Search

Antidomestic violence advocates have begun to question two essential policies that have long defined domestic violence shelters—strict secrecy regarding shelter location and prohibitions on shelter access to all except staff and residents—both of which serve to increase survivors' social isolation and entail coercive rules that resonate painfully with broader oppressive dynamics. In response a growing number of communities have begun experimenting with open shelters, which break from tradition by making their locations public, and allowing visitors. Although this innovation is a sharp departure from tradition, virtually no research exists to explore its philosophical underpinnings, benefits, and challenges. This study addresses this gap. Study Questions: We used a qualitative descriptive approach to explore the experiences and perspectives of open shelter directors. Participants included 14 open shelter directors from 11 states. We conducted semistructured phone interviews with each participant, focusing on their shelter's (a) nature and history; (b) rationale; (c) policies and programs related to secrecy and openness; (d) benefits and challenges; (e) effects on specific survivor subgroups; and (f) practices used to build or strengthen survivors' relationships. Open shelters: (a) promote physical safety using a broad array of measures; (b) adopt a range of policies that promote varying degrees of location disclosure and visitor accessibility; (c) face challenges, such as the need to gain buy-in from multiple constituents; and (d) Improve survivor outcomes, including decreased shame; improved advocacy relationships; increased access to services and community involvement in shelter life; and deepened relationships with network members; in turn increasing prospects for physical and psychological well-being long after survivors' shelter stays are over. Findings suggest a new path for shelters interested in promoting survivor safety and healing in the context of a web of meaningful relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Human rights are best protected, promoted and guaranteed when they can compel binding and enforceability duty. One prominent criticism of category of human rights which includes the human right to health is that it is difficult, to assign the duties that correspond to these rights, because of stark disparity in how the main duty bearers approach their duties. Methods: This paper adopts a doctrinal approach to examine and evaluate the duties to the right to health. The method in this study entails a detailed literature search to systematically evaluate the legal implications, regulations, arguments and policy regarding the nature of the obligation to the right to health. This study also engages with normative and philosophical aspects of human rights. Results: This paper posits that human rights protect against common, serious, and remediable threats and risks, and ensure that there are remedies from governments and third parties. However, it is difficult to compel duties especially in regard to the right to health. First it is not easy to achieve a uniform standard for duty bearers implied by the words 'highest attainable physical and mental health.' Theorists discussed in the paper outline views of what this could mean, from serious to common health concerns. Second, the right to health is not a legally established right in many jurisdictions, making it difficult to enforce. This paper outlines different layers of state and non-state legal duty bearers to enforce the right to health. Conclusion: The duty to respect, protect, fulfil and even remedy the right to health, will often be meaningless in practice without a clear identification of the necessary duty bearers to enforce them. The law is the starting point for this to not only enshrine this right as a legally enforceable one but also to clearly identify duty bearers. Without this, the human right to health as outlined under international and regional human rights law generates an implausible, or even impossible, profusion of duties. There remains much work still to be done especially on the moral and legal fronts in order to fully guarantee this right. Trial Registration: Not applicable Our work does not report results of a health care intervention on human participants. Registration is therefore not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a criticism to T.M. Scanlon's notion of well-being as depicted in his essay on ethical reasoning. Consequences with the integration of the notion of well-being in the moral context; Approach of Scanlon in demonstrating well-being as not a master value; Limitations in advancing one's well-being.

This paper sets out a framework in which we can distinguish between four types of redistributive attention to the disadvantaged: compensation; personal enhancement; targeted resource enhancement; and status enhancement. It is argued that in certain cases many of us will have strong intuitions in favour or against one or more strategies for addressing disadvantage, and it is further argued that in such cases it is likely that our reactions are based on assumptions about the human good. Hence the two issues -- addressing disadvantage and the human good -- shed light on one another [1]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author comments on the avoidability of health inequality in the health equity through social change (HESC) model. Issues addressed are the unfairness and injustice in health inequality, the amenability of a health condition, the theory of health equity and the correlation between health inequality and other patterns of social disadvantages, and the difference between regarding the poorer health prospects of some groups as unjust and unnecessary.