Leprosy Mailing List – July 31, 2015
Ref.: (LML) Socio-economic rehabilitation: habitat for people affected by leprosy
From: Joel Almeida, India
Dear Pieter,
It is good to hear from Dr Gopal(LML, July 29, 2015), given his life experiences, and from the many other eminent personalities who have commented on Dr Harun’s proposal.
Dr Harun’s commitment and drive are admirable.
The question appears to be, what to do with the land being provided? Nobody is suggesting that this land, offered free of charge, should be refused. Nor is anyone suggesting that it is available for sale. In short, the land can be used to help disadvantaged people or it will again become unavailable.
Dr Harun is not trying to persuade anyone that his effort should be taken as the gold standard of rehabilitation for leprosy-affected people. He has merely obtained the offer of some land. That is a great achievement. He is asking for relevant experiences, so that he can make best use of the land. Dr Gopal and others have offered some useful and constructive tips. More will surely follow.
Leprosy-affected persons are no different from people ostracised owing to other characteristics. They should enjoy all the benefits which may become available to all people unjustly ostracised by society.
If an ostracised person were to be given 2 hectares of land in an unspecified place, few would object. Likewise, if a leprosy-affected person were to be given 2 ha in such an unspecified place, few would object. That is because the surrounding land would presumably be owned by non-ostracised people.
There is no suggestion that the owner of this 2 ha will be prevented from travelling as much as they like. There is no suggestion that residents on this land who never had leprosy will be segregated from those who ever had leprosy. There is no restriction on freedom of movement for any of the residents, whether or not they ever had leprosy.
Why, then, is there any concern in this case about giving an ostracised person 2 ha of land? Apparently because the neighbours might be leprosy-affected persons. In short, we are raising concerns about helping a person ostracised on grounds of leprosy on one ground alone. That is, because the neighbours might be leprosy-affected persons. This is a questionable basis for discrimination against anyone.
The question for an individual affected by leprosy is: Will I (and my loved ones) be better off with or without this 2 ha?
How do we support the best interests of the intended beneficiaries?
That is not the same as asking; what is the best way of overcoming stigma against leprosy? Reduction of stigma is a longer-term effort, with benefits to society. Efforts to lift stigma can continue without depriving an ostracised person and their family of 2 ha of land in the immediate future.
It is also open to us to raise money to buy each individual 2 ha of land elsewhere. Or immediately to invest in alternative rehab so attractive and effective that those offered these 2 ha will boldly refuse. But let’s think many, many times before depriving ostracised people of this 2 ha which could transform the lives of their families.
Within a couple of decades, this land will be populated almost entirely by people who never had leprosy. If all goes as intended by Dr. Harun, it will be an exemplary self-supporting (if not prosperous) habitat. By that time, the residents will hopefully boast that some of their predecessors had leprosy.
I have no stake in the matter, and no special knowledge or experience. But that’s how it looks to me as an interested bystander. I hope to continue my education.
Regards,
Joel Almeida
LML - S Deepak, B Naafs, S Noto and P Schreuder
LML blog link: http://leprosymailinglist.blogspot.it/
Contact: Dr Pieter Schreuder << editorlml@gmail.com
 | This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. |
No comments:
Post a Comment