The four pronged approach: Health and Human Rights Conference 2008

This October I attended the Human Rights and Health Conference hosted by Queen’s. The conference included many passionate and well-informed speakers who presented on human rights and health with a variety of scopes, both internationally and locally. The presenters were primarily health and academic professionals from the Kingston area, along with a few well-known key-note speakers ranging from Dr. Samantha Nutt (physician who works with War Child Canada) to Major Brent Beardsely (Infantry Officer in the Royal Canadian Regiment of the Canadian Army and co-author of Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda). I was moved by most of what I heard that day – the constant struggle to combat the indecencies that plague this world along with certain bone-chilling realities (ultimately, many people choose to keep the status quo, rather than rock the boat). I found one key-note speech to be particularly relevant to the role of advocacy, even in the health care system. This speech was presented by Queen’s own Professor Lovelace, a well known leader and advocate in the Ontarian aboriginal community. In this speech he emphasized a “Four Pronged Approach” when advocating for cause in the aboriginal community. The approach included:

1) Research (identifying key issue components such as the directly involved professional/political figures or physical barriers)
2) Community Education (key speakers & events)
3) Direct Action (bringing to bear the strength of your community)
4) Legal Service (challenging the system on a formal level.

This approach is similar to the Community Development Continuum Model in Enabling Occupation II. This model has the following structure:

1) Development casework (develop individual capacities)
2) Mutual support (connect to others; self-help & mutual aid)
3) Issue identification (assist other people to connect to others on issues of common theme)
4) Participation & control of services (gain membership on boards/committees)
5) Social movements (increase control over resources & decisions through creating or joining social movements)

The difference between the two frameworks is that the latter is a format, which encourages direct action of a group of people to evoke social change, whereas the former is a less intense individual-centered process.

At this point, I would like to encourage private discussion over this topic: What do you think of these models? Would you use either or both in practice? Which one would you use to advocate for your profession? Why or why not? Are these models far out on the left wing or are you afraid to rock the boat?

Julia Ghog MSc (OT) Candidate (2009)