Blog 4 Fall 2019

Ethical Decision-Making and Grassroots Diplomacy Case 3: Sept 17

The facts:
the growth of ~35% of the children is stunted due to poor nutrition
Gruel currently made of corn and bananas
Mothers believe that gruel is effective
HIV/AIDS is bad if this region
More breastfeeding = higher chance to get HIV/AIDS
Mother’s think gruel works
Just received a grant
500 women are involved
Crops used can cause health issues because of pesticides
Ween off children at 6 months of age
Basically more time is bad
Women are skeptical of early weaning
Cash crops are: maize, sorghum, cassava, several varieties of legumes (dried beans), French beans, coffee, pineapple, bananas, pumpkins, tomatoes, carrots, kale, white (Irish) potatoes, and sweet potatoes
Few women were tested for hiv/aids
Women from the coop grow the food and then dry it so that it lasts longer.
Goal of coop is to have a shelf stable porridge product that weens kids off of mothers milk

What is the ethical issue?
Should we feed the children pesticides through porridge or let them drink breast milk

Stakeholders
Mothers
– Professional- An effective solution that keeps their children from getting HIV/AIDS while keeping them nutritious
– Personal- They want their kids to be healthy and safe…….
Potential Women’s cooperative
– Personal- want to make a positive impact
– Professional- bring in stable income to support families
Infants involved
– Personal – Want to be healthy and grow up healthy
– Professional – none
Innovators
– Professional- they want a porridge that is nutritious and that the coop is doing well. They want to make an impact. I.e. they want people to use their product and they want to people to be healthy and safe
– Personal- Recognition, basically the same as the professional
Local government
– Professional- potential to profit if people are healthier/economic gain, social capital gain
– Personal- happier and healthier residents, better quality of life,
Local Farmers
– Professional- Might lose business if their crops are no longer used for gruel/Might gain business if their products ARE used for the gruel
Personal- same

Solutions
Utilitarian- Give kids porridge, forget about pesticides. HIV is a more serious issue
Pros: Kids are much less likely to get HIV and get the nutrients from the porridge

Cons: possibly poison kids with pesticides! yay!

Deontology – Give children porridge that it sourced from all natural farms no matter the time and resource cost
Pros: All food is sourced from organic farms, nobody will get sick and will be well nourished.

Cons: more expensive/more work

Virtue: Create a protocol that people can follow to properly wash crops

Pros: Helps reduce amounts of pesticides left on crops, creates healthy habits, could prevent ingestion of other harmful types of 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

Ask experts: Our expert says he would mix all 3 together

Best solution:

Combination of diagnosing mothers with HIV before birth and recruiting specific farmers that practice safer growing without pesticides:
Ethical Principle/code: Utilitarian/Duty
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. supports local business and keeps 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: added task to medical staff who may already be understaffed. these farmers might not be able to handle the amount of produce required to make the gruel.

Attacks all necessary problems, educates, gives opportunities for more jobs, teaching the mothers the dangers of passing HIV + having safe, nutritious alternative to offer → progress

Implications
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.
Provides education on what steps they should take if they have been diagnosed HIV positive.
Better life expectancy and livelihood of the community overall.
Supporting the local economy
Creates social mobility within community.
Educate farmers on how to grow top quality produce without pesticides.

Part 2: Grassroots Diplomacy

Facts:
Business is thriving
Women work for about nine hours every day and earn KES 300 (about $3)
Women sell produce grown on their farms to the coop
Sold at market rate
Women are happy! Saves them time and money. Strong sense of community/identity
Women have to give their earnings to their husbands/fathers/brothers
Husbands use money for alcohol and “frivolous” things
Children in this community are not getting nutrition
You are one of seven members on a leadership committee
The committee is elected on an annual basis and you have six months left on the committee
The other six members of this committee are local women
Women are not opposed to the men taking away their money
Women are upset that their hard-earned money is not used to feed their children
Women are hopeless/convinced nothing can be done

Ethical issue: issue of autonomy/who decides how money is spent

twin social outcomes are: improving the nutritional status of children and improving the livelihoods of rural households
We need to: get the cooperative back on track to meet the twin social outcomes for the
cooperative on a sustainable basis

Stakeholders

Women not on Committee
Prof: Make money
Social: Feed children, improve livelihood
Us as part of the innovators/ community
Prof: Achieve both outcomes with no backlash. Our success depends on the success of coop in future
Social: recognition and reputation
Committee:
Prof: The want the best for the coop and community
Social: they want to be reappointed/want more votes
Male: secondary stakeholder
Pro:
Social: social norms, wants control over household
Children of workers
Prof: Need nutrients
Social: N/A

Solutions: 

  1. The choice to take a certain number of gruel products and $ per day
    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

 

2. Mobile money credit–women are not given cash but rather a phone credit that can only be used by them so men do not have access.

Pros: women have full control of the money, not tangible so it can be hidden. They can spend it on food and other items the family needs
Cons: How often do women have their own phone? Will the money be easily accessible to them?
How does it save face of those involved?
Lack of accessibility to men can be blamed 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: women need to have cellphones which they may not have all the time depending on income levels per month.

Best solution: 

Solution 1: it satisfies both the woman’s desire to feed their children and the needs of the husband to have money. Women don’t have to have an uncomfortable conversation with their husband about his spending habits because they already have food to feed their children which is all they wanted in the first place.

Leave a Reply