In a time of all-time medical advances, one glaring question remains that only continues to divide humankind-"Who gets the cure first?" That was the overarching subject of the Mavericks University Debate on "Health Inequality in the 21st Century," where students and academics debated one of humanity's most ethical dilemmas: unequal access to health.
The argument extended far beyond the academic, touching on the associated themes of ethics, economics, and global justice. The participants argued over matters like vaccine allocation, access to treatment, and the moral obligation of the rich world to ensure health equity.
The 21st century has seen science making unheard-of leaps - AI diagnoses, robot surgery, and gene therapies. And as argumentative speakers pointed out, these miracles are still unaffordable for most of the world. Over half the world has no access to health services, reports the World Health Organization (WHO).
One student spoke close to home: We live in a time when a vaccine can be produced in record time, yet it's still up to your passport and the GDP of your nation whether you will get it or not.
The pandemic of COVID-19 revealed this chasm brutally. While the rich countries hoarded millions of doses, poor nations waited months or even years for proper supply.
Vaccine Apartheid: The Moral Divide: The phrase "vaccine apartheid" was added to world vocabulary in 2021 to refer to unequal access to COVID-19 vaccines. Nations holding a fraction of 16% of the entire population reserved more than 70% of doses available, leaving behind poor nations.
"It's not about logistics," another member responded. "It's about morality. Is life-saving medicine a commodity or a human right?"
The roots of the inequality were traced to colonial histories, patent monopolies, and profit-based pharmaceutical systems. Patent barriers typically close poor countries off from making cheaper generic medicines, thus prices are high and supply low.
The World Trade Organization's reluctance to waive intellectual property rights in the midst of the crisis were used as evidence that international health policy remains all about the bottom line at the expense of untold numbers of deaths.
The Economics of Inequality: Healthcare disparities are a financial and ethical disaster. 100 million people fall into abject poverty every year due to medical costs, says the World Bank. It is economic ruin in developing nations to visit a hospital.
A student captured the gap vividly: "While a patient in New York receives robotic surgery with AI guidance, another patient in Bangladesh's countryside can lose their life because of the unavailability of basic antibiotics". The remark was met with a silence in the room -a sobering reminder that income and geography continue to define the living and the dying.
Emerging Diseases and the Hierarchy of Human Life: Debaters also argued about global reactions to epidemics such as Ebola, Zika, and Monkeypox, noting a trend: issues occur only when Western countries are threatened. During the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic, for example, experimental drugs were hurried into production only after Western aid workers had become infected.
One of these participants from AIUB's Department of Media and Communication stated: "When poor people become ill, an outbreak. When wealthy people become ill, it's a crisis." This observation attributed media coverage to world empathy -showing how media visibility dictates humanitarian response according to whose pain is being uncovered.
The Responsibility of Wealthier Countries: Some of the large questions were: Do wealthier countries have a moral obligation to share medical supplies and technology? Most respondents acknowledged they do-but typically don't. The COVAX facility, created to deliver equitable vaccine access, disintegrated because of money shortfalls and export bans.
The pandemic of COVID-19 taught the world a bitter lesson: no injustice anywhere can threaten health everywhere. The variants moved across all locations, demonstrating that "no one is safe until everyone is safe." But vaccine nationalism was still prevalent, showing the vulnerability of global cooperation. The debaters demanded collective preparedness, openness, and common responsibility in the following disaster. "If the 21st century is to be characterized by progress," declared one debater, "then that progress must be accompanied by compassion."
To end on a positive note, students presented real policy proposals:
Universal Access: Governments need to provide affordable healthcare to all citizens. Patent Reform: Provide temporary exemptions for life-saving medicines in global crises. Global Funding: Rich countries need to contribute more to WHO and COVAX. Education: Teach with empathy and global responsibility. Media Accountability: Demand equal reporting of health crises in poorer regions of the globe. Implementation of these proposals, if realized, would usher in the doors to true global health justice - where equity is a fact and not a utopia.
As students filed out of the auditorium, there was a sense of hope -that change is possible through conversation. And who knows: maybe someday, when someone asks, "Who gets the cure first?" the answer will at last be easy: Everyone.
The writer is from American International University- Bangladesh (AIUB)
