PUBH 6331 Week 11 Position Paper Example

Course	PUBH 6331 Global Health and Social Justice
Week	Week 11
Paper type	Position paper
Length	About 1,040 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Master of Public Health (MPH)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 6331 Week 11

First the Nation, Then the Wealthier States: A Position Paper Arguing Who Owes Antivenom Access to Snakebite Victims in a Composite Low-Income Savanna Region, Matching the Argued Duty to a Costed Remedy

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 6331: Global Health and Social Justice

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title orders the duty holders the way the argument does, because the paper's claim is about sequence as much as about obligation.

Position

People bitten by venomous snakes in Sabalia, the invented savanna nation used throughout this course, are owed access to safe, effective antivenom within reach of where bites happen. That duty falls first on Sabalia's national government, as part of its core obligations under the right to health, and second on wealthier states, through the international assistance and cooperation the same right describes. Manufacturers and international agencies have real responsibilities, but they are not the primary duty holders. This paper defends that position, answers the strongest objections and shows that the costed district hospital plan from Week 10 is the remedy the duty requires.

What this page is doingStating the full position in the first paragraph lets every later section be read as support for a claim already on the table.

The Harm

Snakebite kills tens of thousands of people a year worldwide, with estimates ranging from about 20,000 to 94,000 deaths in an early global model (Kasturiratne et al., 2008) and 81,410 to 137,880 in the World Health Organization's current figures, and estimates that permanent disabilities, amputations among them, run at about three for every death (World Health Organization [WHO], 2023). The burden falls on the poor. Across 138 countries, mortality from snakebite rose as human development, per capita health spending and gross domestic product fell (Harrison et al., 2009). In Sabalia, the antivenom that could prevent many of these deaths is stored in the capital, hours from most victims.

The Standard

Among the core duties the treaty committee assigns every state is supplying the medicines the WHO's essential list names, and it treats those duties as ones a state may not defer by pleading poverty (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2000, para. 43). Antivenoms appear on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. The committee also says that states and other actors in a position to assist have obligations of international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to help others meet their core obligations (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2000, para. 45). These two passages ground the two duties this paper defends.

Why the National Government Comes First

Three reasons put Sabalia's government first. First, the core obligation is addressed to the state where the right holders live. Second, only the national government controls the decisions that determine whether antivenom reaches district hospitals: the essential medicines list for each level of care, the procurement budget, training and distribution. Third, the cost is within reach. The Week 10 plan estimated first-year costs of about US$1.4 million and about US$1.3 million a year after that, mostly for antivenom. That is a real sum for a low-income country's health budget, but it is the kind of choice a ministry makes, not an impossibility, and the committee's text says such choices cannot be deferred indefinitely for cost.

Why Wealthier States Come Second

The duty of international cooperation is real but harder to specify. It does not tell any particular wealthy state to pay any particular sum. What it does support is a shared responsibility to fix problems a single low-income country cannot fix alone. The antivenom market is one. Producers selling into sub-Saharan Africa were found to be making far less than the region needed, with a supply of effective doses that may have covered only a sliver of projected needs, and identified unpredictable demand and investment as threats to the industry's survival (Brown, 2012). No single ministry can stabilize that market. Wealthier states, through funding for quality assessment, pooled procurement and research into better antivenoms, can. The WHO's 2019 plan for snakebite, with its goal of cutting deaths and disabilities in half by 2030, depends on exactly this kind of coordinated international support (Williams et al., 2019).

Objections

"Sabalia cannot afford it."

The core obligation is defined to resist this objection, and the cost is known. Where a government genuinely cannot meet the full cost, the duty does not disappear; it triggers the international duty to assist. The answer is both duties together, not neither.

"Manufacturers should bear the burden."

Manufacturers have responsibilities, including honest marketing and quality, which Brown (2012) found lacking for some products. But companies cannot be made to supply a market that does not pay or plan its purchases. Placing the primary duty on them lets governments avoid the decisions only they can make.

"Other priorities save more lives per dollar."

This is the strongest objection. A ministry with limited funds faces real trade-offs. The answer is partly empirical, since antivenom saves lives and limbs among working-age adults and children, and partly principled: core obligations are not ranked purely by cost-effectiveness. A health system that leaves an identifiable group without any treatment for a lethal condition fails a basic test of fairness, whatever its average efficiency.

How the Remedy Matches the Duty

The Week 10 plan places antivenom, solar refrigeration and trained staff in all 24 district hospitals, funds a national coordinator and calls for a dedicated budget line and regional pooled procurement. Each element maps to a duty holder. The ministry owns the essential medicines list, the budget, training and distribution. Wealthier states and international agencies can support pooled procurement, quality assessment and research. Community health workers and district teams carry the messages that reduce delay. The duty and the remedy line up: the government acts first within its own system, and international partners support what it cannot do alone.

What Would Show the Duty Is Being Met

A duty that cannot be checked is easily ignored. Three indicators would show whether Sabalia's government is meeting its share: the share of district hospitals holding antivenom on the shelf in every rainy-season month, the share of the national medicines budget allocated to antivenom, and deaths among patients treated at district hospitals. For wealthier states, the test is whether funding for quality assessment and pooled procurement is committed for several years rather than a single grant cycle.

Conclusion

A farmworker bitten in the savanna is owed treatment that her government has the power and the duty to provide, and that the wider world has a duty to help make possible. The question for Sabalia is not whether antivenom access is owed, but how soon those who owe it will act.

References

Brown, N. I. (2012). Consequences of neglect: Analysis of the sub-Saharan African snake antivenom market and the global context. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 6(6), Article e1670. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001670

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2000). General comment No. 14: The right to the highest attainable standard of health (art. 12) (E/C.12/2000/4). United Nations. https://undocs.org/E/C.12/2000/4

Harrison, R. A., Hargreaves, A., Wagstaff, S. C., Faragher, B., & Lalloo, D. G. (2009). Snake envenoming: A disease of poverty. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 3(12), Article e569. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000569

Kasturiratne, A., Wickremasinghe, A. R., de Silva, N., Gunawardena, N. K., Pathmeswaran, A., Premaratna, R., Savioli, L., Lalloo, D. G., & de Silva, H. J. (2008). The global burden of snakebite: A literature analysis and modelling based on regional estimates of envenoming and deaths. PLoS Medicine, 5(11), Article e218. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050218

Williams, D. J., Faiz, M. A., Abela-Ridder, B., Ainsworth, S., Bulfone, T. C., Nickerson, A. D., Habib, A. G., Junghanss, T., Fan, H. W., Turner, M., Harrison, R. A., & Warrell, D. A. (2019). Strategy for a globally coordinated response to a priority neglected tropical disease: Snakebite envenoming. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 13(2), Article e0007059. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007059

World Health Organization. (2023). Snakebite envenoming [Fact sheet]. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/snakebite-envenoming

The Walden PUBH 6331 Week 11 instructions

Final position papers in a global health justice course ask students to make and defend an argument about who owes what for a health problem studied across the term. Prompts usually require a clear thesis, evidence on the harm, a normative standard, identification of duty holders, responses to objections and a connection to a proposed remedy. Many instructors expect students to draw on their earlier weekly work while revising it. Six to eight pages plus references is a common length. Instructors reward a thesis stated early, objections answered seriously and a remedy that matches the duty, and they look for arguments that could be tested against evidence rather than resting on conviction.

How the PUBH 6331 Week 11 example is put together

The paper states its full position in the first paragraph. A section on harm uses global estimates, the WHO figures and evidence on poverty. A section on the standard cites the core obligation and the duty of international assistance. Separate sections explain why the national government comes first and why wealthier states come second, the latter linked to the failing antivenom market. Three objections receive their own subsections. A section maps the Week 10 remedy to duty holders, and a section on indicators describes how fulfillment could be checked before a short conclusion.

Where the marks sit in the PUBH 6331 Week 11 rubric

Position papers are graded on clarity of thesis, strength of evidence, quality of normative reasoning, handling of objections and coherence with the proposed remedy. The thesis should be specific about duty holders and their order. Evidence should be accurate and current. Normative reasoning should cite the standard and explain how it applies. Objections should be stated fairly and answered with reasons. The remedy should match the duty. Careful structure and exact citations of the general comment and the burden studies count too. Papers that avoid the strongest objection usually lose points. Indicators that would show whether a duty is being met give the paper a practical edge and are often rewarded. Assigning every part of the remedy to a named duty holder shows, better than any summary, that argument and plan fit. Answering the cost-effectiveness objection directly, rather than ignoring it, usually earns the most credit.

PUBH 6331 Week 11 help: mistakes that cost marks

Students often state a position only in the conclusion. Put it first. Choose the standard carefully and cite the specific passages. Explain why each duty holder is placed where it is. Find the strongest objection, not the easiest, and answer it. Connect the argument to a concrete remedy and to indicators someone could check. Revise earlier weekly work instead of pasting it. Final position papers can be prepared from your term's work and feedback. Read your objections section aloud and ask whether an opponent would recognize their own view in it. Make sure every figure you cite in the harm section matches your earlier weeks or is updated with a reason.

Get a PUBH 6331 Week 11 example written to your instructions

Forward the Week 11 prompt and rubric along with your earlier papers from the term, and the position paper is assembled around your own sequence in 24-48h, first one free. Your argued position leads; the desk supplies structure, sourcing and the opposing case without substituting a thesis of its own.

More PUBH 6331 papers and MPH samples

PUBH 6331 Week 11 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 6331 Week 11 sample paper?

The full Week 11 position paper sits above, arguing who owes antivenom access in a composite low-income region.

Who owes snakebite victims access to antivenom?

The paper argues the national government first, under core health obligations, and wealthier states second, through cooperation.

Can a poor country claim it cannot afford antivenom?

Core obligations resist that excuse, and where a state truly cannot pay, the international duty to assist applies.

Why are manufacturers not the primary duty holders?

They cannot be made to supply markets that do not pay or plan, and placing the duty on them lets governments avoid decisions.

How could the duty be checked?

By tracking antivenom stock in district hospitals, the budget share for antivenom and deaths among treated patients.