Rambling Onwards

For some, the first impression they have of Cuba is a poor, Communist country in Latin America. Why? Because it's portrayed that way in Western media and normally we don't really hear about it.

So you can imagine my surprise when I found out that they have one of the most effective health care systems in the third world and that the UN World Health Organisation (WHO) says that the Cuba health care system is a model for all countries in the world.

In 2014, they had one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world at 4.2 deaths per thousand births, which is also lower than the US. Life expectancy is 78 years, which is one of the highest in the world (Source: Huffington Post). And from 2010, they've had about one physician per 150 citizens - to compare, since 2011 Australia has just one per 303 citizens. (Source: World Bank).

How is it possible for a third world country to have better health statistics and hence a better primary health care system by spending only 4% per person annually of what the US does? (Source: links.org)

But before we get into that, let me start with a confession.

Tuberculosis (TB) is not something you hear of every day. When was the first time you heard of it? For me, it was when I first watched Baz Luhrmann's film Moulin Rouge! a few years ago, although it was called consumption in the film. At the time, I didn't understand why Satine was coughing up blood and why that was such a worry until I read the plot summary afterwards and did some reading on TB. However Moulin Rouge! was set in 1900 - so much has changed, and today in the Western world we rarely ever have to worry about contracting TB it has just about disappeared.

But many people in other parts of the world are not so lucky.

Soba holds her son Sawai Naruwa, who has lost the use of his legs as a result of tuberculosis in Daru in 2011. Photo: Jason South

In countries, like our closest neighbour Papua New Guinea (PNG), TB is on the rise again. TB is still a major cause of death in kids along with pneumonia especially in Africa. And it's one of the most common deaths for people with HIV, but it's not part of the statistics because they count as deaths because of HIV and so those people become invisible.
But what exactly is it?

With the impending deaths of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran by firing squad just hours away in Indonesia, I got thinking. What makes us as humans think that it is okay to sentence another fellow human being to death, even though they may have broken the law?

In terms of history, executions are not a new thing, in fact, its been happening for so many centuries that Jesus himself was executed on the cross. (If you choose not to believe that, the death penalty existed in the Ancient Laws of China in the BC times). But what seems to have changed is society's attitude towards it. I feel that we have a strong dislike for it and see it as an injustice - at least I do.

Its been portrayed by the media as something that is inhumane and unjust through extensive coverage and the specific angle of the news story - it positions the audience to empathise with the families and friends of Chan and Sukumaran and support their campaign to get Indonesian President, Joko Widodo, to stop the executions. After studying media and communications for a good 7 weeks, I now know that this is the work of PR individuals who are keeping this issue in the news by getting news coverage and it probably reflects what journalists think we are interested in - what our care-structures are as Scannell (1996) would put it. (Clearly the ramblings of an ARTS1090 student... but can you really blame me after I wrote a 2,500 word essay for it on the weekend/Monday).

Anyway the point it, our society today cares about getting rid of the death penalty. Much more than we used to, at least this seems to be the case in the Western world. But does it really mean that someone else, who is a prominent public figure with power in his country, has the ability to control and determine the fate of someone else's life, even if it is a decision on behalf of a community? Can the death penalty be justified, even if the accused breaks the law? What is right and what is wrong?

It might just be the world that I grew up in and the ideas that I was and am exposed to, but I feel that I get very mixed messages and its a fine line between right and wrong. I don't support the death sentence. I feel as though the death penalty is not a just outcome, but I know that if someone were to commit a horrendous crime against myself, my family or my friends, deep down I would want them to receive a punishment that matches the severity of their crime - and if this is the death sentence, I might suddenly be alright with it. Decisions are shaped by experience (thanks MGMT1001 - I sometimes feel that I've learnt more on media and communications than commerce this semester, even though the courses I took are technically two from commerce and two from media.).

I guess it brings this post back to another point - the way an event or individual is portrayed in the media has a huge impact on the way it or they are perceived by the audience, the general public of a local or global community. In the end, we are all human with our own conscience and our own values and beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, journalists included. I don't really think that they should die tomorrow by firing squad, but is a life time of imprisonment much better? Probably, since there is still hope for them and their families that one day they may get out.

Will Chan and Sukumaran be executed tomorrow? That's up to Mr Widodo now, at least its portrayed that way in the media. But if he decides to call the execution off, his decision will go down in history.

Photo by: Kate Geraghty