09/22/19 – Case 3

 

• Facts

1. 1. 1. Gruel (maize & banana) does not provide key nutrients
      2. Mothers like them gruel
      3. There are pesticides used on the crops
      4. ~35% of children are nutritionally stunted
      5. Want to transition from breastfeeding at about 24 months
      6.  HIV/AIDS is very prevalent in this region.
      7. The gruel is integrated into a child’s diet to complement breastfeeding until they are ~24 months of age
      8. The WHO wants women to stop breastfeeding at 6 months
      9.  Mothers in the area firmly believe that the gruel is highly beneficial for their children, but scientific research has shown that it does not provide some key nutrients
      10. The longer a child nurses when the mother is HIV+, the greater the chance that the virus will be transmitted to the child
      11. Mother to Child Transmission of HIV is common
      12. Women’s cooperative grant
      13. Women are skeptical of the porridge
      14. Pesticides used can cause adverse health defects in children

• Stakeholders

1. 1. 1. Mothers
      2. Children
      3. Women’s cooperative
      4. WHO
      5. Healthcare system
      6. Local cash crop farmers
      7. Pesticide companies
      8. Donor

• Motivations

1. 1. 1. To improve lives, children’s health, support local business
      2. To stop mother to child HIV transmission rates
      3. Improve the nutritional status of children
      4. Prevent stunted growth
      5. Improve the livelihoods of rural households
      6. Make money off of local crops
      7. To make money
      8. Want the money to support the causes they want and be successful

• Solutions

• • Triage system to diagnose mothers with HIV before birth

1. 1. 1. 1. Ethical Principle/code: Utilitarian
            1. Useless to prevent against HIV if the baby gets it during the birth process
         2. 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
         3. Cons: added task to medical staff
      2. The current solution is: Fortify the current gruel with vitamins and minerals but has a problem with pesticide use
         1. Ethical Principle/code: Virtue –  process also matters too
         2. Pros: would sufficiently replace breastfeeding and meet nutrition needs
         3. Cons: wouldn’t eliminate women’s skepticism. Would still have pesticides
      3. Eliminate crops in the porridge that have a higher risk of pesticide harm i.e. utilized covered crops like pumpkins, bananas for making gruel
         1. Ethical Principle/code: Utilitarian – the greatest good for the greatest number
         2. Pros:  Simple, no added cost or big change of process
         3. Cons: Fewer nutrients from losing various other foods
      4. Create a protocol that people can follow to properly wash crops
         1. Ethical Principle/code: Virtue
         2. Pros: Helps reduce amounts of pesticides left on crops, creates healthy habits, could prevent ingestion of harmful bacteria left on crops
         3. 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
      5. Look into pesticide chemicals and decide if there are “cleaner” pesticides or more natural methods for getting rid of pests
         1. Ethical Principle/code: Duty
         2. Pros: less toxic pesticides used=not as harmful effects on the body, pests likely won’t destroy crops as much as no pesticide use
         3. 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

1. 1. 1. 1. Ethical Principle/code: Duty
         2. 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
         3. Cons: these farmers might not be able to handle the amount of produce required,

• • Seek assistance, as appropriate

1. 1. 1. https://www.azurihealth.co.ke/
      2. https://www.pan-uk.org/health-effects-of-pesticides/

• The best course of action

1. 1. 1. Combination of A & F Solutions
         1. 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

1. 1. Women can protect their children
      1. We would want to start with a small population whose health clinics have the infrastructure, time and money to screen mothers for HIV
   2. Women will know their HIV status, minimizing the HIV transmission rates
      1. Provide education on what steps they should take if they have been diagnosed HIV positive
   3. Supporting the local economy
      1. Creates social mobility
      2. Educate farmers on how to grow top quality produce without pesticides

Ethical Question at Play:  Is it fine to lower the risk of HIV/AIDS but at the risk of adding sickness from pesticides, how to balance the risk of passing on HIV/AIDS to children and the risk of children getting sick from pesticides

PART 2:

• Facts, business thriving:

1. 1. 1. Women work for nine hours a day and make about $3
      2. Women save time traveling to market (and $)
      3. Happy with the coop and the sense of identity
      4. Women turn over their money to men in the family
      5. Men waste the money
      6. One of seven members of the leadership council
      7. Have six months left on the committee
      8. Committee wants things to change
      9. A patriarchal society where men have say on money
      10. 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:

1. 1. Mothers
   2. Children
   3. Women’s cooperative
   4. Local cash crop farmers
   5. Husbands

• Motivations:

1. 1. Want to be fed
   2. Improve the nutritional status of children
   3. Prevent stunted growth
   4. Want the money to buy personal stuff they want

• Solutions:

1. 1. 1. The choice to take a certain number of gruel products and $ per day
         1. How does it solve the problem?
            1. Pros: controls money flow going home, gives women choice to just take food for kids if that’s what they want and is needed
            2. Cons: the husband might be angry that not as much money is coming home
         2. How does it save face of those involved?
            1. Gives mothers the option to what they want without confrontation with husbands
         3. Implications on relationships
            1. Short-term: confused husbands, might be frustrated
            2. Long-term: adjusted, even distribution of food for kids and money for family when needed or want it
         4. Implications on the venture
            1. Short-term:  supports women instantly for wants
            2. Long-term:  further advertise food in local community
      2. Potential Solution: Women receive vouchers instead of money. The vouchers can be used to buy coop food
         1. How does it solve the problem?
            1. Pros: Money gets spent on food for the children, women in control of voucher and how it gets spent
            2. 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)
         2. How does it save face of those involved?
            1. Puts blame of money distribution on the co-op, not the women
         3. Implications on relationships
            1. Short-term: women are protected from unfortunate consequences
            2. Long-term: animosity and backlash
         4. Implications on the venture
            1. Short-term: ensuring women are getting food to feed their children
            2. Long-term: principal-agent problem and company store logic
      3. Potential Solution: 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.
         1. How does it solve the problem?
            1. 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
            2. Cons: How often do women have their own phone? Will the money be easily accessible to them?
         2. How does it save face of those involved?
            1. Lack of accessibility to men can be blamed on the co-op, not the women
         3. Implications on relationships
            1. Short-term: women are protected from unfortunate consequences
            2. Long-term: animosity and backlash
         4. Implications on the venture
            1. Short-term: ensuring women are getting food to feed their children
            2. Long-term: women need to have cellphones which they may not have all the time depending on income levels per month

• Seek assistance:

1. 1. 1. Shame the men–stamp pacifier under the bill
      2. Save family’s spending receipts
         1. If you turn them in and show that you are spending responsibly, then you can get a discount or get paid more
            1. Incentivise men to make responsible purchases
      3. Teach women how to build equity
         1. Can grow and support further farming operations

• Best course of action:

1. 1. Solution 1 would be the best course of action we came up with, as this gives the family autonomy still on spending money personally, but the women have priority first to opt into taking home more food meals for their children if food for them is how they would rather use that percentage of their money.