Slavery in New Zealand: What is the role of the health sector?

Contemporary forms of slavery and associated adverse health effects are a serious, complex and often neglected issue within the New Zealand health sector. Slavery in New Zealand has most recently been associated with the fishing and horticulture industries. However, victims may be found in a number of other industry sectors, including the health and aged-care sectors, or outside of the labour market such as in forced, early (underage) and servile forms of marriage. Victims of slavery are at increased risk of acute and chronic health problems, injuries from dangerous working and living conditions, and physical and sexual abuse. These issues are compounded by restricted access to high-quality healthcare. Slavery is a violation of many human rights, including the right to health. New Zealand has obligations under international law to ensure that all victims of slavery have access to adequate physical and psychological care. The health sector has opportunities to identify, intervene and protect victims. This requires doctors and other health practitioners to demonstrate their leadership, knowledge and commitment towards addressing slavery and its health consequences in ways that are effective and do not cause further harm. Key recommendations for a safe approach towards identifying and managing people in situations of slavery include building rapport, and culturally competent practice with an empathetic non-judgmental approach. We also recommend that health organisations and regulatory and professional bodies develop culturally competent guidelines to respond safely to those identified in situations of slavery. These responses should be based on the respect, promotion and protection of human rights, and occur within a robust person-centric coordinated government response to addressing slavery in New Zealand.

Human Rights Discourse in the Sustainable Development Agenda Avoids Obligations and Entitlements Comment on "Rights Language in the Sustainable Development Agenda: Has Right to Health Discourse and Norms Shaped Health Goals?".

Our commentary on Forman et al paper explores their thesis that right to health language can frame global health policy responses. We examined human rights discourse in the outcome documents from three 2015 United Nations (UN) summits and found rights-related terms are used in all three. However, a deeper examination of the discourse finds the documents do not convey the obligations and entitlements of human rights and international human rights law. The documents contain little that can be used to empower the participation of those already left behind and to hold States and the private sector to account for their human rights duties. This is especially worrying in a neoliberal era.

Climate change and the right to health for Maori in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Climate change is widely regarded as one of the most serious global health threats of the 21st century. Its impacts will be disproportionately borne by the most disadvantaged populations, including indigenous peoples. For Maori in Aotearoa/New Zealand, as with other indigenous peoples worldwide, colonization has led to dispossession of land, destabilization of cultural foundations, and social, economic, and political marginalization. Climate change threatens to exacerbate these processes, adding future insult to historical and contemporary injury. Yet the challenges posed by climate change are accompanied by considerable opportunities to advance indigenous rights and reduce health disparities. In this paper, we examine issues related to climate change and Maori health using a right to health analytical framework, which identifies obligations for the New Zealand government.

Policy approaches to address the social and environmental determinants of health inequity in Asia-pacific.

Asia Pacific is home to over 60% of the world's population and the fastest growing economies. Many of the leadership in the Asia Pacific region is becoming increasingly aware that improving the conditions for health would go a long way to sustaining economic prosperity in the region, as well as improving global and local health equity. There is no biological reason why males born in Cambodia can expect to live 23 years less than males born in Japan, or why females born in Tuvalu live 23 years shorter than females in New Zealand or why non-Indigenous Australian males live 12 years longer than Indigenous men. The nature and drivers of health inequities vary greatly among different social, cultural and geo-political contexts and effective solutions must take this into account. This paper utilizes the CSDH global recommendations as a basis for looking at the actions that are taking place to address the structural drivers and conditions of daily living that affect health inequities in the Asia Pacific context. While there are signs of action and hope, substantial challenges remain for health equity in Asia Pacific. The gains that have been made to date are not equally distributed and may be unsustainable as the world encounters new economic, social and environmental challenges. Tackling health inequities is a political imperative that requires leadership, political courage, social action, a sound evidence base and progressive public policy.

Child mortality, socioeconomic position, and one-parent families: independent associations and variation by age and cause of death.

BACKGROUND: Although the association between child mortality and socioeconomic status is well established, it is unclear whether child mortality differences by socioeconomic position are present at all ages. The association of one-parent families with mortality, and whether any such association is due to associated low socioeconomic position, is also not clear. METHODS: In all, 480 of 693 (69%) 0-14 year old deaths during 1991-1994 were linked to 1991 census records. Analyses were weighted to adjust for potential linkage bias. RESULTS: There was approximately twofold higher mortality among the lowest compared with the highest socioeconomic categories of education, income, car access, and neighbourhood deprivation. Occupational class differences were weaker. These socioeconomic differences in mortality were strongest among infants (particularly sudden infant death syndrome [SIDS] mortality), but similar across other age groups (1-4, 5-9, and 10-14 years). The socioeconomic differences were of a similar magnitude for unintentional injury, cancer, congenital, and other deaths. Multivariable analyses demonstrated persistent independent associations of education, income, car access, and neighbourhood deprivation with mortality. Rate ratios (adjusted for age and ethnicity) for one-parent families compared with two-parent or other families were 1.2 (95% CI: 1.0, 1.5) and 1.8 (95% CI: 1.2, 2.5) for all-cause and unintentional injury mortality, respectively. Further adjustment for socioeconomic factors reduced these associations to 0.8 (95% CI: 0.6, 1.2) and 1.2 (95% CI: 0.7, 2.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There does not appear to be notable variation in relative risk terms of socioeconomic differences in child mortality by age or cause of death. Any association of one-parent families with child mortality is due to associated low socioeconomic position.