Improving the health of the poor in mexico
The Progresa/Oportunidades discussed in the case study give cash incentives to mothers to encourage children’s health and education needs in the poor regions of Mexico. The advantages of giving out cash grants to mothers include; Women’s enhanced health position and poverty minimization. Of all the determinants, extension services to families in developing countries have demonstrated that when families get monetary support, they are likely to allocate resources to health and education facilities. For instance, mothers may want to buy food, antibodies, doctor’s appointments, and anything else that will help them raise the standard of living of their children (Gertler et al., 2014). Unlike other approaches that solve a health issue but leave the recipient in poverty this plan not only ensures that the recipient gets immediate health needs met but also gets an education for the next generation. Also, the cash given to mothers instead of giving to the whole family, makes sure resources are given to the person most likely to pay much attention to the family’s health and needs, the woman or mother, thereby increasing the possibility of the right usage of the money.
However, the program will set a few ethical issues or social issues, most notably regarding the reinforcement of stereotypes. The belief that women are caregivers/welfare givers and are the only prudent individuals in a home may push away men or other family members, the family domains become gender-defined inhibiting the extent of family bonding. Additionally, giving cash grants to the beneficiaries will make them rely on the cash rather than work to sustain themselves, thus losing the feeling of self-reliance. Furthermore, some of such programs may cause stigmatization or a sense of helplessness within a society since some people feel that accepting government aid is some form of incapability and that some form of inequality will continue to persist hence sparking resentment among these various groups of society. Such concerns point to the need for a better way in which aid is provided without developing some of the above negative effects including; reinforcement of certain stereotypical views or a tendency to encourage an attitude of learned helplessness.
From an ethical viewpoint, it can appear that resources were targeting the enhancement of health among vulnerable population groups, but some discussions arose about the equality of the program’s distribution. Such assumptions only mean that all the poor households will be immunized but this negates the needs of some specific people such as those in rural areas, or the indigenous people. To my mind, the distribution of resources could be more ethically satisfying, if the program would, at the same time, consider differences between areas and certain cultural requirements. As a nurse lobbying to continue funding for it, I would point out that there are rigid positive externalities linked with the overall general public well-being for instance prenatal care, immunizations, and maternal health. Scientific evidence indicates that such measures can decrease the child mortality level and have positive impacts on health in the future, which is why such insights would be interesting for policymakers (Barham et al., 2014). A similar program could potentially be used in other communities provided that there were adjustments made according to the particular needs of that certain population and the population itself was heterogeneous.
References
Barham, T., Macours, K., & Maluccio, J. A. (2014). *The impact of conditional cash transfers on consumption and investment in rural households: Evidence from Mexico*. Journal of Development Economics, 110, 92-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2014.02.003
Gertler, P., Martinez, S., & Rubio-Codina, M. (2014). *Investing cash transfers to raise long-term living standards*. The American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(4), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.6.4.73