Jenny’s Pennies

Landskrona in southern Sweden will be the the first municipality to randomly drug test 8th and 9th graders. 20 percent of the students will be randomly selected for the testing. The tests will be administered by the school nurse, and the student’s parents or guardian has too consent as well before the test is administered. The student is allowed to say no, but then a letter will be sent home to the parents. That’s how “voluntary” this is. Of course students who say no will be pointed out as potential drug users and/or troublemakers, disrespectful of authority and refusing to buy the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of”-rhetoric.

Many people are critical, including the Swedish National Agency for Education. Although they are saying that the tests are not against the law, one of their lawyers asks whether it is really the school who should administer these kinds of tests, and also questions how the tests results will be handled with regards to confidentiality.

You know, drugs are definitely a societal problem which should be taken seriously. But blanket testing, disguised under some false voluntariness, is not the solution. I don’t think treating everyone as potential drug users, cheaters (not the sexual kind), criminals etc. are the way of creating a just, equal and thriving society. But what do I know, I’m just a bleeding-heart, terrorist-loving, Sweden-hating, tree-hugging communist.

Due to budgetary cuts, many schools nowadays do not have school nurses or counselors, or only have them very few hours weekly. In total, the number of adults in schools per student has gone down. And now the school nurse’s time will be clogged up from administering and following up and and filing drug tests. Is this wise use of seriously constrained budgets? I ask, wouldn’t it be better to spend the money on real preventive measures instead? (And by that I don’t mean the ridiculous scare-mongering propaganda that I was subjected to in school, the “if you smoke pot once you will end up a heroin-injecting homeless criminal”-kind, which was so easily debunked.)

I haven’t heard a single word about what kind of support would be given to the student who have given a positive drug test - it’s like this that I wrote about screening for partner violence among pregnant women: when you get the results, exactly what are you going to do with it? Report the student to the police? Kick them out of school? Offer them counseling? Enforce mandatory counseling? No-one has said anything about that. Probably they don’t know.

This is another of those measures which sounds good (making sure kids don’t get caught up in drugs, I’m all for that), but which merely paints over the real problems and doesn’t solve anything in the long run. It seems the preferred way of conducting politics nowadays, and I guess anything else would require quite a revolutionary remake of society. And we can’t have that. But now at least the politicians can pat each others backs and say that they are “tough on drugs”.

(Read more in Swedish: SvD; HD)

Very interesting product which may help solve some of the problems raised in the previous post!

A Swedish company called Peepoople (cute name!) has developed a self-santizing single use biodegradable toilet - the “peepoo bag”. The concept is simple: you do your business in the bag, seal it, and it will be odourless. The contents of the bag are hygienized within a period of 2-4 weeks by a mix of chemicals which inactivates the dangerous pathogens (i.e. the bacteria which spreads stuff like cholera and dysentery). The bag can be thrown away or the contents used as fertilizer, which makes the bag have economic value and opens up the possibility of small business systems to develop. Trials are on their way in Kibera, a giant shanty-town in Nairobi, Kenya. Very cool innovation and a great idea!

Peepoople website (in English).

(Quote in title from Gil Stern)

Tomorrow, March 22nd is World Water Day. Water is one of those things you often don’t reflect over, if you live like me. It’s just there, when you turn on the faucet. You bathe, wash your clothes, do dishes, water your lawn or plants, flush the toilet… it’s just there. But for about one in six people in the world, getting water is not that easy. Water is one of the most pressing issues when it comes to global environment and climate change, and water shortage and water access disparities can lead to mass migration, epidemics and conflicts in the future.

The world market price for water has never been as high as it is now. To collect, clean and distribute water takes a lot of investments. Before, it was taken for granted that the government would handle the water. Water is, after all, a public good and something that everyone should have the right to. But today, water distribution is increasingly privatized by multinational corporations like Suez, Veolia and RWE, although not to the extent that was believed in the 90s. Today, 5-10 percent of the world’s population buy their water from private companies. Some private corporations even own the rights to the rain falling from the sky. As I said above, it is expensive to collect, clean and distribute water. And I don’t trust private corporations, whose foremost goal is to make profit, will build the infrastructure necessary to distribute water in very arid and poor areas - there is not enough money to be made from that. Therefore local, public, democratic solutions are needed.

In El Salvador, privatization of the water distribution has lead to that many poor people doesn’t have access to clean drinking water. The pipes are there, but the water is not on. Therefore, many have to buy their water from tank trucks, without knowing where the water comes from. A woman who works seven days a week selling vegetables at the market lay up to half of their salary on buying water. Of course, some people can’t afford that, so they are stuck with polluted water from rivers and lakes. The child mortality rate in El Salvador is 30 percent, most of those from water related diseases such as diarrhea. It is estimated that by drinking water, a person in El Salvador consumes one cup of human faeces per year (yes, that is gross, but it’s the reality). Last year, many people demonstrated against the water privatizations, but the demonstrations were brutally cracked down and some participants were accused of terrorism.

In China, a 50 year old dream of Mao’s are now being realized - to build a gigantic pipeline system to lead water from the Yangtzee river in the south to the arid areas in the north. Of course, Beijing needs reliable water supply for the Olympics (to give the Olympics to China seems like a worse and worse idea every day), so villages in the south, who themselves doesn’t have enough water to sustain industries like wheat farming and fishing, are forced to send their water up north. One in four people in China are lacking access to clean water.

Two thirds of the world’s population is expected to run short of clean drinking water by the year 2025! And the thing is, there is really is enough water. Mismanagement, waste, pollution and uneven distribution is the problem, not supply. We in the rich countries can’t keep watering our golf courses or waste liter upon liter doing dishes in running water (I confess to being guilty of that). I’ve been for extended periods in countries with water shortages (Venezuela and Israel), and being able to shower in hot, clean, constantly running water when I got home was a delight. I don’t want to loose that, but then we need to find solutions to the world’s escalating water crises and that probably means giving up some of our unreflecting attitudes towards water usage.

To learn more:
Food and Water Watch
Water Partners International
Vattenportalen (Swedish)
UN Water
Stockholm International Water Institute

Intimate partner violence and violence against women is an area where crimes are underreported. Shame, guilt and societal responses (shaming, trivializing, blaming) makes it hard for women to speak out about being abused by their partners.

Research from year 2000 found that about 2000 women each year in Sweden are subjected to violence by their partners during pregnancy and the first year thereafter. This is of course 2000 too many. Many antenatal clinics have therefore made the habit of routinely asking pregnant women if they have been abused by their partner, even when there are no indications of abuse. But is routine screening really a good way to address the problem?

Hanne Kjöller, editorial writer for Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s largest newspaper, thinks that routine screening isn’t a good idea. For once, I am agreeing with her.

Three researchers have written a letter to the editor in Läkartidningen, newspaper for the Medical Association of Sweden, regarding the screening for partner violence. They are critical of the process and calls for an ethical analysis of the practice, which takes into account both positive and negative aspects, for women who are subjected to violence as well as for those who aren’t.

Studies have shown that many women find it uncomfortable to be asked about partner violence. I understand them. I was asked the question, seemingly out of the blue, during a visit to get my prescription for the pill refilled, and my reaction was like “what? no!”. The doctor simply looked at me, ticked the box in her questionnaire and got to the next question. I often wondered what her reaction would have been if I had answered yes (I have never been a victim of intimate partner violence, but let’s say that I was). Should she have taken time out of her busy schedule to have that long and hard conversation? Simply ticked “yes” in her questionnaire and moved on? Handed me some brochures and the phone number of a women’s shelter and thought that was it?

That’s my second objection to this routine screening thing. What should be the ob/gyn’s response? If the woman answers yes and explains that the father of her child is abusing her, what should the ob/gyn do? It places them in a very difficult situation. As expressed by a midwife in a survey on the subject by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen): “It takes too long time to ask. You need time to listen to their response. You find those who have already gotten out of the relationship. It’s hard to catch those who are in it right now”. If the woman answers yes and then comes to the next visit with her partner with her, what does the doctor do? Legally they are obliged to report the abuse to the police, but it may put the abused woman in a much more dangerous situation. Without clear policies on how to handle “yes”-answers, it is quite contra productive to have ob/gyns and midwives ask the question.

The article in Läkartidningen also raises the issue that routine screenings for partner violence can make women skip their appointments at the antenatal clinic. There is a risk that women who are subjected to violence will face even more violence if their partner finds out that they have told someone about it, or that they have even been asked.

Obviously the ob/gyns and midwives try to ask the question on a visit when the partner is not present (in Sweden it is increasingly normal for the father to be present during the antenatal clinic visits). In the article, a midwife explains her strategy for keeping the partner away for one or more visits (apparently if a woman answers “no” to the question the first time, she is to be asked again), like saying that “he is not needed”. That just seems really dishonest to me.

And after hearing a radio program yesterday about the heteronormativity within our health care system, I can’t imagine what the response would be if a woman confessed to having been abused by her same sex partner.

As Hanne Kjöller points out, you’re always in a subordinate position when you seek health care and therefore it is the moral obligation of your caregiver to explain to you why they are doing or asking one thing or another and what relevance it has. If the reason for routine screenings of pregnant women regarding partner violence is to get statistics (which aren’t very reliable - reliability would increase somewhat if the woman was given a totally anonymous questionnaire), then I think that is a quite cynical way to treat these women - ask them about something so personal and then really offer nothing in return (e.g. counseling and legal advice). If the reason is to truly help women to get out of abusive relationships, then the state should instead put money into shelters, counseling, legal advice, education and so on, instead of, as it is today, rely on volunteers, charities and idealistic forces to provide those services.

Outsourcing is normal in today’s globalized economy. But now the global south are not only offering services such as customer support and low skilled assembly work to their wealthier counterparts. From the New York Times:

An enterprise known as reproductive outsourcing is a new but rapidly expanding business in India. Clinics that provide surrogate mothers for foreigners say they have recently been inundated with requests from the United States and Europe, as word spreads of India’s mix of skilled medical professionals, relatively liberal laws and low prices.

Yes, it’s wombs for rent. For about 25.000 US dollars, you get payments for the surrogate mother, medical procedures, plus plane tickets and hotel nights for two trips to India, one for the fertilization and one for collecting the baby. The egg donor and the surrogate are different women, as it is said to be less likely for the surrogate to bond with the baby if there is no genetic connection.

The surrogacy business in India has made a sharp upturn in the last years, and people in the business are afraid that less scrupulous providers will smell the money and leave ethics aside.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development said in February that it was weighing recommending legislation to govern surrogacy, but it is not imminent.

An article published in The Times of India in February questioned how such a law would be enforced: “In a country crippled by abject poverty,” it asked, “how will the government body guarantee that women will not agree to surrogacy just to be able to eat two square meals a day?”

Some people might argue that we should view this as any business transaction, but I’m not at all comfortable with the idea of viewing reproduction as a commodity, especially when there is such huge power differentials in play.

“Surrogates do it to give their children a better education, to buy a home, to start up a small business, a shop,” Dr. Kadam said. “This is as much money as they could earn in maybe three years. I really don’t think that this is exploiting the women. I feel it is two people who are helping out each other.”

Mr. Gher agreed. “You cannot ignore the discrepancies between Indian poverty and Western wealth,” he said. “We try our best not to abuse this power. Part of our choice to come here was the idea that there was an opportunity to help someone in India.”

In the Mumbai clinic, it is clear that an exchange between rich and poor is under way. On some contracts, the thumbprint of an illiterate surrogate stands out against the clients’ signature.

This kind of globalization makes me very uncomfortable, and I think the practice should be examined with a critical eye. That does not mean that we should pass judgment on the persons on either side of the transaction - the couple who can’t conceive for whatever reason (Mr. Gher and his partner who are featured in the article are gay), and the woman who by carrying someone else’s baby can make a lot more money than she would on a normal job.

But there are so many issues here: what if the surrogate changes her mind? What if the couple changes their mind? What if the surrogate mother wants out? In India, this is regulated with contracts, but once again we have to look at the wealth and power differential here. As far as I can tell from quickly researching the subject, in the US, while surrogacy may not be illegal, contracts relating to it have been declared unenforceable. In Sweden, surrogacy is illegal, while in neighboring Finland, it’s legal. However, no money is allowed - the surrogate is doing it for altruistic reasons.

One thing which also makes me uncomfortable about the whole thing is that one reason why Indian surrogates are increasingly popular (besides the relatively cheap costs, good medical professionals and favorable legislation) is that Indian women are easier to “police”. As it says in the article:

Dr. Naina Patel, who runs the Anand clinic, said that even Americans who could afford to hire surrogates at home were coming to her for women “free of vices like alcohol, smoking and drugs.” She said she gets about 10 e-mailed inquiries a day from couples abroad.

Just how much say should the couple using the surrogate have to say over what the surrogate mother does to her body? You’re using her womb, yes, but the whole body is affected by the pregnancy, and so is the mind. No drinking, smoking or drugs during pregnancy - perfectly fine and reasonable of course, but what else can you compel the surrogate to do? I think with this international reproductive outsourcing there is more potential for abuse and for using the power/money leverage to make unreasonable demands.

Via Feministe, I find this old, but still puke-worthy story about Justice Jon-Jo (sic!) Douglas, judge in Ontario, Canada.

An Ontario judge is at the centre of a misconduct investigation after insisting a witness who is HIV-positive and has Hepatitis C don a mask while testifying in his courtroom.

Three groups have complained to the Ontario Judicial Council about the conduct of Barrie judge Justice Jon-Jo Douglas, who later moved the case to a bigger courtroom in order to create more distance between the witness and the bench. (…)

“The HIV virus will live in a dried state for year after year after year and only needs moisture to reactivate itself,” Douglas insisted, according to a transcript of the Nov. 23 trial proceedings.

Maybe someone needs to tell dear Jon-Jo that it is very possible that he might have been sitting next to someone with HIV or Hepatitis C in a movie theater, or in the subway, or in a restaurant. He might even have shaken their hands. Because, thankfully, there is no law requiring people infected with either HIV or Hepatitis to wear a scarlet letter pinned to their clothes. If that scares Jon-Jo, maybe he should move out to the forest where he can live his life in isolated assholyness.

Really, there is absolutely no excuse for ignorance like this in year 2008.

A week ago, in a hospital in Naples, Italy, a woman was recovering from her anaesthesia after having a (completely legal) abortion. Then, police entered the hospital and started interrogation the woman, still in her hospital bed. They also seized the aborted fetus as “evidence”. The woman, who in Italian newspapers has been identified by her first name Silvana, was 39 years old. (Read the New York Times article here, Dagens Nyheter in Swedish here)

The police had acted on an anonymous tip that the abortion had taken place later in the pregnancy than the law allows (in Italy the limit is 24 weeks). But the hospital showed that the pregnancy had been terminated at 21 weeks, well within the limit, after that a test had showed severe fetal deformities.

Why is it acceptable to treat a woman like this? Even if the police were to investigate it, surely there is a better way than to bust into the hospital ward in a way that Carmine Nappi, the chief of obstetrics at the hospital, likened to an anti-Mafia raid. Here is a woman who just has undergone a physically and emotionally painful experience, and the police thinks that is a good time to interrogate her?!

The event has led to protests in Italy, in defence of the country’s abortion law, with the participation of Health Minister Livia Turco who said: “we are defending a law that is close to us”.

In Italy, abortion has been legal for 30 years. The subject is of course controversial, since the Catholic Church has a huge influence on Italian politics and society. Parliamentary elections will be held mid-April, and abortion has now become a pivotal issue in the election campaign.

Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is expected to win the election and has promised to change the abortion law if he wins. He has also backed a campaign for getting the UN to declare a universal moratorium on abortions (I can’t wrap my head around this, and I really wish I read Italian so I could see how on earth he argues for this idea). The campaign was started in December last year, by Giu­liano Ferrara, editor of conservative newspaper Il Foglia (which is used as a campaign platform) and former minister in a Berlusconi government.

So while the anti-choice crowds are gathering strength, the partly liberal-Catholic center-left block is unsure of how to act, according to Dagens Nyheter. Last week, a web campaign was launched to compel the politicians to defend the abortion law. It says: “Enough is enough. The clerical offensive against women has become unbearable. But equally unbearable is the lack of reactions from the center-left.”

I wish the women of Italy best of luck. And Silvana, the woman who was harassed by the police and used as a tool by people who couldn’t care less about her and her feelings, I wish you well also.

Cara of the Curvature writes about the story here.

Women’s eNews has a story up on how the leftist regime shift in Latin America has failed to address the issue of reproductive rights, but how Brazil seems to be an exception.

In the Brazilian town of Recife, where carnival just starts, the government is planning to dispense emergency contraception (EC, aka Plan B or the morning after pill). Not surprisingly, the archbishop of Recife warned that those who use EC will face excommunication and vowed to seek action in court to block it.

(And here it’s time to say it again: EC is not an “abortion pill”. It works by preventing ovulation or fertilization. If you’re already pregnant, it won’t work.)

Brazil’s minister for health, Jose Temporao, has also called for discussing abortion as a matter of public health and women’s reproductive rights. Women’s eNews writes:

“Unfortunately, women haven’t been heard on this discussion,” Temporao said in an e-mail interview with Women’s eNews. “They are the most interested party. There are 700 hospitalizations per day due to problems relating to abortion . . . I wonder: If men got pregnant, would this issue be resolved by now?”

Read the rest of the story, because it is at least some good news from a continent where women’s lives are sacrificed in the name of “morality” and “sanctity of life”.

If you read Swedish, you should read Vida Latina’s post from a few weeks ago, about Argentina. I have translated a bit here, because it is so appalling:

“She came to the ER on a Saturday, because she has such stomach pains that she didn’t know what to do, and she was getting a fever. But the doctors refused to help her, because according to them, her symptoms indicated that she had an abortion. She should suffer. Come back on Monday, she was told. Monday, she came back. The diagnosis: a ruptured appendix.”