value in acknowledging the voice of descent (20.6% of responders voted no).  A simple transposition of modern health care supposedly negates the valuable local traditions that prevent diseases and cure the sick and injured. These traditions in some instances have long pre-dated modern health care.

According to Garth Osborn and Patricia Ohmans[1] "Promoting western style health care as the only alternative to local beliefs and practices can be the surest way of killing a project before it gets started.  Many of the most effective global health projects have blended approaches and beliefs rather than trying to replace them.”

Acacia Xanthophloea: 

Roots used for treatment of stomach ache, 

bark for treatment of fevers and eye complaints.

Settlers eronously associated  the tree with 

Malaria.  The tree grows in swampy areas

where mosquitoes can thrive.

Do you still believe that most people in developing countries want and need modern western health care?

[1] Book: G. Osborn, P. Ohmans, Finding Work in Global Health, Health Advocates Press, 2005, "Top ten global health myths".  This book is promoted as a practical guide by the president and CEO of the global Health Council, Nils Daulaires, MD, MPH as "This is a terrific place to start". 


Review Poll Results or Weigh in Here...