         |
|
||||
| Writings: Essays | |||||
| Closing the
digital divide: How access to
information and communication technologies in developing
countries can positively affect healthcare, providing
opportunities for growth, empowerment and the sharing of
knowledge. "Give a man a fish, he’ll have fish for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he’ll have fish for a lifetime." This ancient proverb articulates simply the basis for my argument; that although the provision of healthcare may provide greater short term benefits, it is the narrowing and closing of the digital divide between developed and developing countries that will provide the greater benefits for developing countries in the long term. Access to information and communication technologies will ultimately enable the people of developing countries increased ability for economic growth and empowerment. It will provide increased access to education, means by which to educate others about their world, greater credibility and support for their researchers and developers and an eventual narrowing of the gap between themselves and developed countries. Ultimately it will allow them to become a part of the ‘world wide web’ of humanity rather than just poor cousins of the main family, dependent on the global elite for survival. One may question the need for information and communication technologies in a country where people are dying from health issues such as starvation, malnutrition and aids. Surely the greater priority is food and access to proper health care. The question I direct back is: why do certain countries have such a problem with these particular health issues? If lack of finances is the answer I ask again, why do these countries have limited finances when others have an abundance? I suggest to you that the answer lies in the area of information - access to and sharing of - and how great the divide is between the information have’s and have-not’s in this world. I further suggest that a focus on health care as a solution to the health problems in developing countries is akin to focusing on a dying tree in a forest full of dying trees. We must go deeper to discover the root of the problem and make that the priority. All people in all countries are potentially at risk from various threats and pollutants in the environment around them. However, the difference between people in developing and developed countries is the latter have greater access to information on how best to avoid these risks and treat them once affected. D. Werner, author of "Where there is no Doctor"(1977 in Ekins: 170) has done much research on the cause of health issues in developing countries. Part of his findings were that poor health can be directly related to lack of information on what we regard as everyday products and issues, "hygiene, alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, pesticides, infant formula." Werner argues that "ordinary people provided with clear, simple information can prevent and treat most common health problems...earlier, cheaper and often better than can doctors." He believes that "basic health care should be encouraged, not delivered" with medical knowledge being "freely shared by everyone." Melody suggests (Melody: 34) that "the function of post-industrial economics...depends upon major sections of society not having sufficient information, skill and knowledge to exercise their rights fully." Further, if people "knew enough to claim all the benefits to which they are entitled, public health systems would be swamped and bankrupted in a few months." Similarly, one could then suggest that were everyone to know about all of the risks and adverse health affects associated with certain products, it would have a serious impact on certain corporations and industries. It is the unfortunate situation that currently the people holding the purse strings, and making decisions on where funding should go, come from places like the USA-based World Bank Group (www.worldbank.com). Arguably, the interests of the US Govt (Werner 1990 in Ekins: 170) and multinational corporate organizations "override the best interests" of people in developing countries. Those industries most affecting public health adversely ie alcohol, tobacco, (producers of) infant formula, pharmaceutical, and arms target "developing countries as a vulnerable market". One could argue that it is in the best interests of such groups and organizations to keep the people uninformed. Through organizations such as the World Health Organization (www.who.org), western medicine and pharmaceuticals are being promoted and encouraged in developing countries. This is even though western medicine is "experiencing a crisis in effectiveness" (Ekins: 167) in curing dis-ease such as cancer and aids. The Black Report (Townsend & Davidson 1982 in Ekins: 167) concluded that "despite an ever-increasing percentage of their national income on health services, rich industrial countries such as the US, UK and Germany have been unable to demonstrate satisfactorily that much higher spending is clearly related to much better health". de Brito reports (de Brito: 99) that "although we receive copious information about the supposed infallibility of modern science, we hear little about the deaths that occur through hospitalisation and through conventional medical treatment, or the money supplied by pharmaceutical companies for medical research". All of this serves to support a couple of points for my argument; that making health services the priority doesn’t seem to be a solution in creating healthier populations, and that the west having a monopoly on health treatment in both developed and developing countries is not necessarily the healthiest option for anyone. An interesting question in this argument is what is happening in the developing countries themselves in terms of self-help healthwise? What are the people with access to information doing, and what role is traditional/alternative medicine playing in their health system? Certainly research, findings and possible alternatives developed in developing countries do exist however there seems to be a huge problem in getting this information validated and accepted - which is necessary in order to receive support from the Western world with funding, promotion, distribution and education. It seems "people just don’t want to believe anything that comes out of a third world university" (Steele 1987 in Ekins: 190). A Catch 22 situation seems to have developed where developing countries may have done their own research or have tribal knowledge on a particular health issue or remedy, however the developing country needs the support of the international organisations in order to develop, produce, promote, market and distribute their product or information. However, "international organisations will not promote a product without expensive western research" (Ekins:167). Due to the perceived reputation of developing countries amongst developed countries, "traditional and important third world knowledge is being disregarded, devalued and destroyed....third world scientific research is frequently discounted, resulting in its findings either being ignored or in requiring them to be revalidated by western research institutions". Researchers and institutions in developing countries find it difficult to "acquire the resources or reputation to develop successfully" (Ekins:167). Thus a further problem has been created whereby medicines developed in developing countries are often "useless or dangerous". There is a "widespread ignorance amongst consumers, dispensers, and prescribers". (Ekins: 167). This only perpetuates the belief that developing countries don’t know what they are doing in the area of health, and thus gives developed countries ammunition with which to justify their control over health industry issues. It also increases the perception that with so many people ill, the provision of health services must surely be the most immediate priority. What I am suggesting is that it is the lack of accessibility to information that has, in various ways, perpetuated if not created this problem to begin with. With greater access to information and communication technologies, and thus with a greater presence online, developing countries could possibly alter the perception some in the western world have of them, and build a closer relationship with western people. Ancient cures and remedies could be discussed and talked about, stories about their culture and history shared, thus increasing their credibility as wise and knowledgeable countries. Large influential organisations may have to bow to public pressure who may start to demand they support the alternative health solutions developing countries have to offer. If supported, how much may developing countries have to teach us and share with us? The huge digital divide between developed and developing countries has created a situation where the world seems divided in two, with each section quite disconnected from the other. The result being that one part of the world has most of the information, and thus most of the money and power, whilst the other part battles to survive. This result has a spiralling upward domino effect for the developed countries and conversely a spiralling downward domino effect for the developing countries. More access to information equals more money and more power, and this further equals a greater divide. The developing countries get left further and further behind. And as they do the sense of disconnection I referred to above becomes stronger. The developed countries assume a position of superiority thus leading to the situation referred to by Ekins where any research or knowledge obtained or held by developing countries is given little to no value. Re-focusing our priorities on closing this digital divide would have enormous beneficial repercussions on this situation. In his "Public Health, Poverty & Empowerment" address (Werner 1985 in Ekins: 167), Werner voiced his opinion that "poor health (does) not result from...scarcity of resources...rather (it) results from unfair distribution; of land, resources, knowledge and power...too much in the hands of too few". Mandela (O Magazine: 224) believes that ‘no country can really develop unless its citizens are educated...educating ourselves (is) a way to give ourselves the most powerful weapon for freedom". People of developing countries are kept disempowered by both a digital divide, and by developed countries assuming the role of decision-makers with regards to issues such as the provision of health care, for example what kind to provide, how much funding to give it. Do developing countries want to become part of the technological revolution and in providing access are we imposing our belief system onto their own? According to W.J Martin (Martin: 195), "there is considerable support for the view that the information and communication technologies can make a positive contribution to development". However as Martin points out it is important that the kinds of technologies selected are appropriate to the "needs and circumstances" of the country concerned. He finds it is also important that proper funding and education be provided to train people how to most efficiently benefit from these technologies, and that it doesn’t just end up in the hands of a selected "elite" few. Rather than using the technology to impose our own culture and beliefs onto these countries, it is imperative that leaders in their fields within that country are a crucial part of the set-up and implementation process as they best understand the needs of their own people. As Martin points out "many developing nations fear the increase of cultural, economic and political imperialism by the already powerful developed nations and the loss of indigenous languages and way of life". However, as they remain "outside the technological loop" their way of life is under greater threat as developed countries seek and gain more and more control. Clearly, as Martin suggests (Martin:200) the current situation is only re-inforcing the "situation of dependecy" by developing countries on developed countries. He believes that "compromise on both sides" is essential in order for anything to change in a significant way. Ultimately, the developing countries need to be brought back into the fold, they need to be part of the technological evolution of humanity, not only to have access to information but also to share with the west their own information, knowledge, culture, research and findings. In order to re-establish their reputation and credibility as people with brains, as cultures with important medical knowledge and remedies, they must first be re-connected to the rest of the world. We fear what we don’t know, thus developing countries must be helped out of the shadows where to the rest of the world they have become strangers and take their place on the same stage as so-called developed countries. Access to information and communication technologies provide a key to increased education and empowerment of developing countries and their citizens. It also enables them to share their culture, knowledge, research and findings to the rest of the world thus increasing their global reputation and value. It is a step toward closing the great divide between developed and developing countries in general. Providing greater health services may be beneficial in the short-term, although even that is arguable, it doesn’t seem to be the best answer for the long-term. Thus, it is my belief that by making the narrowing and closing of the digital divide the greater priority, issues such as health care will ultimately benefit as the gains made start their positive domino effect. Bibliography
|
|||||
 |
|||||
| © Copyright 2006 Dana. Site Development + Design: Lelfly | |||||
