University of Connecticut, Department of Anthropology, 354 Mansfield Road, Unit 2176, Beach Hall, Storrs, CT 06269-2176, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Mar;74(6):812-21. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.033. Epub 2011 Jul 20.
Do unauthorized im/migrants have a right to health? Do they deserve health care, or health protection, or access to the social determinants of good health? Are they party to prevailing social contracts, or does their exclusion from mainstream systems of health promotion, prevention, and care "make sense"? Questions like these, which generate considerable attention in multiple spheres of scholarship, policy, and public debate, revolve around an issue that merits substantially greater consideration among social scientists of health: health-related "deservingness." In addition to putting the issue of health-related deservingness squarely on the map as an object of analysis, this article further argues that we cannot focus solely on those with power, influence, and public voice. Rather, we also must investigate how deservingness is reckoned in relation to--and, furthermore, from the perspectives of-- unauthorized im/migrants and members of other groups commonly constructed in public and policy discourse as undeserving. Additionally, we must consider the complicated relationship between universalizing juridical arguments about formal entitlement to health rights, on one hand, and situationally specific, vernacular moral arguments about deservingness, on the other. The paper analyzes findings from a 29-month mixed-methods study conducted in Tel Aviv, Israel, that approached unauthorized im/migrants as subjects, rather than simply objects, of ethical deliberation. Participants' conceptions of health-related deservingness are investigated using two sources of data: (1) quantitative findings from a self-administered, closed-ended survey conducted with 170 im/migrant patients at an NGO-run Open Clinic (2002-2003), and (2) qualitative findings from the larger ethnographic study of which the survey was part (2000-2010). The study findings both (1) contradict commonly circulating assumptions that unauthorized im/migrants are "freeloaders," and (2) highlight the need for rigorous investigation of how unauthorized im/migrants, among other marginalized and vulnerable groups, conceptualize their own relative deservingness of health-related concern and investment.
非授权移民是否享有健康权?他们是否应该获得医疗保健、健康保护或获得良好健康的社会决定因素?他们是否参与现行的社会契约,或者他们被排除在促进、预防和保健的主流系统之外“是否有意义”?这些问题在多个学术、政策和公共辩论领域引起了相当大的关注,它们围绕着一个值得健康社会科学家更深入研究的问题:与健康相关的“应得性”。除了将与健康相关的应得性问题直接作为分析对象之外,本文还进一步认为,我们不能仅仅关注那些有权力、影响力和公众声音的人。相反,我们还必须研究应得性是如何与——以及从——非授权移民和其他通常在公共和政策话语中被构建为不值得的群体的角度来计算的。此外,我们还必须考虑到,一方面是关于正式享有健康权利的法律主张的普遍化,另一方面是关于应得性的具体情况、通俗道德主张的复杂关系。本文分析了在以色列特拉维夫进行的一项为期 29 个月的混合方法研究的结果,该研究将非授权移民视为伦理审议的主体,而不仅仅是对象。使用两种数据来源来研究参与者的与健康相关的应得性观念:(1) 对在非政府组织经营的开放诊所就诊的 170 名移民患者进行的自我管理、封闭式调查的定量结果(2002-2003 年),以及(2) 作为调查一部分的更大民族志研究的定性结果(2000-2010 年)。研究结果不仅(1) 反驳了普遍存在的假设,即非授权移民是“不劳而获者”,而且(2) 强调需要严格调查非授权移民等边缘化和弱势群体如何看待自己相对应得的健康关注和投资。