Healthy Lives, Healthy People and Its Impact upon Child Poverty - Essay Example

Read Healthy Lives, Healthy People and Consider Its Impact upon Child Poverty Read Healthy Lives, Healthy People (2010) and Consider Its Impact upon Child Poverty In this context policy, (health) are decisions, plans and actions that are implemented with an aim of accomplishing certain health care goals in the community. Healthy People 2010 can be defined as an explicit health policy since it meant to accomplish many things: it describes a vision for the future which assists them in establishing objectives and points of reference for short, medium and long term goals. Further, in this assignment a policy can be defined as one meant to outline precedence and the anticipated roles of different cohorts; as well as building consensus and conveying inform. Elizabeth Porter and Lesley Coles in Policy and Strategy for Improving Health and Wellbeing states a policy (health) is clean water, air, mandatory vaccinations, sanitation, safeguarding children’s and workers rights through certain legislations and of the government being linked with health. The advantageous responsibility of the government and other joint arrangements are focused more by socialists and collectivists. Unfettered capitalism and individualism are harmful to health, and the government should be accountable to intervene to address health damaging repercussions and deal with the principal social economic causes of ill-health. Equality health is an essential factor of social justice and a reflection of a major socialist principle. Therefore, priority should be given to enhancing everybody’s life, the poor and children included while not looking at their social, gender and ethnic background. In the United Kingdom today under this policy safeguarding citizens from any health threat and should be started by central government, with a firm system on the frontline. Nevertheless, local leadership and wide responsibility within the society is the approach to enhance all citizens’ health as well as wellbeing, in addition to addressing the extensive factors that influence it and most successfully (Robinson & Bugler, 2010). Efforts should be steered on the results that mean much by implementing what works the best with intelligibility to enable answerability. The involvement of a central government should reflect the main values of freedom, responsibility and fairness by strengthening confidence, and individual responsibility; optimistically enhancing health behaviors and lifestyle; and making the environment healthier for better choices. To completely achieve this, there is need to balance the freedom of organizations and individuals while avoiding harm to others as a ladder of involvements to determine the least meddling approach possible, aiming to make charitable strategies applicable prior to resorting to regulation. Human health and wellness is influenced by a number of elements such as cultural, economic, social, environmental and psychological. All of these are spread across our lives. Nevertheless, changes occur as life progresses through major the stages from infancy to childhood, through adolescent to adult, working life, retirement and finally death. Prior to formation and pregnancy, biological, social and genetic factors mount up to influence the baby’s health (Coles, & Porter,2011). With that in mind, life expectancy is longer as compared to the past few decades because of health and wellbeing differences in England. On the other hand, there is a social gradient in health- people of lower social status have the worst health while those in marginal areas are more likely to have a shorter life expectancy and burdens of poor health. On the contrast, the rich have longer and healthier life expectancy. This disparity is caused by the core social factors affecting people’s health and wellness. Therefore, the people around us, families, social norms and environment greatly impact life and the chances of living. Healthcare services are estimated to put in just 2/3 of life expectancy improvements while changing lifestyle and eliminating health inequalities contributes the other 2/3. Many of the largest threats to health like diabetes and obesity relate to public health. Highlighting the Plight of the Child Poverty or Poverty in General There has been a prevalence of obesity among the children of England. According to the British Growth Reference Chart 3 to 4 years of English children showed an increase of 60% in obese frequency by being overweight. As far as the natural history of overweight and obese is common, these findings should raise concern not only for parents/ guardians but also the health policies. As far as the political Health is concerned, one of its major mandates is focused on the children- ensuring all children from every community have the best possible start in life. This is further emphasized by abolishing inequalities among the poor by improved key health stages in peoples’ lives through a continued commitment to trim down child poverty by implementing measures to improve health visitor numbers such as reaching families through Family Nurse Partnerships by twofold in 2015 in addition to refocusing Sure Start Children’s Centers for those in dire need. Introducing an Olympic and Paralympicystyle sports competition should also be introduced in schools for the disabled. Obesity has been much linked to the rich compared to those who are economically deprived. Strange as it may should, this portion of the population finds eating junks is a lifestyle, but the truth is they are highly processed food, rich in fat and sodium and with low vitamins and minerals. Secondly, these same people do not exercise as much; they prefer to ride to the nearest shopping center, school and work. While at work, they are mostly using equipments like computers. While at home, they sit in front of the Television and many kids play computer games and others like play stations. For instance, in 2010, there was a significant rise in household spending on butter, sugar, preservatives, butter and beverages. In tandem, household expenses on fruits dropped by 0.9% in 2010 and are at 11.6% in 2012. (Food Standards Agency, p.36). According to studies the explanations for such occurrences have been mainly linked to economic struggles- as in this happens among the poor in the society. In this context, the policy strategy is make it pay to work through an all-inclusive welfare reforms, develop new job opportunities through local growth and having good working relations with workers to unleash their potential as advocates of public life. It is natural ageing brings along challenges like un-productivity not only in England but across the globe leading to decreasing economic returns. For such situation, the policy will design communities for health/ active ageing and sustainability. Active ageing will be the norm and not the exception achieved by developing more Lifetime Homes, taking care of green spaces and starting physical activity initiatives as well as improved accessibility to land so the ageing can grow their foods. Ensure healthy standard of living for all comes as D is in included in Healthy Lives, Healthy People. The Marmot review asserts the gap of life expectancy between the rich and the poor is up seven years, and further 17years for those without disability (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, p.207). That means healthy standards are ensured for all. There is also broad difference in areas; for instance Kensington and Chelsea. A man in Chelsea has a lifespan of 88years while another one in Tottenham Green, one of the poorest wards has a lifespan of 71years. This results from deprivation and low wages that are particularly correlated with smoking, mental illness, obesity and harms happening because of drugs and alcohol abuse; and of behavioral problems and childhood emotional. Even if 1 out of 50 deaths are related to infectious diseases, the rate of sexually transmitted disease and tuberculosis is on the increase and pandemic flu has continued to be a challenge. Protected equality traits can further affect life. Substantiation demonstrate that inequalities based on disability, belief, race, sexual orientation, age, gender identity and religion can interrelate in complex manner with socioeconomic status to shape people’s health. Some susceptible cohorts and communities, such as those with difficulties disabilities have considerably poorer life expectancy as expected according to their socioeconomic status singly. The present policy’s intention is to give power to local communities, facilitate professional freedoms and formulate free new initiatives based on the substantiation of what works the best, while making sure the country is still relevant and alleviate present and future health perils (Robinson & Bugler, 2010). For instance, the policy is set to safeguard the populace from health perils piloted by the central government with a firm system to the forefront, empower local headship and instill wide responsibility within the society to enhance everyone’s health and wellness, as well as tackle the wider factors influencing it among others. The poorest in the society in most cases the poor are the vulnerable- many disadvantages such as sicknesses, lack of basic needs leading to stagnant wanting living standards. Such are the physically and mentally disabled. These calls for measures in preventing several winter deaths- in 2008-2009, 35 deaths were recorded. This is preventable by providing warmer house and full take-up of seasonal flu vaccination. The public health improved innovations like clean water and sewage that led to a decrease in infectious and clean air acts that killed thousands through pollution in 1950s, and improved nutrition that immensely eliminated deaths (Kessler, 2005). Although infectious diseases are on the decrease, others like sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis and pandemic flu are a major challenge as well as mental health disorders (Health Protection Agency, p.139). Premature deaths are also on the increases with “disease of lifestyle” such as unhealthy diets; smoking, alcohol abuse and sedentary lifestyle as the contributing factors. People who are vulnerable to inequalities because of social and economic status are deemed to be poor. The connection between poverty, problematic drug abuse, diseases and social exclusion is particularly high. The gap in health inequalities in life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy are immense. People are affected by different factors that bring inequalities. Such are the social isolation, early years care and housing. Smoking, being one of the factors drains off England more than £2.7 billion a yearly on treating smoking-related complications (Callum, 2008). Nevertheless, the users should be made aware that the risk factors should not determine drug and alcohol abuse. It is in this state the Marmot Review (2010) asserts health actions must be universal, but with a scale and intensity that is proportionate to the level of disadvantage. We call this proportionate universalism. Compared to the past, the people of England are much healthier and live longer. Thanks to the safe air and water and protection from environmental perils. However, there are considerable health inequalities within the country just like it is in any other wealth state. The figure below is an illustration of differences in death of people below 75years in relation to regions is vulnerable to many challenges. For example, the patterns of smoking- related mortalities are different from those of alcohol and excess winter deaths. It is the approach of the government of England alongside other actors such as individuals, the wider community and society in advancing health, tone down ill health and lengthening life. Statistics confirm Britain is the most Obese state in Europe. It still tops in the sexually transmitted infections, a reasonable large populace of drug and alcohol abusers. Each year more than 80, 000 deaths occur as a result of smoking. Mental health complications are also on the rise. Health differences between rich and poor are becoming increasingly worse, so the wealthy live longer. What is the public health going to do to curb the challenge? There is need to think in a more incorporated and inventive ways on empowering individuals and communities to settle on healthier choices. There is need to pay attention on the society since this is one of the largest challenge for the present generation- creating a public health service, not simply a national sickness service (Marmot, 2010). First the government intends to re-balance the focus on the cause poor health and make sure that public funding is prioritized and not affected by other pressures. For instance, funding from NHS will be a subject to reducing running costs and efficiency benefits will be a requirement within the system. Additionally, commencing well through intervention and prevention is a major precedence for the state such as formulating firm public health and early education with more focus on the poor and children (disadvantaged families) as advocated in the Marmot Review. The local governments should have opportunities to incorporate local approaches between public health services, children services as well as NHS, supporting outcomes and resources. At the levels of neighborhood, increased times of health visits, partnering with children centers and GPs, will direct and deliver the Health Child programmes, along Family Nurse Partnership. These among other family health initiatives will equip parents with parenting knowledge hence positive impact both for children and parents. The tight spot for the government is it just not easy to support healthier lifestyles through Whitehall diktat and nannying concerning citizens’ ways of life. The past years have confirmed that using a single solution for all problems is not ideal since health challenges differ from one region to another. However, it is not possible to lay back despite everything, thousands of people are suffering because of lifestyle- driven poor health as well as acute health inequalities. There is a call for new strategy aimed at empowering individuals to make health choices and enable communities to tackle their particular needs. Such is ending central control and enable the local governments to responsible through funding for innovative initiatives and give them the freedom to enhance public health in their regions. There should also be financial encouragement for their progress in enhancing health and curbing health inequalities, and greater intelligibility so many can witness their achievements. If this is organized nationally with a committed new public health service-Public Health Service-replacing all the complicated frameworks present today, success will follow. The new committed service will advocate for local innovation, help curb diseases and convey information on the most recent information from within the globe (Hardistry and Weber, 2009). All these need support from the health sector and other partners. New practices and technology have already started revolutionizing attempts to prevent diseases and enhance health as well as wellness from voluntary sectors, employers to new phone applications helpful in losing weight. It is more of a collective effort of different innovation towards a single state reason. The public supposes the government to be prepared and manage serious, unavoidable dangers and crisis such as chemical spills, terrorism, disease eruptions and radiation on their behalf. Such incidents can demand direct involvement from different governments and a strong grip of the Secretary of State for Health. That is completely different when it comes to improving health and wellness. The government cannot ban everything since it is not just and is impossible. It can also have one solution for all its predicaments since that will leave the poor in the society poorest. When we look at the choice of good and bad health, very few chose it consciously-the food, drinks and exercise for instance smoking teenagers. Mostly it is a matter of trade off between a good feeling and possible effects in one’s health at the long run. Thus, moderation is mostly the key. Adults with capability are accountable for such options. Concurrently, human beings are not in total control of their lives and the surrounding circumstances. Several factors limit and influence their actions, both positively and negatively (Hardistry and Weber, 2009). Therefore, the government’s strategy to improve health and wellness in consideration with national and local action can only be based on actions that reflect coalition of main values of freedom, responsibility and fairness. In case the central action is just, the state will apply the least intrusive approach necessary to accomplish the desired result. However, it intends to use approaches that focus on enabling and directing people’s options whenever possible. Such are changing social norms and defaulting options to make healthier choices easier to people. There is a noteworthy scope to apply that harness connect the latest techniques of behavioral science to act this way-nudging citizens towards the right direction instead of banning or significantly limiting their options (HM Government 2010). For the government the best approach is enter into voluntary agreements with partners and businesses and not resorting to top-down lectures. In case partnership approach bears no fruits, it will apply the case for “moving up” where necessary. For instance, if a business fails to act according to volunteer commitments then the government will introduce change through regulation on behalf of people’s health. Among the smoking teenagers the nudge theory created a divide since some felt the government is interfering with their freedom, others felt they smoked responsibly whiles others felt the need to smoke more to prove a “point”. On the other hand, the peers, families and the whole of the non smoking community were excited concerning the possibility of such an approach. In fact, some felt the government should employ it more frequently while others were more critical of the opinion, wary of implementing behavioral tools for anything. It was further felt that the nudge theory is controlling and manipulative (Thaler & Sunstain, 2008). Like many other new things, the theory intrigues curiosity. Thus, it is natural and very essential that it brings a health degree of skepticism; after all, where theories are applied to assist governments with “good” governance, they must go through a good dose of critical inquiry. Nudge theory is associated to reduce the capability to resolve the original problems. According to the literature from the Institute of Health Equity, resolving problems depends on what the particular problem is and the background the theory is applied. In this case, a smoker might be unable to stop smoking because he got into it at a very age, so his/her body is very accustomed. Perchance the biggest wary is that nudge is plain old manipulation working in people without their conscience. But the question is if that how it works, how are adult smokers able to object without some objective that they might not accept (smoking), and it’s not another type of manipulation (Callum, 2008). This perception attracted two answers among the users as well as interest groups. First, the entire notion of being without conscious is common than they think because most of the times human beings are influenced by context in some way or another. For instance when adult smoke in non-smoking zone, the context is shapes their decisions to some extent. Since they are always being “nudged” they might as well use this urge to drink some water or eat some fruits instead of being pushed at the mercy of cigar manufacturers. The RCN called the Westminster government to identify the link between low incomes amongst both for the employed and unemployed leading to mental and poor health. According to the Commission made it clear that material situation besides social environment, biological and psychosocial factors contribute to the health inequalities. Low economic is a dimensional phenomenon, made up of inability to meet the basic needs, lack of resource control and poor physical health. As poverty progresses and already this category is not treated equally with their counterparts the strain becomes much leading to mental sickness (Robinson & Bugler, 2010). The gap between the categories is widening making it clearer that poverty and inequality have a strong link. Less income (inequality) produces psychosocial stress, poor health (poor health has its contributing factors like what an individual eats, drinks and if or not to exercise). Either way, the underlying factors should not be used as a basis for deciding not to live a health life. It is up to the individual to settle on the right decision concerning food, drinks and working out. Charity organizations, community groups and the government have their roles to play, which they (actors) have little control about. It goes the same for vaccines and immunization programmes, those who fail to use them end in ill health. The bottom line is, with or without health inequalities and economic challenges, whether employed or unemployed, it all up to individuals to decide what they want with their lives. Bibliography Callum, C. (2008). The Cost of Smoking to the NHS. Department of Health (2010). Transparency in Outcomes – A Framework for the NHS, www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Closedconsultations/DH_117583 Coles, L., & Porter, E. (2011). Policy and strategy for improving health and wellbeing. Exeter [England: Learning Matters. Food Standards Agency/Bates, B., Lennox, A. and Swan, G. (eds) (2010) National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Headline Results from Year 1 of the Rolling Programme (2008/2009), www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/ndnsreport0809.pdf Health Protection Agency (2010). Sexually Transmitted Infections, Annual Data Table 2009, www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/STIs/STIsAnnualData/ HM Government (2010). Call to end violence against women and girls http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/call-end-violence-women-girls/ Kessler, R.C., Berglund, P., Demler, O. et al. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of­onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey replication. Archives of General Psychiatry; 62(6): 593–602; Marmot, M. (2010). Fair Society, Healthy Lives: Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post 2010, www.marmotreview.org p.126. Marmot, M. (2010). Fair Society, Healthy Lives: Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post 2010, www.marmotreview.org National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2004). Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Assessment and Prevention of Falls in Older People, www.nice.org. uk/CG21 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2010). Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at the Population Level, www.nice.org.uk/PH25 Robinson, S. and Bugler, C. (2010). General Lifestyle Survey 2008. Smoking and Drinking among Adults, 2008, www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/ GLF08/GLFSmoking&DrinkingAmongAdults2008.pdf Robinson, S. and Bugler, C. (2010). General Lifestyle Survey 2008. Smoking and Drinking among Adults, 2008, www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/ GLF08/GLFSmoking&DrinkingAmongAdults2008.pdf Thaler, R.H., and Sunstain, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness; Institute for government and Cabinet Office (2010) MINDSPACE Influencing behaviour through public policy; Hardistry and Weber (2009). Discounting future green: money versus the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: general 138(3): 329-340. Read More