Drapper, Business Day.

WHAT if there was a popular drug that had moderate benefits but was known to cause acute liver failure and death in some patients? Or another drug that had dangerous side effects including intestinal bleeding and ulcers?

Would it be right to let big pharmaceutical companies carry on marketing and selling them or ought they to be banned?
These drugs have existed for more than a century: they are paracetamol and aspirin. The point is that so-called “white pill” medicines, from painkillers to anticholesterol drugs, are chemicals that improve the health of some humans but can cause serious side- effects in others. Those who take them need to know the benefits and risks.

Before the RSA government implemented the HIV / AIDS treatment program a local Durban hospital reduced the level of mother to child transmission to below 2% as a result of a Health Department approved USA program funded by the G Bush administration. It was a “state of the art” program that showed what could be achieved by “Western” medicine. When it was phased into the government treatment program and the USA funding reduced, the 2% transmission level considered too expensive to maintain and was pushed upward.

@khosi

Thanks for the insight into your cultural beliefs. I now have a better understanding of their significance and will respect them while in your company, as I respect the spiritual beliefs of my Hindu, Christian, Muslum, Jewish and Buddist friends when I’m with them. In return they also respect my rather personal derivasion of God and spirituality.

I have been reading your comments,etc. Honestly, Now please tell me. What difference will all the above said make to the new South Africa (Generations)? Way forward.

Now, you can all be on my case.

Thanks for your response bro. I am glad I have managed to address some of your concerns very well.

It is true that as the person who subscribes to the said culture, I have a “licence” to hurl insults at other people who do not so subscribe. This, unfortunately, cannot be avoided since we cannot force people to subscribe to our culture so that they may be protected in case of their death or their family member’s death. Therefore, it is up to each and every subscriber or adherent to decide whether to apply his cultural practises to non-adherents or not. It is an individual decision and culture has no role to play therein. Therefore, it would not necessarily be OK for me to join the chorus but it means merely that I am not bound to refrain from hurling the insults to the deceased (Verwoerd). I hope this may clarify it; our law does not prohibit a 68 year old from sleeping with and even marrying an eighteen (18) year old. However, it is up to an individual to decide whether to be guided by law or by his own values, beliefs and conscience.

“Does it not make more sense that what you do or do not say about the dead should rather your OWN values?”

Our culture provides a guideline or a minimum standard that must be adhered to, i.e. by giving a right to the deceased and his family not to be insulted during the relevant period. It is then up to me to decide whether to extend that right to other non-adherents of my culture by making it one of my values instead of limiting it to the relevant people who subscribe to my culture. However, as Khosi has explained the import of the right to the deceased and his family or the prohibition on us as the culture’s adherents, we generally see it as more than that since we know the role it plays and generally apply it to people in general. I again hope this will clarify it; the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) prescribes the basic rights to employees. However, these are basic and any employer may magnanimously extend thereon as opposed to strictly adhering to the BCEA.

“even if they have been dead for a century? Must we respect that too?”

Only if it would be justifiable in an “open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom in which government must be open and accountable” that we advocate in our country” as accentuated in Sine: December 21, 2009 at 9:39 am above. I must hasten to say I harbour serious doubts that it would be so justifiable.

“would you have made sure never to say a bad word about him?”

For fear of death, Yes! However, ours does not carry with it any death fears but is based on other grounds which Khosi has so eloquently expatiated on.

I appreciate your thoughtful response to both myself and Pierre.

You have certainly addressed some of my concerns very well..

I must say though that you have not answered Pierre’s final hypothetical question. It seems to me odd that whether or not one speaks ill of the dead is dependent upon the deceased’s own culture. That would logically entail that, if Verwoerd happened to come from a culture that tolerates the heaping of profane insults upon the dead, it would be OK for YOU to join the chorus of insults too.

Does it not make more sense that what you do or do not say about the dead should rather your OWN values?

Also, what if, as Pierre suggest, Verwoerd came from a culture that says one may not speak ill of the dead – even if they have been dead for a century? Must we respect that too?

Or what about the “culture” of absolute monarchy in Europe — under which you could certainly not speak ill if the King while he is alive. If had been alive in the reign of Louis XIV, would you have made sure never to say a bad word about him?

Thanks for your observation Prof and your resultant question. I have noted that my (mostly white) fellow bloggers tend to invoke the right to freedom of expression against the relevant cultural practice and therefore my answer will enunciate this propensity or inclination). I answer as follows;

I do not consider the relevant cultural practice to detract from the “open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom in which government must be open and accountable” that we advocate in our country. Firstly, this cultural practice is not binding on its adherents but is merely a guideline based on how we view people who have passed on (Khosi immaculately expounded this position in the second last para of his post – Khosi said: December 18, 2009 at 5:44 am). However, we are Constitutionally entitled to practise it (section 30 of the Constitution – all the following references to sections (s) will be to the Constitution unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise indicates) and the “cultural” rights of this cultural practice’s adherents should enjoy Constitutional insulation.

It is a public secret that this cultural practice impacts adversely on section 16 (freedom of expression) for those who have negative things to say about the deceased. However, it cannot be over-looked that although both these rights are subject to limitations, I can be bold enough to declare that the Concourt considers the freedom of expression should be given a benevolently wide interpretation due to our history of press censorship and curtailment of the right to freedom of expression in general by the state and the results could be that this cultural practice could give way to the freedom of expression which is necessary in any vibrant Constitutional democracy such as ours. The other consideration which might militate against the relevant cultural practice is that the right to freedom of expression is expressly stated in the Constitution whilst the relevant practice is read in (‘interpreted’ – please ignore the legal technical meaning of ‘reading in’ as propounded by Mokgoro J and use the ‘interpretation’ meaning given herein), in terms of section 30 as a cultural practice.

However, there are other considerations which might impact highly in favour of this Constitutionally protected cultural practice. Firstly, the fact that this cultural practice is read in as part of the cultural rights guaranteed in the Constitution and not specifically stated may be no more important than the fact that the right to sexual orientation has been interpreted to give our brothers (gays) the rights to marry each other and our sisters (lesbians) the same rights.

Secondly, it is important to note the duration of the cultural practice’s adverse impact against the right to freedom of expression. The prohibition procured by the relevant cultural practice is not perpetual but it is “only in the immediate aftermath” (Quoting Michael Osborne: December 18, 2009 at 23:29 pm) of the deceased death. This is intended for only the period that the death of the deceased in still fresh in the minds of everyone, especially his or her family,

Thirdly, this prohibition serves as an insulator or barrier for the grieving family of the unpopular deceased. Death, in a (black) African context is considered the time that the relevant family in which it has occurred to be more peaceful and avoid any noise, and especially internal or external conflict. This is done in order to give respect to the deceased, his family and the ancestors in general. It is for this particular reason that a wedding, bash, cultural celebration or any other noisy activity such a celebrating the return of young men from the circumcision school has to be postponed or done without the noisy festivities when death has occurred in the meantime. Therefore, by purportedly insulting the deceased or expressing anything negative on him or her is merely serving to insult the family since the deceased cannot hear or respond to it. This basically is an affront or insult ostensibly directed to the deceased whilst its effects are felt by his family who were not party to his (mis)deeds or suspected (mis)deeds and who obviously cannot respond thereto due to their mourning (‘ukuzila’ as articulated in the post by Khosi supra) and also lack of knowledge even during and after ‘ukuzila’ which can be 3 months, 6 moths or a year, depending on the family concerned and the “status” or position of the deceased (father, mother, sister, brother, child, etc) in the family concerned. This obviously impacts on the right of dignity and reputation (section 10) of the family members concerned and the family concerned.

On the political point that you have raised Prof, the temporary prohibition covers all humans alike regardless of their profession, wealth, status, etc. Therefore, a young boy herding cattle, a rapist and/or murderer, the chief and/or his herdsmen and King Hintsa himself are afforded the same respect since at the end of the day, they are all human and have families who will mourn (‘zila’) their death.

I hope this has covered you Prof…