Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
19 March 2021 | Story Nombulelo Shange | Photo Andre Damons
Adnombulelo
Nombulelo Shange says this year it is important to look inward, focus on individual healing, growth and reflect on the losses pre- and post-COVID-19.

By Nombulelo Shange, lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of the Free State

With Human Rights Day nearing it is important to remember the sacrifice of those who lost their lives in the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre in the fight for our freedom. This year I think it is also important to look inward, focus on individual healing, growth and reflect on the losses pre- and post-COVID-19.

The strength and resilience of the Sharpeville community is an important reminder of the hardship we have to overcome; it is an important reminder that we can overcome even this challenge. But on this Human Rights Day our strength lies in our vulnerability and being strong enough to admit we are not okay and ask for help even when societal norms make it hard to do so. Do this without being embarrassed or carry resentment when those we lean on can’t be there because they are also not coping. And for those who give a lot of themselves, it is okay to admit that you have nothing left to give and that you need time to replenish yourself because you can’t bring light into other people’s lives while your own flame is dimming.

The collective cannot be strong when individuals are broken

Many of us were raised in families where communalism, ubuntu and caring for the collective are prioritised over the individual. And to put ourselves and our own wellbeing first feels like a betrayal of these virtues we were brought up with. But I would argue the opposite is true, the collective cannot be strong when it is made up of broken individuals.

Not putting ourselves first would be a betrayal to the same ideals of ubuntu many of us were brought up with. It sounds like a contradiction because we are taught to look at the world in polarised ways and ubuntu ends up being portrayed as a philosophy that puts the masses first and sometimes at the expense of the individual. We see this kind of thinking and application in our own lives where families and communities at times uncritically impose ideas and practices that seemingly benefit the community over individuals. We see it in African discourse that theorises ubuntu and its relevance to traditional and modern spaces, its relevance in human rights discourse, decolonial discourse that broadly calls for “African solutions for African problems”. All of these are important and provide useful analysis, but they sometimes erase the individual.

Individualism is associated with Western imperialism and is rejected and vilified

Individualism is often rejected and vilified because it is associated with Western imperialism that saw the introduction of a greedy capitalist system in Africa that goes against almost every core belief we have. The capitalist system broke our connection to the environment and turned it into a commodity to be exploited for economic gain. It pushed competition and individual wealth over social wellbeing and community. And most importantly it took everything from Africans, our land, language, culture and sense of self. So as we grow and rebuild, it is difficult for us to imagine that these two seemingly contradictory ideals can coexist, where individualism is celebrated and encouraged for the betterment of a collective that will be stronger because it is made up of strong individuals. Instead we polarise, we conclude that if Western imperialism is exploitive and individualism is closely associated with it, then individualism must be bad too. If ubuntu and the collectivist thought around it protected the environment and promoted social wellbeing, then collectivism is good and to question it is to put your own selfish individual needs over the needs of the community and collective human rights.

But if we step away and look at ubuntu beyond our polarised ways of thinking, we see that ubuntu does place a great deal of importance on the individual. The main theoretical tenet of ubuntu says, “Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu”, which translates to “I am because we are”. This expression shows the mutually beneficial coexistence of the individual and the collective. The collective is nothing without the individuals, and if the individuals who make up the collective are weak, the collective will also be weak. Individuals also need the community for their own enrichment, sense of self and overall wellbeing. If individuals are not nurtured and supported by the collective, they will not be able to give back to the collective, and the cycle continues.

It is time for us to focus on healing and introspection

So, what do we do when our collectivism is threatened by a global pandemic that is threatening to topple even the world’s strongest nations? What do we do when we can no longer tap into the collective strength we have built everything on? So much of our way of life is built on this collective strength as Africans, from the monthly stokvel meetings that offer people solutions to the worst socioeconomic challenges, while offering support and strength. Even church spaces are more than just a place to worship. It is here where people discuss the challenges faced by the community and offer whatever they can to address them. Our funerals and weddings do not just bring families together they bring communities together in shared grief or celebration. You do not even have to invite neighbours to events. The moment they see the tents, chairs, animal sacrifice etc arrive, they come days prior to the event to help the family prepare, celebrate, or cry. Even our ritualistic healing practices are not an individual lonely process in the way that Western biomedical models offer healing. At some point or another, the involvement of family and even the community will become important in African healing practices.

COVID-19 has threatened all of this and future environmental and public health crises might test us even more than COVID-19 has. I think this is the time for us to focus on healing and introspection, many of us were broken long before the pandemic hit. We have carried past intergenerational traumas into our present, but we have an opportunity to ensure that we do not carry them into our futures. We have been depleted by systems that seek to erase our entire existence as people of colour, women, LGBT+ communities and people with disabilities. After a while we start to believe that we are not worthy of love, we believe our poverty is a result of our own laziness and discount the fact that we have been starved of opportunities and resources. We stop challenging the abuses of our individual and collective human rights. This forced isolation is an ideal time to reflect on these things, heal and build ourselves as individuals through talking and sharing deep intimate pain with loved ones, trying to be in nature, attempting to “phahla” or mediate. The process will be different for everyone. Our own mental health depends on it and so does part of our ability to access our human rights. The restoration of our strength as communities will also depend on it during COVID-19 and beyond.

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept