Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Hunger is a violation of children’s rights. An all-of-society response is needed

18 March 2022 | Story Dr Chantell Witten | Photo Supplied

Opinion article by Dr Chantell Witten, Division Health Science Education, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State (UFS).

As we count down to Human Rights Day commemorated annually on 21 March, we are acutely aware of the failures of the state to realise and satisfy the human rights enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially for children.

Since the dawn of democracy in South Africa in 1994 the country has struggled with a persistent high level of child malnutrition measured as stunting, when children are too short for their age. This is not just shortness of height but it is a proxy for compromised health and a risk factor for lower cognitive development, lower education attainment and lower future productivity both in work output and in earning capabilities. Unhealthy children are likely to be our future unhealthy adults and compromised human development.

Protect children from hunger

It is for this reason that all efforts must be explored to protect children from hunger. Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic more than two years ago, there have been huge negative impacts on global health and development which are bearing down on the youngest members of the planet, our children. These impacts on children are costing their lives now and well into the future. South Africa has the largest social protection programme for children on the African continent with a child support grant that benefits more than 12 million children under the age of 18 years. On 23 February 2022, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana announced that the child support grant would increase from R460 to R480 per month as from 1 April. A mere 4% increase, against a year-on-year food and non-alcoholic beverages inflation of 5.5%, rendering the already measly child support grant ineffective to keep hunger at bay, much less to address the nutrition that children need to grow and be healthy. In Section 28 of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution states that “every child has the right to basic nutrition, shelter, health care and social services, as well as the right to be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation”. But the high levels of child malnutrition, almost one in three children are stunted, while one in four households reported child hunger. This is a result of the failure to protect children.

One of South Africa’s leading civil society organisations, the Black Sash, undertook research with the South African Medical Research Council to explore how households receiving the child support grant managed with respect to food procurement and dietary patterns. I was approached to assist with child nutrition data interpretation and policy implications. It was not surprising to find that all 12 households included in this qualitative study were not able to cope or meet their food needs. These households’ food purchasing patterns were insufficient in quantity and in dietary quality. All household members were not able to eat regularly or sufficiently to keep hunger at bay. Even for children, hunger was a norm. Even for a household of a single mother and her five-year-old child, the child support grant was not enough to buy enough food, and other essentials like electricity, toiletries and cleaning materials. This was a huge cause for concern, given the context of COVID and the need to wash hands and surfaces regularly.

Trauma of caregivers to provide food

The nutrition evaluation of the foods that were purchased was lacking in diversity, nutrient-density and low-quality foods, raising the issue of food safety as well. Poor households dependent on the child support grant, even with multiple grants, was not enough to buy enough food for all the household members. Many adults are forced to go without meals or reduce the amount of food they eat and to rely on food relief efforts like soup kitchens, food packs and food charity. The most heart-wrenching finding is the constant experience of trauma faced by caregivers to provide food for their hungry children. Caregivers expressed feelings of shame and guilt knowing that their children are hungry, for sending their children to ask for food from neighbours and community members. The constant cries for food would drive caregivers to ‘hit the children and send them to bed’. Sleeping is an escape from hunger and having to deal with hunger. These households are under severe psychological strain, re-emphasising that hungry people are angry people. This is not conducive for optimal child care and highlights hunger as a driver of child ‘maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation’ as listed in the Bill of Rights.

While caregivers are resourceful in trying to stretch the food budget by buying cheaper, smaller quantities of food products, giving small children many smaller snack foods and taking cash loans to buy foods, these efforts do not shield or protect children from the physical and psychological harm of hunger. A whole-of-society response is needed to create more provision efforts like community out-reach kitchens, food drives and donations, macro-policy initiatives to subsidise food for grant recipients, promotion and support of food gardens and to push government to institute a Basic Income Grant for unemployed persons 18-59 years of age. The child support grant is not enough to protect children from chronic hunger which itself is ‘maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation’ as enshrined in the South African Bill of Rights.

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.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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