Medical Tourism Development
Question Description
Please write 300-word for each one with references attached separately. Students example and articles will be provided as usual.
Question 1:
Is medical tourism another way (poor) people in developing countries are exploited by wealthy foreigners? What do the different readings this week, directly or indirectly, argue?
Ex1.
In both the articles from Kangas and Speier, exploitation of poor people in developing countries are approached. I think to some extent there is a sense of exploitation but not in every sense of the matter. I believe that some of the poorer people can be exploited by these wealthy foreigners but on the other hand I think that in some way these foreigners are helping them financially.
Kangas began to talk about this concept of transplant tourism which is defined as “rich foreigners traveling to buy the organs of the poor, who have no choice but to sell them” (Kangas 2011, 331) while Speier noted that “reproductive medicine reifies body parts, making them into objects, and subsequently commodities” (Speier 2012, 212). In this sense I think that wealthy tourists would take advantage of the fact that these poorer people will sell their organs to make money and also dehumanize any possible help they could give to the foreigners. They would simply just see these poorer people as a an opportunity to buy this commodity from them so they can have a longer life. I don’t believe it has a fully exploitative nature but just another way for poorer people to make money and wealthy foreigners to cut costs.
Another aspect of this question touches upon the fact that indirectly these foreigners are helping the poorer people in the long run. This is mostly seen in Speier’s article which has the opposite idea of exploitation. Her article speaks of the opportunities that these developing countries have to satisfy tourists with travel as well as possible pregnancy, through IVF. I gather from the article that the locals in Czech don’t feel exploited as they are afforded job opportunities, money and compensation. I think in this sense the foreigners are not exploiting the locals but asking for help and seeking lower costs. Do you think that all wealthy foreigners have the intention of exploiting the poorer people, or are they trying to do whatever they can to prolong their life?
Kangas, Beth. 2011. “Complicating Common Ideas about Medical Tourism: Gender, Class, and Globality in Yemenis’ International Medical Travel.” Signs36 (2): 327-332.
Speier, Amy. 2012. “Reproductive Tourism: Health Care Crisis Reifies Global Stratified Reproduction.” In Global Tourism: Cultural Heritage and Economic Encounters, edited by Sarah M. Lyon and E. Christian Wells, 209-226. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Ex2.
All three of the readings assigned for this week have presented compelling arguments in regard to medical tourism.
Ben Kangas defines transplant tourism as “rich foreigners traveling to buy the organs of the poor, who have no choice but to sell them,” (2011, p. 331). Kangas suggests that from this definition it is easy to judge transplant tourism as the wealthy exploiting the poor. However, as the article continues we hear about a contradictory story of Amal, who is a relatively poor patient from a poor country who had to borrow money in order to receive a transplant. Amal will inevitably go into a large amount of debt in order to receive a kidney from a Palestinian woman in Iraq, and thus Amal’s example contradicts the assumption of transplant tourism simply being the wealthy exploiting the poor (Kangas, 2011, p. 331). Kangas argues that the assumptions revolving around medical tourism should not demonize the recipients, and the alternative stories she includes in her article highlight the need to focus on humanizing a system that has been dehumanized.
Nancy Scheper-Hughes takes a more detailed approach on certain underpinnings of transplant tourism, primarily comparing it to neoliberal globalization (2011, p. 63). Scheper-Hughes argues that transplant tourism provides flexibility, mobility, exchange, autonomous subjects, and thus creates greedy demands and predatory claims “on the bio-disposable”. Transplant tourism can commodify body parts for a “global network”. The dilemma that arises is when most people view transplant tourism as a promising trade rather than a “rotten trade” as would be understood through the trafficking of guns, drugs and illicit sex (Scheper-Hughes, 2011, p. 85). Transplant tourism is, in fact, a trade, and Scheper-Hughes argues that it reflects where we are in the present with our bodies, notions of being human, our relationships to others, and accepting our susceptibility to death.
Lastly, Amy Speier concludes her article in a way that perfectly combines both Kangas and Scheper-Hughes insights. Speier points out the financial impact reproductive services can entail, and she admits that medical tourism can offer