Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
24 March 2022 | Story Portia Arodi | Photo Supplied
Portia Arodi
Portia Arodi, Interdisciplinary Master’s in Human Rights, Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law

Opinion article by Portia Arodi, Interdisciplinary Master’s in Human Rights, Class of 2022 Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of the Free State.
Human Rights Day means different things to different people. For some people, Human Rights Day means commemorating the day of the 1960 massacre when 69 people were shot and killed by police in Sharpeville.   In my opinion, Human Rights Day not only symbolises the historical events that occurred in 1960, but it also provides evidence of the inequalities that currently exist in South Africa.   The labour market in South Africa is still racialised and gender biased. The black majority in the labour market earns way less than their white counterparts, even though both are immersed in the same working conditions. According to Statistics South Africa (2015), the differences in the income of South Africans remain heavily racialised. Furthermore, since 1994, bridging the gap between gender and race continues to be a struggle. On the other hand, black women experience the same inequalities as their male counterparts. The difference is that black females are subject to double discrimination, based not only on their race, but on their gender as well. Despite occupying the same positions as males and assuming similar duties and workload, their salaries remain low. 
  
Human rights in an unequal society

On the other hand, for some categories of people – namely the elite and those in power – Human Rights Day amounts to a democratic South Africa, a country where the constitution is the supreme law of the land and where everyone (without exception) enjoys freedom and human rights. For this particular section of the ruling class and elite, Human Rights Day attests to the effective transition from the apartheid era to a democratic society characterised by freedom, equality, and dignity for all.

For those who lack access to basic needs such as water, food, shelter, health care, electricity, and sanitation, their perception of Human Rights Day may be very different, as they live in poverty with no promising future prospects.  In fact, for the larger section of the population, democratic South Africa is nothing but a burden that does not have much to offer.  Indeed, how to explain that in 2022, the black majority still relies on the bucket system for sanitation; how to understand that to date, they still survive in squatter camps and go through days and nights on an empty stomach? 

It is my contention that the celebration of Human Rights Day has failed to consider a holistic approach to highlighting and raising awareness on critical issues, including poverty and inequality. The realisation of socio-economic rights by authorities exists only on paper but is yet to be done effectively. The provision of service delivery, health-care services, infrastructure, the right to food, education, and other basic needs remains characteristic of modern South African society. From this perspective, it means that we are celebrating one part while neglecting the other.

Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are still children studying under trees?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are children going to school without food?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when there are children who are not able to go to school or receive basic education?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when racism is still occurring in our schools and workplaces?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when children are being raped by their teachers at school?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when some universities are still using Afrikaans as their primary language?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when our students are being deprived of education due to the mandatory vaccination policy?
Would it be fair to celebrate Human Rights Day when white privilege still exists among university students?

Is Human Rights Day still worth commemorating?

What are we celebrating on Human Rights Day?  Are we celebrating the achievements of the minority population? Are we celebrating the few changes that have occurred since the advent of a democratic South Africa? Are we celebrating the Fees Must Fall movement that occurred in a contest where some students who were fighting for free education were arrested, shot, and even killed? Are we simply referring to what occurred in 1960? Why are we not celebrating the Fees Must Fall movement? Why are we not celebrating the Rhodes Must Fall movement? Why are we not celebrating the Steyn Must Fall movement? 

On 21 March 2022:

We need to celebrate the Fees Must Fall movement.  
We need to celebrate the Rhodes Must Fall movement.
We need to celebrate the Steyn Must Fall movement.
We need to fight for the voiceless. 
We need to get commitment from government to abolish the use of the bucket system.
We need to get a commitment from government to build more schools, hospitals, shelters, roads, and other infrastructure.
We need to get commitment from government to hire more teachers. 
We need to get commitment from government on protection against racism that occurs in schools and universities. 

We need to get commitment from government regarding the abolition of the mandatory vaccination policies at universities.

On Human Rights Day, let us evaluate whether the Constitution of South Africa is protecting and safeguarding the rights of all human beings, irrespective of their gender, race, ethnic group, socio-economic status … etc.  Is this the democratic South Africa we would want our children and great-grandchildren to have in 50 years? If not, then we have a responsibility to find better ways in which the Constitution of South Africa functions as intended. 

News Archive

Cardiology Unit involved in evaluation of drug for rare genetic disease
2013-01-04

Front from the left, are: Marinda Karsten (study coordinator and registered nurse),
Laumarie de Wet (clinical technologist), Charmaine Krahenbuhl (study coordinator and radiographer),
Lorinda de Meyer (administrator), Andonia Page (study coordinator and enrolled nurse);
back Dr Gideon Visagie (sub investigator), Dr Derick Aucamp (sub investigagtor),
Prof. Hennie Theron, (principal investigator) and Dr Wilhelm Herbst (sub investigator).
Photo: Supplied
09 January 2013


The Cardiology Research Unit at the University of the Free State (UFS) contributed largely to the evaluation of the drug Juxtapid (lomitapide), which was developed by the Aegerion pharmaceutical company and approved by the FDA (Federal Drug Administration). Together with countries such as die USA, Canada and Italy, the UFS’ Unit recruited and evaluated the most patients (5 of 29) for the study since 2008.  

The drug was evaluated in persons with so-called familial homozygous hypercholesterolemia (HoFH).  

Following its approval by the FDA, Juxtapid is now a new treatment option for patients suffering from HoFH. The drug operates in a unique way which brings about dramatic improvements in cholesterol counts.  

According to Prof. Hennie Theron, Associate Professor in the Department of Cardiology at the UFS and Head of the Cardiology Contract Research Unit, HoFH is a serious, rare genetic disease which affects the function of the receptor responsible for the removal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (“bad” cholesterol) from the body. Damage to the LDL receptor function leads to extremely high levels of blood cholesterol. HoFH patients often develop premature and progressive atherosclerosis, which is a narrowing or blockage of the arteries.  

“HoFH is a genetically transmitted disease and the most severe form of hypercholesterolemia. Patients often need a coronary artery bypass or/and aortic valve replacement before the age of 20. Mortality is extremely high and death often occurs before the third decade of life. Existing conventional cholesterol-lowering medication is unsuccessful in achieving normal target cholesterol values in this group of patients.  

“The only modality for treatment is plasmapheresis (similar to dialysis in patients with renal failure). Even with this type of therapy the results are relatively unsatisfactory because it is very expensive and the plasmapheresis has to be performed on a regular basis.  

“The drug Juxtapid, as currently evaluated, has led to a dramatic reduction in cholesterol values and normal values were achieved in several people. No existing drug is nearly as effective.  

“The drug represents a breakthrough in the treatment of familial homozygous hypercholesterolemia. The fact that it has been approved by the FDA, gives further impetus to the findings,” says Prof. Theron.  

In future further evaluation will be performed in other forms of hypocholesterolemia.  

According to Prof. Theron, the findings of the study, as well as the recent successful FDA evaluation, once again confirms the fact that the UFS’ Cardiology Contract Research Unit is doing outstanding work.  

Since its inception in 1992, the Unit has already been involved in more than 60 multi-centre, international phase 2 and 3 drug studies. Several of these studies, including the abovementioned study, really affected the way in which cardiology functions.  

The UFS’ Cardiology Contract Research Unit is being recognised nationally and internationally for its high quality of work and is constantly approached for their involvement in new studies.  

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