FACTS AND LOGIC
- 35% of the children in this East African region have stunted growth.
- If children are breastfed for too long they have a higher chance of contracting HIV
- Maize and banana gruel is the common food for babies starting around 2 months to 24 months and accompanies breastfeeding
- The gruel isn’t that nutritious despite common opinion among the locals
- People are skeptical of the pesticides and the adverse health effects these pesticides can give to the babies
- You have a grant to establish a women’s cooperative to improve the nutritional status of the children and improve the livelihoods of rural households.
- The funds will help the women’s group make a nutritious self stable porridge to help children wean off breastfeeding.
- Approximately 500 women in the area are willing to join
- WHO says to breastfeed exclusively until 6 months
- The longer someone with HIV breastfeeds the more likely they are to transmit their diseases to their child
STAKEHOLDERS AND MOTIVATIONS
- Children at breastfeeding age: are not old enough to understand their stake in this situation, thus have no needs other than food
- Lactating mothers: want their babies to grow up healthy, want to prevent them from getting health complications from HIV, pesticides, malnutrition, etc
- Other Women: they may be in the women’s cooperative making the porridge as part of the project, potential employment opportunity with the cooperative, will want their future children to be healthy
- Women’s cooperative Grant Donor: Want women to be healthier, want their money to go towards a productive venture (worthy investment)
- You as a researcher: want to make everyone happy, professionally need to develop a successful co-operative
- Local Farmers: your crops may be used to produce the porridge that will be created with the women’s cooperative, you will make money
- Doctors: want healthy communities, want to be equipped in the case of new health problems arise because of pesticide use?
- The future co-op: motivated to stay open, be useful – help women, make money
SOLUTIONS to this ethical question: “Is it okay to add a risk of childhood sickness from pesticides in order to lower the risk of HIV/AIDS”
- Triage system to diagnose mothers with HIV before birth
- Ethical Principle/code: Utilitarian
- Useless to prevent against HIV if the baby gets it during the birth process
- Pros: HIV can be better monitored for women, helps to ensure that the baby does not get HIV, women who test positive can seek treatment and help stop transmission
- Cons: added task to medical staff
- The current solution is: Fortify the current gruel with vitamins and minerals but has a problem with pesticide use
- Ethical Principle/code: Virtue – process also matters too
- Pros: would sufficiently replace breastfeeding and meet nutrition needs
- Cons: wouldn’t eliminate women’s skepticism. Would still have pesticides
- Eliminate crops in the porridge that have a higher risk of pesticide harm i.e. utilized covered crops like pumpkins, bananas for making gruel
- Ethical Principle/code: Utilitarian – the greatest good for the greatest number
- Pros: Simple, no added cost or big change of process
- Cons: Fewer nutrients from losing various other foods
- Create a protocol that people can follow to properly wash crops
- Ethical Principle/code: Virtue
- Pros: Helps reduce amounts of pesticides left on crops, creates healthy habits, could prevent ingestion of harmful bacteria left on crops
- Cons: even with the wash, there may still be pesticides present on the crops, people can get sick if the protocol isn’t followed properly
- Look into pesticide chemicals and decide if there are “cleaner” pesticides or more natural methods for getting rid of pests
- Ethical Principle/code: Duty
- Pros: less toxic pesticides used=not as harmful effects on the body, pests likely won’t destroy crops as much as no pesticide use
- Cons: there is already a negative connotation regarding pesticides people may not believe there are “cleaner” pesticides
- Recruit specific farmers that practice safer growing w/o pesticides
- Ethical Principle/code: Duty
- Pros: it could support local business and keep the economy strong in the community, it would eliminate the stigma around having food made with produce grown with pesticides. We could get a deal with a farmer for cheaper prices
- Cons: these farmers might not be able to handle the amount of produce required
SEEK ASSISTANCE
https://www.azurihealth.co.ke/
https://www.pan-uk.org/health-effects-of-pesticides/
THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION
Combination of FIRST and LAST Solution – The combination of these two solutions would attack all of the necessary problems: it educates women, creates more job opportunities for farmers and educators, eliminates pesticides from the production of gruel and makes it more marketable.
IMPLCATIONS OF SOLUTION
- Women can protect their children
- We would want to start with a small population whose health clinics have the infrastructure, time and money to screen mothers for HIV
- Women will know their HIV status, minimizing the HIV transmission rates
- Provide education on what steps they should take if they have been diagnosed HIV positive
- Supporting the local economy
- Creates social mobility
- Educate farmers on how to grow top quality produce without pesticides
PART 2:
FACTS AND LOGIC
- Business is thriving
- Women work for nine hours a day and make about $3
- Women save time traveling to market (and $)
- Happy with the coop and the sense of identity
- Women turn over their money to men in the family
- Men waste the money
- One of seven members of the leadership council
- Have six months left on the committee
- Committee wants things to change
- A patriarchal society where men have say on money
- Though the cooperative is thriving, it is not achieving the twin social outcomes of improving the nutritional status of children and the livelihoods of rural households.
STAKEHOLDERS AND MOTIVATIONS
- Cooperative women
- Personal: they want the money to be used for their children. If they speak up, they might be subjected to domestic abuse.
- Professional: they want their hard-earned money to be put into good use.
- 7 women on committee
- Personal: they want their fellow women to have control over their paycheck because “girls stick together”
- Professional: same thing but as committee members, they want to do what’s best for the cooperative
- You as the entrepreneur
- Personal: the morally good person in you just wants equality
- Professional: you want the grant that went into creating the cooperative to be used wisely
- Children:
- Personal and professional: they want and need healthy food to grow up healthy
- Husbands, brothers, fathers
- Personal and professional: they want that extra pocket money to spend on useless shit that will give them a good reputation among their men friends and have that cultural capital for socializing.
- Grant donors
- Personal: they want to empower women
- Professional: they want their money to be used well.
SOLUTIONS
Potential Solution: The choice to take a certain number of gruel products and $ per day
- How does it solve the problem?
- Pros: controls money flow going home, gives women choice to just take food for kids if that’s what they want and is needed
- Cons: the husband might be angry that not as much money is coming home
- How does it save face of those involved?
- Gives mothers the option to what they want without confrontation with husbands
- Implications on relationships
- Short-term: confused husbands, might be frustrated
- Long-term: adjusted, even distribution of food for kids and money for family when needed or want it
- Implications on the venture
- Short-term: supports women instantly for wants
- Long-term: further advertise food in local community
Potential Solution: Women receive vouchers instead of money. The vouchers can be used to buy coop food
- How does it solve the problem?
- Pros: Money gets spent on food for the children, women in control of voucher and how it gets spent
- Cons: Husband mad that there isn’t any extra money coming in, the voucher can’t be put towards other goods needed (can only get food), does not support women selling food in markets (only within the co op)
- How does it save face of those involved?
- Puts blame of money distribution on the co-op, not the women
- Implications on relationships
- Short-term: women are protected from unfortunate consequences
- Long-term: animosity and backlash
- Implications on the venture
- Short-term: ensuring women are getting food to feed their children
- Long-term: principal-agent problem and company store logic
Potential Solution: Have events where the women can bring their kids to work and pay for the kids’ lunch out of their wages — “Daycare”
- How does it solve the problem
- Pros: women will be able to pop in and see their kids, the kids will have access to nutritious food, the women will have control over some of the money to feed their kids
- Cons: school aged kids might not be able to participate because of school
- How does it save face of those involved
- The women won’t have to stand up to the husbands but still make sure their kids get good food
- Implications on the venture
- Short-term: could potentially be a financial burden to pay for caretakers/find space to house a lot of kids
- Long-term: shows that the venture is very family oriented, doesn’t separate women from their children, makes sure that their employees families are well fed
SEEK ASSISTANCE
https://www.azurihealth.co.ke/
https://www.pan-uk.org/health-effects-of-pesticides/
THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION
The best course of action would be to host a daycare. I chose this option because it saves face of the most amount of people. The women still get to bring home money for the husbands (won’t end up fighting about loss of wages) but they also get to spend more time with their kids during the day, and buy nutritious food for their kids as a mid-day meal. It also creates more jobs in the community and reflects positively on the co-op.
IMPLICATIONS OF SOLUTION
- Same amount of wages
- Some wages spent directly on meals for kids
- Nutritious food available for kids
- Able to visit kids during work day
- Avoids confrontation with husbands