First of all: The link to the NPR interview of Dr. Paul Farmer can be found here.
1. How does Dr. Farmer's work bring to light some of the larger issues in global health (allocation of resources, pre-conceived notions about the sick and the poor, links between bad policy and poor health outcomes, etc)?
2. Do you think that Dr. Farmer's outspoken and sometimes abrasive nature helps or hurts his enterprise? Explain.
3. If you were in Dr. Farmer's place, what do you think your highest priorities would be in terms of advancing the mission of Partners in Health?
3.) I think that Paul Farmer has done an excellent job creating Partners in Health; he has single handedly done more altruistic, helpful acts in twenty years than most people could do in three hundred. Those who criticize him for not doing enough or doing it in the wrong places are missing the big picture. The critiques have brought up one good point; question of sustainability of Partners in Health. This should not be used to criticize Farmer’s work thus far, but should be looked at as a way to move forward with the organization.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “the good doctor” Farmer noted his worry that patients might be dying in his absence because the doctors might have forgotten to do a spinal tap (Kidder 15). While this could have just been unnecessary worrying on the part of Farmer, there should be no question as to the quality of the doctors at all of the Partners in Health facilities. There needs to be excellent doctors in every location, not just Farmer. I believe that teaching the locals of Haiti and Peru to be excellent doctors, not just mediocre doctors, would create a more sustainable organization.
Malnutrition has been linked to beginning and worsening many of the diseases Partners in Health faces, and Farmer seems to be constantly trying to work food money into his budget. A step towards sustainability could be creating farms near the hospital where a share cropping system could be put in place. Patients or neighbors could use the land to farm but then leave some for the hospital, creating a beneficial cycle for the community.
The article “The Good Doctor” paints Farmer’s life as hopping from fundraiser to fundraiser, a job which he seems to dislike. I think that a good next step would be to hire a company or a group of people trained in fundraising to take over that aspect of Farmer’s job. It would not only be more sustainable, but could even be more effective because there would be trained professionals. Farmer’s efforts and triumphs have been remarkable, the next step is to take his one man job and expand it into bigger more effective sections, three being fundraising, nutrition, and doctors, than can run Partners in Health when he is gone.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNot only has Dr. Farmer revolutionized the liveing conditions and therefore the health of villagers in his select community in Haiti, his work also highlights the inequalities of disease treatment and the success of a 'biosocial' approach to medicine in poor countries. His successful approach to medicine in 3rd World countries has remodeled systems of treating infectious diseases by emphasizing previously ignored connections. Dr. Farmer's comprehensive approach treats health problems both directly and indirectly, for example providing clean drinking water, education, and other vital standards of living as a strategy to combat illness.
ReplyDeletePaul Farmer also (however indirectly and unintentionally) reproaches 'White Liberals' for their ambivalence. How many 'W.L.'s would consider walking five hours through Haiti to check up on an outpatient, or living an entirely frugal lifestyle to funnel as much money possible to Partners in Health, or trade sleep, vacations, and family time to save lives? Paul Farmer not only dedicates his life to this mission, but in doing so also attacks the big probelm of Western society's misguided (and hypocritical) response by living his life in a way that reflects his own morals and values.
Anna Ruth
2. Dr. Farmers outspoken and abrasive nature IS his enterprise. His highly effective programs he has created and the clout around his success is directly because of his somewhat brusk relationship with established norms and authority structures. Normal, less effective doctors, remain nobody's because they are suckers to the system. Farmer, with degrees in both anthropology and medicine, is the forefront expert on treatment of entire populations for epidemics like tuberculosis. He knows what needs to happen, how it needs to happen, and how to get those solutions implemented. Whether the "system" likes it or not.
ReplyDeleteWithout his assertive personality he would not have quite the success rate that he is able to claim. He is a very down to earth person and does not take any bureaucratic decisions inhibiting his ability to treat patients. Without the radical aspect of some of his methods he would not gain nearly the attention and fame that he has. These radical methods are what makes his ideas happen the first time around and once he has proven their effectiveness then they become "acceptable" in the eyes of the system. In this way Farmer uses a variation of the pilot method, though not mirroring his small scale solutions, he starts a certain practice in any way that he can, questionable practices included, to prove its success and then seeks large scale funding with donors, selling his ideas. An example of this is his theft from a Massachusetts hospital of 92 Grand worth of tuberculosis drugs.
In many ways Farmer has created a sort of "brand" name for his work. He is a sort of celebrity in the worlds of medical-anthropology and philanthropy alike. By creating this personality which defies the norm for doctors he has created credibility in himself because all the aspects of his success are directly connected to himself. It adds a level of originality to his success which creates great crediility in the eyes of his potential donors. Sure, there is a level of validity behind the questions about the sustainability of his efforts, however a great deal of his success is based on the radical efforts of Farmer and the brand name he has developed for himself.
1) Dr. Farmer’s work explicitly draws attention to the impact of social, economic, and political issues on global health. Sustainable health is not a two- dimensional problem in his eyes. Acknowledging the idea that there is more than a strictly biological component to the greater issue of spreading infectious disease, Farmer addresses the second major facet: socioeconomic background and wealth related opportunities. His anthropologic perspective is evident in most of his methods of treating patients, as his energy is spent not only offering basic medical care to impoverished communities in Haiti particularly, but in improving their living conditions.
ReplyDeleteStressing an importance on nutrition, clean water, and regular access to medical attention for the sick, Farmer’s results are dramatic. They forge what seems an obvious connection between the social and biological in the case of infectious disease that was unlinked prior to his initiatives; people are simply both easier to treat and more likely to stay healthy when offered basic means of support. His successes in Haiti especially speak for themselves.
The way he works, incorporating so much of the culture and practicality issues into his methods, has proved effective. His initially “radical” therapies have extraordinary results, such as his treatment of the drug-resistant tuberculosis patients in a slum village of Russia.
So thoroughly incorporating a link between fundamental standard of living and general health through the focus of his enterprise and efforts to improve access to adequate nourishment among other things, Farmer has reconstructed the nature of health care aid to impoverished areas of the world. The breadth of his accomplishments speak highly to his way of solving the global health issues at hand, encouraging the perspective that the link between organized health policies and improved standards of living is critical.
1. How does Dr. Farmer's work bring to light some of the larger issues in global health (allocation of resources, pre-conceived notions about the sick and the poor, links between bad policy and poor health outcomes, etc)?
ReplyDeleteThe question of what, if any, obligations humans have to each other seems to me to be central to many issues in global health. Farmer not only highlights the connection between global and personal health, but suggests that people have a moral duties further removed from their own health.
There seems to be a spectrum of ideas about duty to others. On the one side is the group of people who see no need to act, either for their own health or as an act of charity. On the other side are the people like Farmer, who devoted his entire life to saving lives even at great cost to himself. Somewhere between these extremes are Farmer’s “W.L.s”: people who recognize and care about problems in the world but aren’t willing to make large sacrifices to help.
Farmer’s dedication to the public sphere is remarkable both for its altruistic manifestations and for its comprehensive intensity. The changes he sees as necessary—a massive redistribution of wealth to places like Haiti, a moral imperative for physicians to help their patients at all costs, a greatly increased amount of spending to cure and prevent disease—are pretty radical. Rather than completely dismissing or completely accepting his ideas we should pick through them carefully. Farmer has an amazing ability to look at the big picture, in terms of both space and time. His argument that effective, comprehensive, and thoughtfully coordinated care provided today will reduce cost and human suffering in both the present and the future is certainly important. Perhaps even more important is the example he sets and his steadfast belief in the importance of caring and helping despite the odds and any cost. We may not all be Farmers, but we can all learn from a man who selflessly puts such a high value on every human life.
2.) Because Farmer uses his abrasive and outspoken nature, it’s got him where is today. There is no way possible where if without his highly spoken adequate words he would be doing what his job entails today. The web of programs that Farmer has created in international countries further backs up concrete support his actions. Though the many other men and woman who have tried to change the medical standing of different cases, whether they be doctors, or lawyers, or whoever, cannot and will not surpass the acclaimed fame of Farmer. Though Farmer feels his actions are fairly adequate many others who surround his career believe the system is unrealistic, and unprofessional in some tactical ways.
ReplyDeleteFarmer not only has an abrasive nature to the public, but his ability to push his thoughts through the public, and to authority where something may actually be done about it is impressive. Though without it, the question lies, where would he be, and the millions which he has saved be? Though he has much to show for it, it is clearly his empathic nature which creates his abrasive ability to speak to the world and let them know what needs to be stopped, and who needs to be helped.
All in all, Farmers way of progressing through government has made him an international leader of medicine, though many people done believe in his ‘system’. As Farmers work is surely unlike any others who have attempted what he has, he genuinely created his own ‘system’ where others following their own brand of ‘systems’ have failed. Though of course as in any situation alike this one, there are flaws which in the end can be resolved but for now the effort Farmer and his team have put forth, saved countless lives.