Social Constructions of Health in Australia - Coursework Example

Health in Australia The International Context Of the major public issues that modern governments have tocontend with, health care is one of the more important ones. Universal public health care has been an important issue for politicians as well as sociologists and generates important that need to be answered by a society. Every country handled health care in its own way and diligently tries to accommodate every class and ethnic group that resides in its boundaries (Germov, 2005). However, some have been clearly more successful than others as the case of France exemplifies since “France offers its citizens the best healthcare in the world and The World Health Organization ranks France at the top of its list (Ford, 2004, Pg. 1)”. When Marks (2004) compares Australia’s health care system with reference to other countries in the world, she clarifies that it is difficult to understand why some countries have more successful health programmes than others. The basic values and the way health policies are formulated can be different from country to country. This is because a health care system that suits the Canadians may not be suitable for the Americans and a system which suits the British may not be useful for the Australians. Additionally, the demands of the citizens from a country’s doctors (or general practitioners may be different from others. While making international comparison, ideology, economic situations as well as cultural factors often play a bigger role than the wishes of the government alone in deciding what the health care systems should do. Therefore, to assess the plethora of health care systems, the rankings and data collected by international health organisations such as the WHO has to be relied upon extensively. The ranking and comparison can also be categorised based on the approach taken by the country to health care. This approach can either be a private one where private institutions or organisations support health care or it can be public one where the government provides health care services (Marks, 2004). Comparing Systems Countries that offer public health care such as Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, use taxation as a means of funding their health care programmes. The governments of these countries intervene in fiscal issues that may come up in the medical profession and services. On the other hand, private institutions or free market systems do not ask for government aid and private companies may fight amongst themselves to negotiate financial issues when they come up. The United States is one of the prime examples of a free market health care system and is often given as a case of how the free market system fails when it comes to proving essentials such as health care (Marks, 2004). In comparison, the health care system of Australia is rated quite positively since it is included amongst the top ten healthcare providers in the world for several health related situations. In recent times, medical advances such as vaccinations and medically assisted smoking cessation have helped improve the health of Australians and that is reflected in the improvements that have come to the healthcare system (WHO, 2007). The health of children in Australia today is much better than what it had been a generation ago and in comparison to the rest of the developed world, the smoking rates for Australia are far lower than many other nations (AIHW, 2006). Between 1994 and 2004, Australians had less deaths from heart disease, lung cancer and heart stroke as compared to other nations which shows that the health of Australians has been improving overall. However, there are also some issues that need to be fixed with the health care system in Australia since diseases such as diabetes more than doubled over the same period. A segment of the population may face problems in getting health services since the indigenous Australian population suffers from a higher birth mortality rate than the rest of the country (AIHW, 2006). While the present system is certainly something many Australians can be proud of, there is still room for improvement and some ominous signs which may become problems in the future if they remain unchecked by the government or the regulatory bodies which influence the health care systems. The Future The management of public health is a relatively new field in terms of social development and focused government attention. However, the Australian government has been working on improving the health of its citizens for many years and there have been several priorities that have been clarified by the government. These include musculoskeletal diseases, asthma, cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, injury prevention and mental health (Browne et. al., 2000). Other than these primary areas there are other issues which range from improving children’s dietary intake to making sure that adults are getting the required amount of exercise (Linn, 2004). These future indicators of Australia’s health have a level of overlap within the six priority areas for improving health care services. Therefore, it is important to understand these areas on their own before the overlaps between them can be discussed. The NHPA (National Health Priority Areas) themselves were created as a response to the global agenda put forward by the WHO (World Health Organisation) which was to focus on those areas which make up the majority of medical cases around the world (Browne et. al., 2000). The priority areas for Australian health are overseen by the National Health Priority Action Council (NHPAC) that is made up of commonwealth, state, regional as well as local governments (AIHW, 2005). While it may seem like the priority areas are too broad, the individual cases of disease and tackling of underlying causes will only help improve the ranking of Australia as a healthy nation. Additionally, the focus comes from the various root causes of disease that can be identified within the broad priority areas. For example, the very latest idea of getting the right kind of diet for Australian children can help in two priority areas which include cardiovascular disease as well as diabetes. It is with this context under Burke (2007) wrote that the top ranking national medical organizations are looking to get a total ban on food related advertising for children before 9 pm. These organizations include some of the more respected names such as the Australian Medical Association, Cancer Council Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia and others which concern themselves with health care. In terms of the present laws, the restrictions on food advertising to children are established only from three to four thirty in the afternoon. However, researchers have reported that the greatest number of children is watching TV between 6:00 PM and 9:00 PM (Burke, 2007). As a future measure for improving the health of Australia, a total ban on food advertising to children could be quite helpful. There are several reasons why food related advertising directed towards children is an important issue and the first of them is the health of the nation where childhood obesity is becoming a real health issue (Linn, 2004). Hill (2002) reports that psychological issues like anorexia might also be a part of the problem for the coming generation when he says that, “Up to one-quarter of young adolescent girls report dieting to lose weight, their motivation driven by weight and shape dissatisfaction (Hill, 2002, Pg. 259)”. In this situation, the issue goes into the problem of mental health as well as physical health. Of course there is a reaction to such demands and the Australian Association of National Advertisers has taken an offensive approach to measures which seek to ban food advertising for children. They have different answers for why more Australians and especially children are becoming overweight. They say that things such as genetics, industrial chemicals that alter metabolism rates, the reduction of tobacco intake, air-conditioning which improve appetites are to be blamed for the overall trend in increased obesity rather than food related advertisement (Burke, 2007). Clearly, this situation and others like it show us that the health of the nation could certainly be at risk if it is not managed properly for the future of the country. Of course, as suggested by Riley (2007) we would not want the government to make Australia a nanny state where everything is regulated, but the business of improving the health of the population is very important for all concerned. Each of the health priority areas on their own can affect where Australia stands in the future therefore a deeper analysis concerning these areas is quite important. For example, in 2001, more than six million people in Australia were found to be inflicted with musculoskeletal diseases. In terms of problems managed by general practitioners, arthritis was the second most common form of ailment. Musculoskeletal problems are also the leading cause of disability amongst Australians with nearly a third of all disabled Australians citing arthritis as the reason for their disability. The direct cost of this disease alone was estimated to be nearly five billion dollars during 2001 (AIHW, 2005). However, this figure was exceeded by the cost placed on the health system through cardiovascular diseases which cost more nearly five and a half billion in 2001 even though they affected less people. At the same time, cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of premature death in the country which makes them a primary area for future health concerns. In 2003, nearly 30% of all deaths in Australia were due to cardiovascular issues and they caused more than a million cases of individual disability. Similarly, cancer also has a significant impact on Australia since more than thirty percent of Australian males and twenty five percent of Australian women will be directly affected by this disease at one point or another in their lives (AIHW, 2005). Cancer remains an important issue for Australia because in 2001, more than forty thousand malignant cancer related deaths were reported with the majority of the patients suffering from lung cancer and melanoma. The direct cost of cancer to the Australian health system was estimated to be nearly three billion dollars. Other, less mortal diseases, such as asthma or diabetes may not cause as many deaths as cardiovascular ailments or various forms of malignant cancers, but the number of individuals affected by them put them on the list for priority areas for future health. This is because 15% of Australian children and 11% of Australian adults suffer from asthma as a current problem. Some may develop some form of asthma over time and a large number of children are currently affected with disease. If proper management of this disease is not undertaken, it can become a cause of chronic disability. Similarly, Australians who suffer from diabetes make up more than 7% of the population which is 25 and above and their problems also become important health considerations when it comes to Australia’s outlook for the future (AIHW, 2005). Last but not least, mental health issues and general injuries are the last two areas of priority for the government since both of them are connected with self inflicted injuries. While it is treated as a mental issue, suicide remains the leading cause of self inflicted injury death, and it makes up nearly a third of all deaths caused by injuries. In terms of the number of individuals affected by mental health issues, depression related illnesses produce the largest numbers since in any given year; nearly a million Australians can go through a prolonged bout with depression. It is the third most common cause of health issues amongst Australian women and one of the most frequently seen health problem by general practitioners (AIHW, 2005). As the government continues to handle the situations presented to it through the changing needs of the social setup, it is likely that it will continue to improve Australia’s position in matters of health care internationally. The issues identified by the government show us these issues should be taken as a part of the public health concerns which are present in Australian society. I feel that with time, as these issues become more managed and less important, the government should create newer priorities to ensure that Australia remains in good health and that the position of Australia as a good health service provider remains intact. Word Count: 2,208 Works Cited AIHW. 2005, ‘National Health Priority Areas’, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, [Online] Available at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/nhpa/ AIHW. 2006, ‘Australia improves its health ranking, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, [Online] Available at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/mediacentre/2006/mr20060621.cfm Browne, S. et. al. 2000, PDHPE: Application & Inquiry, Oxford University Press. Burke, K. 2007, ‘Ban junk food ads: health chiefs join forces’, Sydney Morning Herald, [Online] Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/ban-junk-food-ads-health-chiefs-join-forces/2007/05/15/1178995163419.html Ford, P. 2004, ‘French Health System Gets Surgery’, Christian Science Monitor, [Online] Available at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0520/p06s01-woeu.html Germov, J. 2005, Second opinion, Oxford University Press. Hill, A. 2002, ‘Developmental issues in attitudes to food and diet’, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61(2), 259-266. Linn, S. 2004, ‘Food Marketing to Children in the Context of a Marketing Maelstrom’, Journal of Public Health Policy, 25(4), 367-378. Marks, A. 2004, ‘Ranking nations healthcare: US isnt No. 1’, [Online] Available at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0505/p02s01-uspo.html WHO. 2007, ‘Australia’, [Online] Available at: http://www.who.int/countries/aus/en/ Riley, D. 2007, ‘The Nanny State Strikes Again’, [Online] Available at: http://www.duncanriley.com/2007/02/23/the-nanny-state-strikes-again/ Read More