Introduction
It has been said before that cheap labor carries hidden costs, Tech Human Rights Art 2008, 7. In some countries like the USA, it would appear normal to have access to basic technology like owning a car, television set, and basic communication gadgets like a modern mobile phone. However, as it appears normal in some of these countries, some people in the less fortunate countries lack even the basics of these technologies such as a mobile phone.
Since most of the world bodies continue to use the basic technology to communicate with the world e.g. about health and safety, access to these ‘modern’ basic technology should be regarded as a human right and every effort is taken to ensure that just like immunization, every human being has access to them. It would be of little effort to produce vaccines that people never get to know about just because they cannot afford a television set.
Vital human rights with modern basic technology
A complete scope of vital human rights guarantees the development of life in its broadest sense and sustainable human development. Health, life, education, and nutrition have been considered to be on top of the human rights list. For many years, United Nations (UN) has been concerned with the link of the right to development to human rights and technologies. Of late, a link between development and the proclaimed human rights has been developing. UN has linked sustainable development to the positive effects of poverty reductions and has thus given priority of the human rights to a fair share of education, welfare, employment and health, Glendon, M.A., (2001).
Science should place human beings at the center of the universe. Since technology is meant to serve the human beings, a set of rules needs to be established in order to have universal access to techniques essential for a good healthy life. Without discouraging research especially for products such as vaccine, there is need to have a Global Technological Facility that addresses vital human rights. People should have a right to simple yet adequate information through essential technologies. Education needs to be the center of concern in promoting technology towards human rights. It should be a permanent activity such that professionals with human sensitivity receive continued education, Ignatieff, M., (2001).
We live in an age of constant technological breakthroughs, designed not only to ease human suffering but also to enhance human powers. At first glance, such progress — particularly in the health care field—appears to be an unqualified gain. However, inequality of access to these advances has worried many thoughtful people. Should individuals’ access to technology depend on how much money they have? Or which country do they live in?
These concerns are becoming increasingly important as new technologies of medical care and bodily enhancement develop. As we try to understand the moral issues raised by these questions, we will examine how such concerns are translated into laws that set floors and ceilings for access to technology. The moral desirability of such limits on the minimum and maximum amount of technology available (to the poor and rich, respectively) will be the central focus of the course. We will begin with the idea of the social minimum—the basic level of technology that a just or decent society assures to even its poorest members.
We will then explore how the law enacts this idea of a social minimum, both in the United States and (more briefly) internationally. In the U.S., the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 requires hospital emergency rooms that receive federal funding to screen and stabilize anyone who arrives with a serious condition. Medicaid and state programs assure some level of health care to the indigent. Internationally, some intellectual property laws governing pharmaceuticals also grant poor countries the right to “compulsorily license” lifesaving drugs in times of emergency. We will discuss how these and similar legal protections work, whether they are successful, and their unintended consequences.
Conclusion
A simple and pure market approach will not lead to an automatic solution for people with basic needs problems especially those with scarce resources. The poor also are so much in need of a healthy life that is in harmony with nature and their fellows. Reality has not turned to be pleasant for the poor after the centuries of modernity since transformations of the scientific and technological context have seen advances in liberty but delays in liberty.
A dual strategy is thus required to deal with extreme poverty and modern competitiveness, a dual challenge for the ‘modern world’. Thus it can be ruled out that enabling access of the poor and semi-illiterate to ‘modern’ technology is enhancing their human rights. With further redevelopment and common international agreements steered by UN commissions on human rights should have these legally recognized incorporated as human rights.
Reference
Ignatieff, Michael. Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691088934. (2001).