Browsing by Author "Kleinman, A"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Anthropology, knowledge-flows and global health.
    (Global public health, 2010-01) Feierman, S; Kleinman, A; Stewart, K; Farmer, D; Das, V
    Global health programmes are damaged by blockages in the upward flow of information from localities and regional centres about realities of professional practice and about patients' lives and conditions of treatment. Power differentials between local actors and national or international decision-makers present further obstacles to effective action. Anthropological research and action, in its most effective current forms, make important contributions to these issues. This research often continues over the long term, intensively. It can be multi-sited, studying actors at local, national and international levels simultaneously. It studies the relative knowledge and power of impoverished patients and global decision-makers, all within a single frame. By doing so, anthropological research is capable of providing new and important insights on the diverse meanings of patient decision-making, informed consent, non-compliance, public health reporting, the building of political coalitions for health and many other issues.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Values and moral experience in global health: bridging the local and the global.
    (Global public health, 2010-01) Stewart, KA; Keusch, GT; Kleinman, A
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Values in global health governance
    (2011-01-01) Stewart, KA; Keusch, GT; Kleinman, A
    © Cambridge University Press 2011. Introduction Over the past several decades, political conflicts, economic volatility and large-scale cultural and social changes have strongly influenced not only global health problem and solution frameworks, but the very way we conceive of global health as a public good. As politicians, business people and cultural elites employ the language of global health to shape discourse and policies focused on displaced and migratory peoples, they have perhaps unwittingly broadened the classic public health agenda. As a consequence, that agenda now includes violence and its traumatic consequences, the health (and mental health) impact of natural and social catastrophes, other health-related problems from obesity to substance abuse, and the effect of pharmaceutical and digital technology innovations not previously considered to be core public health issues. They expand and reformulate the traditional spheres of public health, and challenge classic public health values. As a result, debates shaping global health research, ethics, policy and programs have developed along two parallel tracks. One can be characterized as a neo-liberal approach combining economics (liberalization of trade and financing; new mechanisms for product development for diseases of poverty involving public–private partnerships; cost-effectiveness analysis), disease-specific and biotechnology programs and security concerns. The other has focused on human rights, social justice and equity frameworks with a broader, more inclusive model of the determinants of health. This perspective calls for a transformation of the current fractured system of global health governance into a transparent and accountable system, better equipped to address the world's global health agendas.