Resources search

The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated containment measures have resulted in a mental health crisis globally. Marginalised populations have been disproportionately affected during the pandemic with an aggravation of existing inequalities, and this has increased the risks to their mental health. The LGBTIQ+ population is among those marginalised whose lives have been rendered even more precarious than before by the pandemic. This paper explores some of the main risks to the mental health of LGBTIQ+ people in India, the advice being given to them by mental health professionals and activists, and need for queer revisionings of uncertainty, the concept of a future and individualism.

This report presents the findings from a rapid global survey of persons with disabilities and other stakeholders which took place between April and August 2020. The organisations behind the study seek to “catalyse urgent action in the weeks and months to come,” as transmission rates of COVID-19 continue to rise in many countries and persons with disabilities are again subjected to restrictions which have already had severe consequences.

The report analyses over 2,100 responses to the survey from 134 countries around the world. The vast majority of responses were from individuals with disabilities and their family members. Within the questionnaire responses respondents provided more than 3,000 written testimonies documenting the experiences of persons with disabilities and their family members during the pandemic. The qualitative and quantitative data provide in-depth, comprehensive insights into the experiences of persons with disabilities and the consequences of government actions or inactions on the rights of persons with disabilities.

The report is organised around four themes which emerged during the process of analysing responses received to the survey. These themes are:

1. Inadequate measures to protect persons with disabilities in institutions

2. Significant and fatal breakdown of community supports

3. Disproportionate impact on underrepresented groups of persons with disabilities

4. Denial of access to healthcare

A webinar was held to mark the launch of the report

There has been some progress in the United Kingdom regarding official recognition of the existence and needs of disabled asylum seekers and refugees. However, references are commonly accompanied by euphemistic labels, particularly of ‘vulnerability’. This should be understood in the context of systematic reduction of services and support available to the wider population of asylum seekers and disabled people in the United Kingdom. I argue that these processes reinforce each other and that both undermine a rights-based approach. Focusing on recent asylum and immigration policies, I explore how labels of ‘vulnerability’ obscure systemic oppression and distract from the rights and achievements of disabled people. The regressive elements of vulnerability discourse are presented as if better than nothing. Such discourse risks reinforcing hegemonic acceptance of distinctions of human worth, with detrimental impact for migrants and citizens alike.

Background: If access to equitable health care is to be achieved for all, policy documents must mention and address in some detail different needs of groups vulnerable to not accessing such health care. If these needs are not addressed in the policy documents, there is little chance that they will be addressed at the stage of implementation.

Objectives: This paper reports on an analysis of 11 African Union (AU) policy documents to ascertain the frequency and the extent of mention of 13 core concepts in relation to 12 vulnerable groups, with a specific focus on people with disabilities.

Method: The paper applied the EquiFrame analytical framework to the 11 AU policy documents. The 11 documents were analysed in terms of how many times a core concept was mentioned and the extent of information on how the core concept should be addressed at the implementation level. Each core concept mention was further analysed in terms of the vulnerable group in referred to.

Results: The analysis of regional AU policies highlighted the broad nature of the reference made to vulnerable groups, with a lack of detailed specifications of different needs of different groups. This is confirmed in the highest vulnerable group mention being for ‘universal’. The reading of the documents suggests that vulnerable groups are homogeneous in their needs, which is not the case. There is a lack of recognition of different needs of different vulnerable groups in accessing health care.

Conclusion: The need for more information and knowledge on the needs of all vulnerable groups is evident. The current lack of mention and of any detail on how to address needs of vulnerable groups will significantly impair the access to equitable health care for all.