| Indian Journal of Medical Ethics | ||||||
![]() Home Current Issue Past Issues Support About IJME Oct-Dec1999-7(4) |
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The improvement in a society’s health is attributed in part to modern medicine. However, such medicine tends to be expensive. All over the world, the availability of modern health services depends on the amount allocated for them out of a country’s disposable income. The proportion of a country’s gross national product allocated for health care has a bearing on the population’s longevity and other indicators of its health. One significant determinant of the availability and use of medical technology is money. Public investment in the sectors of education and health is becoming scarce as government policies divert funds to other areas seen as priorities (for example, expensive weapons in the name of defence activities). Moreover, inefficient tax collection procedures result in developing countries collecting less income tax from individuals and business. As a result of all these factors, health and education in these countries are given low priority, leading to poor health and high illiteracy in the community. Costs of training Limited public resources have prevented the subsidised training of people from less- advantaged groups in poor countries. Yet this is exactly where the training is most urgent. A compromise measure is to permit private investment in sectors like health and education. However, private investors are interested only in the returns on their investments. There is also the problem of maintaining high standards of medical education and the associated health care facilities, in private institutions. One country which is trying to solve this problem - training more medical personnel who will serve domestic needs - is Nepal, with a per capita health care allocation below $3, and one doctor for every 23,899 people. The first medical institution in Nepal was set up by His Majesty’s Government with aid from the Japanese government. A second autonomous medical school was established with the help of Indian government aid. Both medical colleges are staffed by Indian doctors at present. It is expected that trained Nepali doctors will gradually replace the Indian faculty. Self-financing medical colleges Government control These self-financing medical colleges are required to have a well-equipped and staffed 700-bedded hospital attached. It is expected that these hospitals will benefit some 2,000 people at any given time, providing medical treatment, preventive health counseling, and jobs for the local population. Moreover, 30 per cent of the beds will be available free to local people who cannot afford to pay, and an additional 10 per cent of the beds will be provided at a concession to deserving patients. The set-up will benefit from other allied, self-financing educational institutions such as for dentistry, nursing and medical technology. At present, there are six such colleges in Nepal, providing education which meets the high standards set and enforced by local regulatory bodies. They are also a source of income for the societies which run them. The basic ethical issues here are: how does one make a profit without exploiting another? Further, will this education benefit only the socially and economically elite? The answer is that privately-financed medical colleges in Nepal make a profit while also making education available to resource-poor sections of society. Society as a whole benefits from the production of educated doctors. How is this privately-financed system different from one which opens the doors to multinational investment? The basic difference is that here, key decisions are made by independent committees, with the involvement of academic bodies, professional and local organisations connected with health and education. The primary targeted benefit is not of an immediate nature. The immediate economic benefit is only an off-shoot of the main development goal of improving health care. Distributive justice The basic difference from a traditional aid programme is that here, the donor is a private agency and gets profits directly. However, the recipient is able to dictate the conditions of his/ her benefit, thus avoiding exploitation. In traditional aid programmes, the receiver is always controlled by donors’ conditions. While most of these conditions may be ethical, they sometimes intrude into one’s autonomy. This intrusion could be because of a lack of understanding of the culture or because the donor wants to foster dependence from the recipient. On the other hand, the recipient may be forced to accept this dependent status in order to obtain aid for development. Such serious ethical constraints will not occur in the case of self- financing education. One objection that may be raised to self-financing education is that benefits or profits are given to individual entrepreneurs. In traditional aid programmes, too, profits are channeled, though indirectly, to entrepreneurs through a public agency, either government or nongovernmental. The direct receipt of benefits in entrepreneurial aid programmes is more transparent. This transparency enables the recipient to see the aid not as charity but as an indirect economic stimulant to business enterprise in the host country. Furthermore, in the case of medical education, the long-term benefits go to local students, who could not otherwise have afforded medical education. These students are most likely to stay and serve the community. Further, the 30 per cent requirement of beds for the local poor will provide modern medical services free to the community. Finally, how is this system to avoid the problem common in all
developing countries, of corruption in the monitoring procedure? It is expected
that the fact that many agencies are involved in the monitoring procedure, and
can check one another, will increase public accountability. Reports of
monitoring should be made available for public auditing. Most important, the
monitoring committees must receive proper education on the monitoring procedure
including the consequences of contravening it. As medical education directly
affects the future health status of a nation, this monitoring should be
considered a moral responsibility of the highest order by committee members.
V. Manickavel,
Professor of Immunology, College of Medical Sciences, Nepal, Kathmandu
University, P. O. Box 23, Bharatpur, Chitwan DT, Nepal
Workshop on rational use of drugs The workshop, held at the Institute for Health and Welfare, Salt Lake, Calcutta, on April 9 and 10, 1999, was attended by teachers of different medical colleges and specialist medical officers and administrators of several hospitals of the sate. The workshop took the following issues up for discussion with regard to government hospitals: a review of the use of drugs; identifying the factors responsible for irrational use of drugs; the role of a limited drug list; and the role of unbiased drug information in RUD in government hospitals including the state’s medical colleges. An action plan was drawn up at the end of the workshop. Readers may write to the Bulletin on Drug and Health Information
(254 Lake Town, Calcutta 700 089) for copies of the proceedings.
|
|||||
|
| ||||||