Darfur and Google earth

For once I'm basing my blog off an article not on BBC, this time from National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070425-google-darfur.html

We are all well aware of the crisis in Darfur. This article reports that 200,000+ people have died and 2.5 million people have been displaced from their houses since 2003. Now Google Earth users can track the devastation. Users can track and see how many villages have been decimated and see what locations are at risk. The purpose of this is to create worldwide awareness and advocacy of the crisis in Darfur.

It is currently not in real time, but plans are underway to team up with google to focus on the danger zone so that Google Earth users can see what is going on in real time. This is to be called "All eyes on Darfur" and will be launched June 1. Of this, Ariela Blatter, director of Amnesty International's Crisis Prevention and Response Center in NYC says, "We know that the Sudanese government has been affected by satellite technology and changed their tactics accordingly. We want them to know that they're being watched, and we want them to be afraid." This artical also takes note that, ironically, Google Earth is not available to people in Sudan due to export controls and sactions retrict downloads of U.S. software in Sudan.

I think it's great that global awareness is being created. This is a complete example of partnering with technology to create an innovative and interactive campaign. However, disallowing resources like this that can save thousands of lives, is senseless. I understand wanting to have strict controls and sactions in Sudan. When you're dealing with people who are slaughtering thousands, there needs to be strict controls. However, you're dealing with technology that can help many people, something must be done. It is necessary for rules to be bent because the number 1 priority in this case should be saving lives.

Smoking & Ethics.

I was perusing through BBC News this morning as I often do and came across this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6559215.stm

Ireland has had a smoking ban inside pubs, clubs, and bars since March 2004. Northern Ireland will have one in place on April 30 and England will have one starting July 1. In Ireland, researchers studied participating bar workers lung function and exposure to smoke before the smoking ban and one year after. What they found was a 99% decrease in smoke exposure, dramatically improved lung function, and significant reduction in cough and phlegm production. Many advocates against the smoking ban contest there are only trace amounts of harmful carcinogens in second hand smoke. After this study, they still have not changed their stance. I find this interesting considering just after one year of the smoking ban, such dramatic results can be produced. To say that second hand smoke is not harmful sometimes seems to me as proposterous in this day when we have a wealth of knowledge proving its harmful effects.

The smoking ban also brings up an ethical issue. The article stated "People, including bar workers, should be given a choice of working or socialising in a smoke-free environment or a well-ventilated, designated smoking lounge." Workers should not be forced to be exposed to harmful second hand smoke. The previous exposure was shown to be about 40 hrs a week. I can't even imagine how much harm that must cause. In the last lecture, Dr. Shahi defined ethics as "doing the right thing and doing things right." All bar, restaurant, club, and pub workers have the right to good health. They should not be forced to breathe in harmful smoke day in and day out. It is not a stipulation for their profession. This smoking ban is doing the right thing and doing things right.

Public & Private

Many times it is hard for me to accept that the private sector can ever amount to much good, that is, in comparison with the public sector. It is well known that the primary driving force for the private sector has always been one thing: money. However, the more I thought about it i thought this: what if someone has a really innovative idea--an idea than can not only benefit thousands of people, but also make a profit. Moreover, what if the private sector can effectively and efficiently get done what the private does not. For example, the public sector oftentimes knows what needs to get done, has a brilliant plan of implementation, but the problem is the actual implementation. The public has to go through multiple steps such as, appealing to federal and local governments for approval and funds. It sometimes seems the public sector has to sell themselves and jump through hoops, just to get a plan approved by a committee or a bunch of bureaucrats holding all the resources and funds that have no know nothing about public health. Enter the private sector. They're not dependent on funding from the government, they're dependent on their own investments. And, at times, the private company is filled with professional in business and health who decide what and where funds should be spent. I guess the key when you're dealing with the private is ethics. What does the private sector value most: is it money or is it making a difference in lives while simultaneously making a profit. Afterall, if a pharmaceutical drug developed an HIV vaccine and found it only amounted to having cost $0.50 per person, would it be bad if they charged $1 or even $2 for it? Yes, that is a 100% to 200% profits, but its still inexpensive enough that most in the world can afford the vaccine, and for those that cannot it is cheap enough to be government subsidized.

It's just important to not be completely reliant on the private sector. The private and public sector both have its necessary uses and an integrated approach between the two can have dramatic effects.