Impact of the World Health Organization - Essay Example

Health culture World Health Organization defines health as the condition of complete mental, social and physical well being of an individual human being (Blaxter, 2010 pg. 19). This means that health is not only limited to absence of sickness or disease but also encompasses mental and sociological conditions. From the definition, it is clear that a person maybe without any illness or physical deformity but succumbs to negative social factors that affect the general health of the person. Above definition of health is slightly different from the biomedical version favored by most medical practitioners. Defined medically, health refers to the absence of disease and disease causing organisms or conditions in human body. From biomedical model, disease is temporary organic condition that is curable through medical intervention. In addition, biomedical model views disease as a condition of a sick person who must undergo treatment. Furthermore, biomedical model argues that treatment of a disease is only possible after symptoms appear, and the treatment must be within a medical environment. The sociological understanding of health and illness concerns with the study of the social factors that lead to unhealthy conditions. This focus on the social origins of illness and effects guides to the concept of health inequalities. Health inequality refers to the difference in health conditions due to variation in access to health care facilities experienced by a given group of population within a country or between countries. Society is the main determinant of health inequalities experienced by particular group of people. Society contains various life factors such as ethnicity, economic prosperity, cultural beliefs, educational background, political affiliations and law, which have particular effects on health inequalities experienced within various societies and communities (Smith, 2003 pg. 9). Social gradient is the collective name for the highlighted factors of life within various societies. Social gradient acts as the test instrument for understanding the level of exposure of a certain group of people to experience health inequality. This is to mean that groups or individuals exhibiting most favorable social conditions or circumstances like good income or good education background have better access to better health care services and facilities. The better the access to better health care factors the longer the life of a given group or individual (Graham, 2009 pg. 52). The general implication of health inequality is that the poorer a group of people or individual is, the higher the risk of succumbing to poor health conditions. The richer and economically stable a person is the better the health condition of the person (Babones, 2009 pg.16). This analogy about health inequality has led to serious loses of otherwise productive life and some governments are strategizing systems to stop the concept within their societies. Social determinants are the areas behind the persistence of health inequalities experienced in many countries cross the world (Daniels, 2008 pg 5). The social determinants refer to conditions that people live and grow in as well as the systems established to deal with various forms of illnesses. Health inequality exists in nearly all countries of the world bearing the wide gap of socio-economic inequalities experienced in the countries. Marxist theory best explains the economic foundation of health inequalities witnessed in various societies. Marxist theory concerns with how dominant economic structures dictate inequality and power within a given society. Marxist theory views medicine as very important social institution that may also fall in the control of capitalist interest if it is within capitalist society. This is to mean medicine under capitalist society is a factor of trade used to reap profits, and thus subject to price manipulation. This might be disadvantageous to lower class that may not have sufficient money to afford the required medicine (Bayer & Beauchamp, 2007 pg. 13). In UK, health inequality is perverse to an extent that citizens living in Court field ward have life expectancy of 85 when others living in St. Charles ward have life of only 73. Poverty is one of the escalating factors of health inequalities experienced in many places across the world. Poor people have little money to spend on health care checks to know about any prospective health danger and alleviate before worsening. Poverty also inhibits its victims from making cleaner environments where they live so that they eliminate disease causing bacteria and viruses. Davis (2011) confirms the input of poverty on health inequality by referring to the data published by UK’s Department of Health. According to the data, people living within Chelsea and Kensington wards were more than thrice likely to succumb to early deaths due cancer and twice as likely to be hospitalized due to alcohol-related diseases than residents of Jordanhill and Kevinside wards. According to Davis (2011), life expectancy of the perceived affluent Jordanhill and Kevinside is approximately 80 years while that of Parkhead ward may reduce to 59 years. Davis (2011) reports that the reasons for low life expectancy in Parkhead compared to Jordanhill is the extreme poverty that characterizes with few parks, worse housing and poor transport links. Davis (2011) adds that the future generation of Parkhead residents will experienced further reduction in life expectancy due to foreseen increased exposure to smoking, poor diet and alcoholism. Another reason for the speculation relates to the poor working conditions and low-income or no employment that characterizes with such regions of stunned economic growth. Social inequality that leads to increased women and child poverty is another cause of persistence health inequality in UK (Rostila, 2013 pg. 7). Compared to other EU countries like Germany and Cyprus that boats of life expectancy for women at 84, and Italy, France and Spain where the same expectancy is 85, UK women only expects to live up to 83 years. Boseley (2013) analyzes further that child mortality for under fives in UK stands at 5.4/1000. This is a disappointing figure compared to 3.4/1000 in Czech Republic, 3/1000 in Slovenia, 4/1000 in Greece, 3/1000 in Luxemburg, 2.2/1000 in Iceland and 2.9/1000 in Finland. Boseley (2013) correlates the situation in UK to high cost of childcare that is unaffordable to many people thus limiting access to early care that has huge potential to enhance body immunity to diseases that come as people grow. According to Boseley (2013), there is clear relationship between child mortality of the under fives and poverty. For example, one in four UK children lives in poverty. This is higher than Iceland where only one in ten children lives in poverty. Boseley (2013) reports fears among demographic professionals over the rise in the population of teenage who are out of education, employment or training. This has the danger of worsening social-economic equality and eventually health inequality in UK. Permberton (2010) adds that poverty is one of serious reasons for the persistence of health inequalities as witnessed in various societies. Permberton (2010) reports that the only way to stop ill health and encounter health inequality experienced in Britain is by tackling poverty. According to Permberton (2010), health inequality existing in Britain makes children born in the poor Calton die 28 years earlier than those born in the rich Lenzie village. With reference to a report of Department of Health, Permberton (2010) reiterates that people living in richer families were likely to die seven years later than the poorer families. The same report by Department of Health also argued that it is possible to eliminate about 202000 early deaths annually if everyone could enjoy same access to health care as the university graduates (Permberton, 2010). Parsonsian functionalism theory of health inequality explains that people have to decide and declare that they are sick and need treatment. Being sick means desire to withdraw from the normal social process and thus the need to be subject under control with medicines. Professional doctors have the responsibilities to acts according to their code of ethics to prescribe treatment that can enable the sick people resume to their normal duties that are beneficial to the society. The theory also argues that it is unfortunate that despite the existence of the code of ethics for medical professionals, higher social class enjoys more consultation time and better treatment than those the lower class. This fact encourages the persistence of the health inequality within societies (Hofrichter & Bayer, 2010 pg. 13). In bid to explain the reason for the persistence of health inequalities within societies, Link and Phelan developed the theory of fundamental causes. The theory of fundamental causes tends to focus on the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) of groups and mortality rates (Phelan, Link & Tehranifar, 2013 pg 29). Importantly, the theory of fundamental causes holds that socioeconomic status (SES) is the main factor behind the persistence of health inequality. Individuals rely on their SES to mobilize resources possessed to eliminate risks and adopt defensive strategies against diseases infection. Examples of resources that determine SES of an individual or a group include knowledge, power, money, social networks and prestige. The theory clarifies with example that if a presenting health problem relates to cholera, then people with greater resources and with higher SES are best able to avoid areas characterized with the disease. The group with greater resources is also able to exercise its power to prevent entry of the infected persons or groups within its safe regions. In addition, in case the presenting health problem relates to heart disease, then people with greater resources stand better chances to afford lifestyles that ensure healthy heart and access best treatment method for the disease. According to the theory, the highlighted resources are flexible and usable in different ways and thus referred to as flexible resources. Flexibility of the resources considered by the theory of fundamental causes is clear when considering the case of cancer screening, resources and mortality. According to Phelan, Link and Tehranifar (2013, pg 29), screening of cancer that helps in the detection of its signs is a new technology. When the technology had not come into effect, mortality rates due to cancer were high because there were no clear systems to enhance mitigation efforts. During the time prior to the advent of screening technology, resources like knowledge, money and power had no use in the controlling cancer. However, the income and knowledge have become essential resources for people to go for screening of cancer thus taking earlier precautions before the spread of the disease to dangerous level. According to the theory of fundamental causes, flexible resources are understandable as the “cause of causes” that shape human health behaviors. This is because the flexible resources dictate whether people know about particular disease, can access relevant treatment, can afford treatment and have social supports towards their struggle to live healthy. The theory of fundamental causes further argues that people with many resources have unlimited capability to live in a neighborhood with high socioeconomic status (SES). In such neighborhoods, inhabitants struggle to ensure total eradication of noise, crime, violence, traffic, pollution and vermin, while ensuring availability of best parks, playgrounds, healthcare centers and food stores. A person or group has no power to create health circumstances by themselves, but only requires moving to higher SES where healthy circumstances are available as package for integrating. In the same manner, a person using educational credentials to rise to higher status occupations inherits a token that is likely to include health-enhancing benefits with limited exposure to health threatening circumstances (Phelan, Link & Tehranifar, 2013 pg. 32). The theory of fundamental causes exemplifies that individuals do not achieve healthy situations through systems that do not depend on their individual initiatives or efforts. Instead, the healthy situations improve as benefit for contextual integration that may be families, formal like employment or trade unions and informal like social networks. The theory of fundamental causes also links socioeconomic determinants or flexible resources that include knowledge, power, money, prestige and social connection to health outcomes. Phelan, Link, Tehranifar (2013, pg. 30) confirm that people with lower socioeconomic status (SES) are likely to die from chronic diseases, injuries and communicable diseases. According to Phelan, Link and Tehranifar (2013, pg 31), clinic serving people from high SES is likely to offer good treatment continuity at lower cost considering that the patients have sufficient knowledge about the disease and ways of adopting healthy lifestyles. Ethnicity is another acclaimed factor behind the persistence of health inequality within societies. Many research conducted on health structures have shown that about 50% of people from minority ethnic groups across the world complain about poor health conditions and limited access to better health care (Bruhn, 2009 pg 41). This is more than 30% complaint gathered from the members of the majority ethnic groups across the world. According to Gordon (2009 pg. 19), the disparity relates to the identification and relations factors considering that the members of the majority group are likely to occupy strategic health care positions where they favor their people than those of the minority ethnic group (Ingleby, 2012 pg. 17). The effect of ethnicity on health inequality extends to cover discrimination of minority groups from employment opportunities that limit their ability to apply for insurance and general access to preventive and curative health services. The behaviors by medical professionals constitute additional factors that lead to the persistence of health inequalities within societies (Bradby, 2012 pg. 53). The behaviors by medical professionals thus have great influence on health outcomes. The behaviors of the medical professionals are such that people holding higher social status as in the lines of power, education, money and social networks depict positive health outcomes. One of the reasons supporting the fact relates to the knowledge that educated members of the upper social class exhibit. The knowledge that this group of people have about particular health conditions makes medical practitioners exercise higher levels of professionalism for fear of assertive and demanding nature of the patients (Barry & Yuill, 2003 pg 111). Medical professionals also tend to offer better services to the people in the upper social class for fear of power and money that group enjoy. This fear makes medical professionals perform to the best, which again influences positive health outcomes. According to Shaw (2000 pg. 15), the positive health outcome of the people in the upper social ranks also relates to their in-depth knowledge about preventive care and ability to afford adaptable living standards than those in the lower social class. Medical professionals treat members of the higher social class better because this group has better language proficiency that influence health decision than the those in lower class. BIBLIOGRAPHY BABONES, S. J. (2009). Social inequality and public health. Bristol, UK, Policy Press. BANWELL, C., ULIJASZEK, S. J., & DIXON, J. (2013). When culture impacts health global lessons for effective health research. San Diego, Elsevier Science. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=1117988. BARRY, A.-M., & YUILL, C. (2003). Understanding health: a sociological introduction. London [u.a.], Sage Publ. BAYER, R., & BEAUCHAMP, D. E. (2007). Public health ethics: theory, policy, and practice. New York, Oxford University Press. BIRD, C. E. (2010). Handbook of medical sociology. Nashville, Vanderbilt University Press. BLAXTER, M. (2010). Health. Cambridge, UK, Polity. BOSELEY, S. (2013). Britain told social inequality has created public health timebomb. Guardian, 10th Dec. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/30/britain-inequality-public-health-timebomb-marmot. BRADBY, H. (2012). Medicine, health and society a critical sociology. Los Angeles, SAGE. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10568244. BRUHN, J. (2009). The Group Effect Social Cohesion and Health Outcomes. Boston, MA, Springer-Verlag US. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0364-8. CROSSMAN, A. (2013). Sociology of Health and Illness. Retrieved from: http://sociology.about.com/od/Disciplines/a/Sociology-Of-Health-Illness.htm>. CURTIS, S. (2004). Health and inequality geographical perspectives. London, SAGE Publications. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=251281. DANIELS, N. (2008). Just health: meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DAVIS, R. (2011). A close call on health inequalities. Guardian, 10th Dec. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/16/health-inequalities-wealth-life-expectancy. GORDON, D. (1999). Inequalities in health: the evidence. Bristol, Policy. GRAHAM, H. (2009). Understanding health inequalities. Maidenhead, England, McGraw Hill/Open University Press. HOFRICHTER, R., & BHATIA, R. (2010). Tackling health inequities through public health practice: theory to action. Oxford, Oxford University Press. HYYPPÄ, M. T. (2010). Healthy ties : social capital, population health and survival. Dordrecht, Springer. INGLEBY, D. (2012). Health inequalities and risk factors among migrants and ethnic minorities. Antwerpen, Garant. LAVERACK, G. (2007). Health promotion practice: building empowered communities. Maidenhead, Open University Press. LENARD, P. T., & STRAEHLE, C. (2012). Health inequalities and global justice. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. PEREIRA GRAY, D. (2006). Policy futures for UK health. Oxford, Radcliffe. PERMBERTON, M. (2010). Why does health inequality persist? Telegraph, 10th Dec. Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/maxpemberton/7237777/Why-does-health-inequality-persist.html. PHELAN, J., LINK, B. and TEHRANIFAR, P. (2010). Social Conditions as Fundamental Causes of Health Inequalities: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications. Retrieved from: http://hsb.sagepub.com/content/51/1_suppl/S28.full.pdf. ROSTILA, M. (2013). Social capital and health inequality in European welfare states. Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan. http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137305664. SHAW, M. (2000). The widening gap: health inequalities and policy in Britain. Bristol, Policy Press. SMITH, G. D. (2003). Health inequalities: life course approaches. Bristol, Policy Pr. UNDERDOWN, A. (2007). Young childrens health and well-being. Maidenhead (GB), Open University Press. WHITE, A. & CASH, K. (2003). The state of men’s health across Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.menshealthforum.org.uk/files/images/mhjeurope.pdf. WILLIMANS, G. Understanding health inequalities: theories, concepts and evidence. Retrieved from: http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/documents/888/Gareth%20Williams.pdf. WILSON, F., & MABHALA, M. (2009). Key concepts in public health. Los Angeles, SAGE. http://www.credoreference.com/book/sageukph. WINKELMAN, M. (2009). Culture and health applying medical anthropology. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass. http://www.ECU.eblib.com.au/EBLWeb/patron/?target=patron&extendedid=P_380497_0. Read More