| dc.description.abstract | This study examines health regulation under conditions of geographical constraint in two strikingly different settings, one on a remote island in Bangladesh and the other in an impoverished rural region in Australia. Both suffer from an absence of medically qualified professionals, which means that in the resultant vacuum, patients access alternative healthcare. The concept of regulation (or lack of regulation) is explored in terms of unconventional new responses to rural health deficits. The two cases show unexpected commonality, with policymakers facing shared challenges beyond physical remoteness. The difference in the degree of enforcement of regulation offers the greatest point of difference. This comparative study revealed a weak health regulatory system in the remote Bangladesh area of Bhola Island where ‘alternatives’ to formal clinical approaches have become the default choice. Brazen stop-gap servicing is commonplace on Bhola Island, but in The Gemfields such practices only occur in the shadows or as a last resort. Each isolated location, one in a developing country and the other in a developed setting, exemplifies how geographical remoteness can present an opportunity for innovations in supply to emerge. Surprisingly, it is the developing world case that better leverages a regulatory void to respond to local healthcare needs. | en_US |
