GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: Rohingya face population control pressure on both sides of the border

domingo, 10 de diciembre de 2017

BioEdge: Rohingya face population control pressure on both sides of the border

BioEdge: Rohingya face population control pressure on both sides of the border

Bioedge

Rohingya face population control pressure on both sides of the border

by Michael Cook | 2 Dec 2017 |

One strand in the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims by the Myanmar government is population control. Since 2005, the government has tried to enforce a two-child policy. Back in 2015, Physicians for Human Rights complained that Millennium Development Goals were being used by the government to force the Rohingya to have fewer children.

And now, in the squalid camps across the border in Bangladesh which are now home to more than 600,000 Rohingya, the Bangladesh government is trying to sell the same message -- with no more luck than their Myanmar counterparts. Public health official Dr Pintu Bhattacharya told Australia’s ABC that a Bangladeshi incentive scheme should be extended to the refugees. They are paid a small amount for voluntary sterilisation. "If we do not have this program among refugees then we will have more pregnancies, more newborns and more population," he says.

Rohingya families are large and some men have several wives. Most couples have six or seven children and family planning workers have met families with 19 children. Many told AFP that a large family will help them survive in the camps. Many also believe that contraception is against Islam.

In the light of the fact that the Myanmar government weaponised contraception to control the Rohingya, perhaps it is understandable that these desperate refugees believe that large families represent freedom.

Unlike issues such as euthanasia or stem cell research, the bioethics of tattoos is not highly developed. However, it presents its own challenges and complexities. What if a patient shows up in emergency with "do not resuscitate" tatooed across his chest? Is that a valid advance end-of-life directive? There are so many issues here. How do the doctors know if he (let's assume it's a "he") still wants a DNR? Did he get it when he was drunk? Was it voluntary? There are so many fascinating issues -- read our preliminary report below.

On a completely different note, with Christmas drawing near, I’m making an incredibly self-interested suggestion. Why not put a copy of my recent book, The Great Human Dignity Heist: how bioethicists are trashing the foundations of Western Civilization, in someone’s stocking? It’s available through the Australian publisher, at Amazon and at Book Depository. I can’t think of a better gift!