Disposable healthcare products began replacing reusable products following the integration of throwaway culture in healthcare in the 1930s (Strasser, 2020). However, due to a variety of reasons, the reusable face mask quickly re-surfaced in competition with the disposable face mask when theCoronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic began. This trend in disposable vs. reusable face masks usage is reflective of the struggles between individualist and collectivist values in Canadian society and the Canadian public health system. Individualist values prompt the use of disposable face masks due to individual convenience and the notion of self-protection while disregarding greater public health objectives. Collectivist values promote the use of reusable face masks due to concern for the environment and greater public health objectives while sacrificing individual convenience. Ultimately,individualist action is only effective for those at the top of society; collectivist action must be taken for the wellbeing of all people.
Disposables thrive off individualist values. They create a continuous turnover of goods, which is appealing due to the convenience it offers and made feasible due to the low cost for the consumer(Strasser, 2020). However, the convenience and low cost of disposables come at the heavy price of disregarding the wellbeing of the vulnerable and the environment. Disposables are made as cheaply as possible through outsourcing well-paying blue-collar employment, encouraging non-liveable wages, and working conditions in other areas of the world, and disregarding environmental responsibility (Strasser,2020). This is detrimental for the environment and the health of both our Canadian and global societies(Greenpeace, 2020; Strasser, 2020). Choosing disposables means choosing the factors which allow disposables to be possible: a disregard towards social and environmental responsibility to reduce costsIn other words, choosing disposables is a very individualist action as it disregards the wellbeing of others for the convenience of oneself. Furthermore, it is known that face mask wearing is meant to be a collectivist practise. Wearing a face mask protects others from the wearer but not necessarily the wearer from others (Ottawa Public Health, 2020). Nevertheless, face mask wearing is still often treated as self-protection, and it has been thought that disposable masks provide more safety than reusable masks.Thus, people may choose the disposable mask to protect their health. Unfortunately, this type of thinking can be problematic. It is problematic because individualist action on health can be effective for those privileged enough to afford it, but this is done at the cost of those who are less privileged (e.g. the less privileged face the brunt of environmental damage (UN Sustainable Development Goals, 2016).Choosing disposables also means choosing to ignore ongoing and future public health issues for the sake of managing the current Covid-19 issue.
On the other hand, the reusable mask offers a platform for collectivist values (Johnstone, 2016). Since the reusable mask can be used indefinitely, there is much less damage to the environment. As well,since reusables do not need to be constantly replaced, the product does not have to be made as cheaply as possible. Therefore, reducing production costs through devaluing human labour is not an essential element of the product, and these masks can be ethically made, which promotes health. Greenpeace International also explains that experts are endorsing well-made reusable masks instead of disposables because the environmental impact of disposable masks poses a great threat to public health(Greenpeace, 2020). Human health depends on a healthy environment. Reusable masks are crucial in the collective effort of addressing greater public health objectives. It is an individualistic tactic to approach one crisis without taking responsibility for how the approach may impact other situations. The best public health tactics consider its possible effects on other on-going and future circumstances.
Furthermore, an example of how reusable masks can be a site for pro-social action is the Love Masks initiative which collects and distributes reusable masks to schools across Toronto. It began when aToronto teacher recognized that disposable masks are not good for the environment, and they also do not provide a long-term or dignifying solution for students who cannot afford masks (Lyndsay, 2020).Love Masks is a community-initiated public health effort that protects the health of the vulnerable.
Reusable masks protect the health of the most vulnerable from the production chain to the consumers to those who experience the indirect effects.Reusable masks are crucial in the collective effort of protecting public health and safety. It is an individualistic tactic to approach one crisis without taking responsibility for how the approach may impact the safety of other situations, such as environmental issues. The best public health tactics are collective and intersectional, and they consider possible effects on other on-going and future circumstances. This is especially important to highlight during Covid-19 because the pandemic was largely caused by environmental destruction (Bastek, 2020).
The urgency of Covid-19 has put a spotlight on the struggle between individualist and collectivist values in Canadian society. Canadian modern public health approaches are heavily individualistic because of the neoliberal ideals of Western society (Brown, 2019). Yet, individualistic public health is a paradox because public well-being cannot be achieved without collective well-being; and collected well-being cannot be achieved through uncompassionate individual actions. Disposable masks are representative of individualistic values that contradict public health objectives, while reusable masks represent collectivist values that support public health objectives. There is a struggle between whether to use disposable or reusable masks; between what is convenient for the individual and what is beneficial for the collective; and what may be seen as safer for the individual and what is safer for the collective. Thus,it is my prediction that our society will shift towards more collectivist ways of public health because we must for the sake of sustainable well-being.
References
Bastek, S. (Host). (2020, March 13). How Global Agriculture Grew a Pandemic (No. 120) [Audio podcast].In Smarty Pants. The American Scholar.https://theamericanscholar.org/who-should-we-blame-for-coronavirus/
Brown N. (2019) Spherologies of Immunisation. In: Immunitary Life. Palgrave Macmillan, London.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55247-1_5
Greenpeace International (2020, July 28). Health experts call for reusable PPE to protect people andplanet.https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/44356/health-experts-reusable-ppe-protect-people-planet/
Johnstone, M. & Hooper, S. (2016, September 28) Social influence and green consumption behaviour: aneed for greater government involvement. Journal of Marketing Management.https://www-tandfonline-com.proxy.queensu.ca/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1189955?scroll=top&needAccess=true
Lyndsay, M. (2020, September 14). Teacher starts 'Love Masks' initiative to collect reusable masks forToronto students in need. CTV News.https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/teacher-starts-love-masks-initiative-to-collect-reusable-masks-for-toronto-students-in-need-1.5104475?cache=%3Ca+href%3D%3FclipId%3D89530%3FcontactForm%3Dtrue
Ottawa Public Health. (2020, November 21). Masks.https://www.ottawapublichealth.ca/en/public-health-topics/masks.aspx#:~:text=Wearing%20a%20mask%20helps%20to,into%20contact%20with%20other%20people.
Strasser, B. J., & Schlich, T. (2020). A history of the medical mask and the rise of throwaway culture. TheLancet,396(10243), 19–20.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31207-1
Tanyarico. (2020). [Personal protective equipment littered in nature] [Photograph]. The Conversation.https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-face-masks-an-environmental-disaster-that-might-last-generations-144328
UN Sustainable Development Goals. (2016, October 3). Report: Inequalities exacerbate climate impactson poor.https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/10/report-inequalities-exacerbate-climate-impacts-on-poor/