I've been asked to sit on a scholarship panel, that awards funds granted by OSI to applicants from Burma who wish to study public health. Although its a very busy time of year for us, I agreed as I think its a really great program, and I thought it would be a good way to learn more about the kinds of candidates coming out of Burma now, who are interested in public health (potential hiring pool for us?!). So for the past couple of days, I have been reading dozens of scholarship applications. To be frank, I was a bit surprised about their homogeneity. Grew up in large family that was either poor or parents did government service, got distinguished marks in high school, went to medical school (MBBS), worked for international NGO as doctor, dabbled in public health, wants to learn more public health. But given the realities in Burma, there aren't really that many possible paths.
One that did surprise me included an biographical essay in which the candidate was explaining why his mother is his role model. "One motto usually my mother told me is that "Value of humans is not his worth and dignity; Value is what he does for his society and the world he lives in.""
As a human rights advocate, my first immediate reaction was surprise as so easily writing off human dignity as a primary source of human value. After all, the very first words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" (emphasis mine).
Now I'm very aware that there is debate over whether this is actually a universal moral principle, about whether human rights are western constructs inapplicable in eastern (or other) cultures. But I don't think this is the case in Burma. There are many active efforts, by Burmese citizens, to promote rights education. Rights, and human dignity, have long been a rallying cry for the opposition, from prior to the tumultuous '88 uprising, right through to the election of the new government. The forces opposing rights in Burma aren't cultural, they're totalitarian.
But the more I thought about it, I realized that his mother's words actually reflect my own evaluation of myself. Although I champion the language of valuing human dignity, for its own sake, in others, it is not the rubric by which I assess my own value; I have always judged myself by my contributions (or lack thereof). I'm left to wonder now if this double standard is tenable, or if this realization undermines my overall position in favor of human rights based on inherent human dignity.
This isn't my first pause for questioning the rights paradigm. Another frequent criticism of the human rights model is that they lack power. Regarding enforcement, its true that while some mechanisms exist, they do not function reliably. Even assessing fulfillment is difficult in the case of rights that are realized progressively (insert my master's dissertation here). But what really troubles me in their lack of utility in answering questions of distributive justices in resource limited settings (for a start, see Arras JD, Fenton EM. Bioethics and human rights: Access to health-related goods. Hastings Center Report 2009;39:27–38, and the debate with George Annas that ensued).
Those are really arguable and potentially surmountable questions, though, whereas doubting human value based on dignity undermines the whole structure. I'm not yet ready to throw in the towel, I'm not even sure that I doubt value based on dignity, but I have certainly been given more fodder for consideration, from a most unexpected source.
One that did surprise me included an biographical essay in which the candidate was explaining why his mother is his role model. "One motto usually my mother told me is that "Value of humans is not his worth and dignity; Value is what he does for his society and the world he lives in.""
As a human rights advocate, my first immediate reaction was surprise as so easily writing off human dignity as a primary source of human value. After all, the very first words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" (emphasis mine).
Now I'm very aware that there is debate over whether this is actually a universal moral principle, about whether human rights are western constructs inapplicable in eastern (or other) cultures. But I don't think this is the case in Burma. There are many active efforts, by Burmese citizens, to promote rights education. Rights, and human dignity, have long been a rallying cry for the opposition, from prior to the tumultuous '88 uprising, right through to the election of the new government. The forces opposing rights in Burma aren't cultural, they're totalitarian.
But the more I thought about it, I realized that his mother's words actually reflect my own evaluation of myself. Although I champion the language of valuing human dignity, for its own sake, in others, it is not the rubric by which I assess my own value; I have always judged myself by my contributions (or lack thereof). I'm left to wonder now if this double standard is tenable, or if this realization undermines my overall position in favor of human rights based on inherent human dignity.
This isn't my first pause for questioning the rights paradigm. Another frequent criticism of the human rights model is that they lack power. Regarding enforcement, its true that while some mechanisms exist, they do not function reliably. Even assessing fulfillment is difficult in the case of rights that are realized progressively (insert my master's dissertation here). But what really troubles me in their lack of utility in answering questions of distributive justices in resource limited settings (for a start, see Arras JD, Fenton EM. Bioethics and human rights: Access to health-related goods. Hastings Center Report 2009;39:27–38, and the debate with George Annas that ensued).
Those are really arguable and potentially surmountable questions, though, whereas doubting human value based on dignity undermines the whole structure. I'm not yet ready to throw in the towel, I'm not even sure that I doubt value based on dignity, but I have certainly been given more fodder for consideration, from a most unexpected source.
No comments:
Post a Comment