The landscape of modern healthcare shifted from an intranational to international affair
following the Second World War. Destructive global conflict on an unprecedented scale
highlighted the need for communication and unity. Isolationist theories began to deteriorate in
the decades following the Second World War as individuals understood that divisiveness was
functionally counterintuitive to rebuilding societies and the establishment of global peace.
However, a factor that continued to worsen despite unity efforts were inequities in poverty and
disease mortality rates in developing nations. Global leaders began to realize that unity must be
supplemented with assistance from more developed nations in order to achieve the goal of
collective prosperity.
Thus, in 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) was established under the
newly-formed United Nations, representing a major milestone in the creation of a global
framework for public health [1]. The WHO's mission was to promote health, prevent disease, and
improve the overall well-being of populations worldwide, with particular focus on developing
nations. This period also saw the emergence of large-scale global health initiatives, such as the
fight against infectious diseases like smallpox, malaria, and tuberculosis, which
disproportionately affected impoverished regions [1].
The postwar era also witnessed growing recognition of the ethical dimensions of global
healthcare. The Nuremberg Code, developed in response to the atrocities of Nazi medical
experiments, laid the foundation for modern bioethical principles by emphasizing the importance
of informed consent, autonomy, and the protection of human subjects in research [2]. As global
health initiatives proliferated, the ethical implications of conducting medical interventions,
distributing resources, and engaging with vulnerable populations became central concerns for
policymakers and health practitioners alike. In the latter half of the 20th century, global health
initiatives evolved further, driven by the goals of equity, sustainability, and respect for human
dignity.
Predicated on these principles, the United States has significantly expanded its
investments in global health initiatives. Programs such as the President's Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), established in 2003, and the Global Health Security Agenda have
mobilized billions of dollars to combat infectious diseases, improve maternal and child health,
and strengthen health systems worldwide [3]. The U.S. government has also been a key player in
funding vaccine distribution, particularly in response to global outbreaks like Ebola and more
recently, COVID-19. While these initiatives have undeniably saved millions of lives and
contributed to global health improvements, questions about their equity and long-term impact
persist. Critics argue that U.S.-led health programs can be inequitable, with policies and priorities
driven by American interests rather than the needs and autonomy of the countries they aim to
support. In addition, large-scale investments funded by the U.S. create an unequal power
dynamic: one that brings tangible benefits but often provides the U.S. with unilateral
decision-making capabilities that can materialize with paternalistic tendencies. Moreover, there
is concern that the sheer scale of U.S. investments could create dependency, undermining local
capacities and preventing recipient countries from developing their own sustainable health
infrastructures. Thus, critical analysis of U.S. funded global health initiatives through the lenses
of inequitable investments, paternalism, and acquired dependency will aim to determine the true
efficacy of modern approaches to global healthcare.
Inequities in Foreign Aid
Over the last 20 years, U.S. foreign investment in global health has been both equitable
and inequitable, depending on the nature of the initiatives. On the one hand, programs like the
PEPFAR and the Global Fund have played a critical role in addressing health disparities in low-
and middle-income countries [3]. These investments have targeted urgent issues such as
HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, with a focus on the regions most affected by these
diseases, particularly sub-Saharan Africa. Through these initiatives, the U.S. government has
helped expand access to life-saving treatments, deliver vaccines, and support development
through access to crucial capital and material resources [3]. These efforts are certainly beneficial
and equitable because they are designed to address the most pressing health needs in underserved
populations, with a heightened emphasis on impartiality in resource allocation to better health
outcomes. Most importantly, these health outcomes have been largely successful in their desire to
lower intergenerational disease mortality rates and enhance healthcare infrastructure.
Despite the beneficial outcomes, there are significant critiques that U.S. foreign
investment in global health has also been inequitable, particularly in terms of the influence and
control exerted over recipient countries. While the funding provided by the U.S. has undeniably
improved health outcomes in many regions, critics argue that the priorities and decisions around
these investments are often shaped by American interests rather than those of the countries
receiving aid [4]. For decades, the U.S. has been imposing its influence through global health
initiatives with a claim of complete commensalism. However, the U.S. does benefit from foreign
aid investment, albeit in indirect ways. By giving financial assistance, the U.S. builds
relationships that often materialize in favorable trade and strategic partners that are to align with
U.S. geopolitical policy. Some argue that this undermines the integrity of foreign investment
since the underlying goal is not to improve a nation’s overall wellbeing but rather to exploit the
economic weakness of a nation for national security gains [4].
Given the vast benefits produced by global health initiatives, it is logical to assume that a
“quid pro quo” approach is not necessarily unethical but rather mutualistic in nature. Under this
framework, both parties involved—donor and recipient nations—can derive significant benefits
from the exchange. The Nuremberg Code, while primarily concerned with the ethics of medical
research, offers an overarching principle of collective prosperity, which emphasizes mutual
benefit and respect for human dignity [2]. Applied to global health initiatives, this principle
suggests that if the U.S. provides substantial resources for vital public health improvements, the
donor nation may receive tangible benefits such as a strengthened geopolitical alliance or
enhanced trade opportunity. This exchange can thus be seen as a mutually beneficial
arrangement, where both sides contribute to the collective well-being. As long as the initiatives
respect local autonomy and address the needs of the recipient, this form of cooperation can be
ethical. Another stipulation is the use of benefits by the donor nation. If they are unethical
independent of how the donor recipient received them—in this case via the recipient
nation—then the entire exchange can be deemed unethical. For example, if the donor nation
receives trade opportunities and enacts favorable trade that weakens the recipient nation, then the
transaction is unethical because benefit goes to the donor nation and detriment to the recipient
nation. But, if the outcomes of the exchange are implemented ethically, then no issue can be
placed on the transaction as a whole.
U.S. Paternalism in Global Health Policy
U.S. global health policy has often been criticized for its paternalistic approach, which
reflects a mindset that positions the United States as the primary decision-maker and authority in
determining the health priorities of other nations. This paternalism is evident in the way the U.S.
has historically directed large-scale health initiatives, such as PEPFAR mentioned above, where
the U.S. government sets the agenda and dictates the approach to addressing health issues in
developing countries. For example, PEPFAR’s emphasis on abstinence-based HIV prevention
strategies in many African countries has been criticized for disregarding local cultural contexts
and the realities of sexual health in those regions. By imposing these values and solutions
without meaningful input or adaptation to local priorities, little freedom is granted for the
recipient nations to shape or direct the policies that affect their own populations [5]. This
paternalistic approach risks undermining local autonomy, as it frames the U.S. as the ultimate
authority in global health while minimizing the role of affected communities in crafting solutions
that are culturally and contextually relevant.
A justification for this power imbalance is the notion that U.S. aid comes from taxpayers
which should have representative authority in the allocation and spending of taxpayer dollars.
Furthermore, they state that a block grant of funding without strings attached may lead to misuse
of funds and become wasteful spending. Another tenet to justify paternalistic tendencies could be
the idea that since the U.S. has relatively low rates of disease and robust healthcare
infrastructure, the solution should be derived from them—essentially validating western
exceptionalism.
However, opponents such as myself, argue that the paternalism of U.S. global health
policy is contradictory to the American ideal of representation before enactment of law. In the
scenarios of global healthcare interventionism, a social contract does not exist for the citizens of
recipient countries [5]. They are subject to the mandates and modalities of improved healthcare
provided by an external source rather than on a democratic volition. To heighten this unethical
nature, a power dynamic that favors donor nations compels recipient nations to comply or
receive no assistance. For instance, U.S. health aid often comes with strings attached, such as the
requirement for countries to adopt specific policies or align with U.S. foreign policy objectives
[6]. This creates a power dynamic in which the recipient nations must adopt American policy in
fear of not receiving crucial aid and assistance. Additionally, the adoption of a foreign aid
agreement places decision-making power in the hands of U.S. officials rather than national
leaders or local communities. The result is a linear flow of power from the hands of the recipient
nation to the donor nation, in exchange for assistance [6]. Boiled down, recipient nations must
cede power in order to receive aid, which makes them subservient to impositions placed by the
donor nations due to a fear of losing vital aid and support—which makes the process of
paternalism unethical.
Global Health Initiatives: Empowering Dependency
While significant resources have been allocated to addressing health crises—such as the
fight against HIV/AIDS through PEPFAR—these investments have not always been coupled
with the capacity-building initiatives needed to help nations develop sustainable health systems.
The influx of U.S. aid can often overshadow local efforts to build self-reliant infrastructures,
leaving countries dependent on external resources and expertise. This dependency is exacerbated
by the inequities inherent in the way U.S. global health programs are structured, as they are often
designed to prioritize American interests and values over the unique needs and priorities of the
countries receiving assistance. This reinforces a cycle where countries are not given the
autonomy to choose their own health strategies, further stunting their ability to achieve
self-sufficiency and build sustainable systems of care [7].
Furthermore, the paternalistic nature of U.S. global health policy further contributes to
this cycle of dependence. By framing U.S. aid as the primary solution to health problems in other
nations, the policy disregards the ability of local governments and communities to eventually
take ownership of their own health challenges [7]. Instead of empowering countries to develop
their own solutions, U.S. interventionism often imposes a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to
account for local context, culture, or capacity. For example, U.S.-led health programs may
bypass local health authorities in favor of international organizations or NGOs that implement
the policies directly, further eroding local control and leadership. This paternalistic approach not
only undermines local expertise but also limits the long-term effectiveness of aid, as countries
remain reliant on external assistance rather than developing their own sustainable health systems.
Ultimately, U.S. global health policies that perpetuate inequality and foster dependency are
unlikely to lead to lasting improvements in global health and may, in fact, hinder the
development of more independent, resilient health systems [7].
In conclusion, while global healthcare initiatives have undeniably contributed to
improving health outcomes in many developing nations, their current structure is flawed in that it
fosters dependency and reinforces paternalistic dynamics. Although these programs are often
designed with equitable intentions, they inadvertently undermine the autonomy of recipient
nations, leaving them more reliant on foreign aid rather than empowering them to develop
self-sufficient, sustainable health systems. This dependency contradicts the very objectives of
these initiatives, which should focus on building long-term capacity and resilience within the
countries they aim to help.
To address these issues, global health initiatives must be restructured to prioritize local
ownership, equity, and capacity-building. First, the involvement of local governments and
communities should be central to the design and implementation of health programs, ensuring
that policies align with their unique needs and priorities. Second, funding should be redirected
toward strengthening health infrastructures, such as training local healthcare workers, enhancing
health systems management, and building sustainable supply chains. Finally, global health
programs should aim to phase out dependence on foreign aid by transitioning to models that
support the long-term self-reliance of recipient countries, fostering true partnerships that
empower nations to take control of their own health futures. Only by shifting from a paternalistic
model to one that promotes mutual respect and capacity-building can global health initiatives
fulfill their true purpose of creating lasting and equitable improvements in global healthcare.
References:
[1] Brugha, R. (2008). Health Systems Policy, Finance, and Organization. Google Books.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IEXUrc0tr1wC&oi=fnd&pg=PA128&d
q=history%2Bof%2Bglobal%2Bhealth%2Binitiatives&ots=nc3_0lWQQ2&sig=YoYy_1
2BHsTnev46yEVUcT5WHMw#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20global%20health%20i
nitiatives&f=false
[2] Shuster, E. (1997). Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp2209151
[3] Gautier, L., Sieleunou, I., & Kalolo, A. (2018, June 15). Deconstructing the Notion of
“Global Health Research Partnerships” Across Northern and African Contexts. BMC
medical ethics. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6019997/
[4] El Arifeen, S., Grove, J., Hansen, P. M., Hargreaves, J. R., Johnson, H. L., Johri, M., &
Saville, E. (2024, February 1). Evaluating Global Health Initiatives to Improve Health
Equity. Bulletin of the World Health Organization.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10835640/
[5] Barnett, M. (2015, October 30). Paternalism and Global Governance: Social Philosophy and
Policy. Cambridge Core.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/paternalis
m-and-global-governance/F68F99C24B88F669D1677C1D267A67FC
[6] Friedman, D. (2014, July). Public Health Regulation and the Limits of Paternalism.
HeinOnline.https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals%2Fconlr46&div=50
&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals
[7] “Global Health in Practice” (2022).World Scientific Series in Health Investment and
Financing. Techniques for Preparation of Solid-State Materials and Nanoparticles |
Experimental Techniques in Physics and Materials Science. World Scientific Connect - .
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811278891_0001