Food for thought

Paul Farmer calls for a “movement to promote the rights of the poor” (Partner to the Poor, 519). He argues that this movement must arise from rich nations, nations that “have”, like the United States. He acknowledges that our government is too often tied down by politics, adding that “powerful governments do not form movements. Their citizenry might” (520). However, based on my observations of American life compared to life in low and middle-income communities in South Africa and India, where people storm the streets to protest against the slightest increase in water tax, for instance, I worry about the plausibility of this call to action. Unlike the South Africans, we Americans, collectively, are a complacent people. We are as a whole concerned with our own routines and are afraid to break free in order to protest against the human right violations we hear about happening on the other side of the world. We hear about the genocide in Rwanda or political rights being violated by a U.S supported Egyptian president, and we are concerned. Nevertheless, once we have been updated in current news, we put away the paper and return to more pressing deadlines such as turning in an assignment for ethics class. Is there something inherent in the American culture or the culture in wealthy nations that makes us less likely to protest, for example, the removal of U.S soldiers in Rwanda, contributing to the continuation of the genocide? Why are only a select few speaking out when these atrocities are witnessed by many? So tell me, how can one mobilize this movement Paul Farmer calls for in such a complacent culture/people?

-Dhrusti (captivated by readings by and about Paul Farmer)

Nature vs. Nurture

As students committed to improving the future of medicine, there's a simple realization we have to make - that health is affected by more than, well, health.  That our well-being is determined by more than just enzymes and chemical reactions.  That every moving part of our world is influencing health in ways we can only imagine.

In our intro bio courses, we're constantly reminded of a basic principle stating that the health of any living being depends on more than its inherent biological sophistication.  Basically, it doesn't matter how awesome your genes or your proteins are if you live in a crappy environment.  After endless drilling from professors, it's this concept of interactions between self and surroundings - of nature vs. nurture - that dictates our worldview of health.

But, environments are composed of more than just physical conditions, right?  Sure, we can describe the effect of water deprivation on my heart rate or of poor food intake on my metabolism - but aren't we missing something?   Why is there no water in the first place?  Who took away all my food? It seems as if the future generation of physicians are being trained to expertly record what happens when nature meets nurture - but not ask the critical question of why. 

That's where we come in.  We are students who want to figure how and why the real world affects health, and we aim to use this blog as a forum to start the conversation.  We know health in the modern era is complicated.  We also know our environment, in its broadest sense, is the driver of such complexity - and from access to health insurance in the US to pollution of waterways in South Africa to poverty in the slums of India, we know this issue reaches past borders. 

While we use this to spark a discourse, our ultimate goal is to become more than casual observers.  Our undergraduate education has prepared us all too well to describe the relationship between nature and nurture.  Now, it's our turn to actually change it.