Health and Social Care - Coursework Example

Health and Social Care – Topic 2 Name: University: Course Title: Instructor: Date of Submission: Contents Contents i 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 View Points on Integrative Approach vs. Independent Approach 2 2.1 Pro Integration 3 2.1.1 Framing the need for Integration: Systems Approach 3 2.1.2 Rationale 3 2.2 Anti Integration/ Independent Approach 6 2.2.1 Framing the need for Independent Approach: Dispersed Power and Delegated Power 6 2.2.2 Rationale 7 2.3 Standpoint 7 3.0 Conclusion 8 References 9 1.0 Introduction Human industrial, economic and social activities have various side and ripple effects on the environment. Nevertheless human being cannot totally preserve resources since it is these resources that aid in the development of economy and survival of humanity. Nevertheless, humanity cannot be allowed to engage in wanton exploitation without thinking of the effects and future generation since the existence of all organism including human beings is tied on quality of environment. This kind of paradigm shift has given rise to concept of sustainable development under the auspices of development control where individuals, institutions and economy at large are encouraged to exploit current resources and engage in activities that take care of current needs without compromising on future generations and needs. Within the context of sustainable development, life cycle assessment (LCA); material flow; ecological foot print and carbon foot print have been placed at the core of all developments where impacts of various activities from cradle to grave are established. The issues established under the context of sustainable development include health impacts, environmental impacts and social impacts. To measure possible impacts and offer solutions to these impacts, assessments such as health impact assessments, environmental impact assessments, social impact assessment and audits are relied upon. Having realised the importance of these three assessment approaches, the contention of this discussion is to establish whether or not integrated impact assessments should be carried out instead of separate health impact assessments, environmental impact assessments and social impact assessments. To attain this thesis statement, the paper examines various viewpoints in relation to supporting and opposing arguments and then develops a stand point in relation to the same. 2.0 View Points on Integrative Approach vs. Independent Approach For clarity on the view points of the discourse, it is prudent to outline key terms in relation to how the paper conceptualises ‘integrative/ integrated approach’ and ‘independent approach/ non integrated approach’. Gulledge (2006, p.5) observes that there is no single definition about integration and that it can be applied to different context and scenarios and thus, ‘the term must be provided with context, or it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation’. Thus, the concept has multiple alternative definitions. However, for the case of this study, the paper adopts definition of where integration is seen as having a system with various components and sub components interacting together in a mutual manner so as to attain desired objectives. In this case, health impact assessments, environmental impact assessments and social impact are taken as components within the system of life cycle assessment/ cradle to grave assessment that is aimed at ensuring harmonious sustainable development that ensures health and liveability of humanity and earth at large (Carmody and Trusty, 2005, p.1 &2). On the other hand, the paper conceptualises a non-integrated independent approach as system whereby various elements operate independently without mutual relation so as to attaining a desired goal in a parallel/ separate manner (Glasson, Therivel, & Chadwick, 1999). For the context of this paper, in a non-integrated independent approach, the three components (health, environment and social assessments) operate singularly as opposed to unison in addressing issues of sustainable development under development control and management so as to ensure liveability and healthy environment. The argument fronted forthwith is that in regard to non-integrated perspective each is done independently in a sectoral/ vertical application where there is no inter linkages between the three domains. 2.1 Pro Integration 2.1.1 Framing the need for Integration: Systems Approach `Eliyahu Goldratt made an important observation that organisations exists or survives as a system as opposed to process and thus, their success or failure is anchored on how well the various components and processes interact with each other so as to create a holistic organisation (Goldratt, 1990). In this regard, systems approach looks at interdependence or the linkages between the processes since a system exists to achieve goals. The plausibility of this proposition is anchored on what is termed as organisation being strong as its weakest links and the appreciation of the fact that internal processes are impacted upon by external pressures. Hence, there is need for integrated approach that ensures holistic view so as to avoid failure since the failures rests on a system/ organisation as opposed to a process/ component (Dettmer, 1997, p.4). The same argument can be extended to integration of health impact assessments, environmental impact assessments and social impact assessment which should be seen as various components within a system that are initiated so as to guarantee healthy, liveable and sustainable development as opposed to three different processes with competing goals. 2.1.2 Rationale To substantiate the argument, let us examine the anchoring principles for the three domains and what they desire to attain so as to certify if they should be integrated or be operated independently. Collins & Koplan (2009, p.315) observes that environmental impact assessment has been utilised to indicate possible impacts of mega projects on the environment and how they can be mitigated. They further observe that ‘a natural extension of this work is the use of health impact assessment (HIA) to examine the effects that a policy, programme or project may have on health of a population’. According to them, HIA is ‘a combination of procedures, methods and tools that systematically judges the potential and sometimes unintended, effects of a policy plan, programme or project on the health of a population and distribution of those effects within the population’. As such, Lock (2000, p.1395) indicates that HIA offers strategies of managing such negative effects. On the other hand, Canter et al (1977, p.27) notes that environmental impact assessment entails ‘systematic identification and evaluation of the potential impacts/ effects of proposed projects, plans, programmes or legislative actions, relative to the physical-chemical, biological, cultural and socioeconomic components of the environment’. As such EIA aims at churning out projects and programmes that are compatible or friendly to the environment. In this perspective environment is taken from a holistic perspective. For social impact assessment (SIA), Becker (2001, p.311), notes that SIA entails ‘the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action which are related to individuals, organizations and social macro-systems’. Burdge & Vanclay (1995) indicates that SIA entails the systematic process of identifying possible social consequences that are likely to arise as result of certain policies and project developments. Based on the above discourse, one plausible reason for the need for integration assessment lies on the fact that both health impact assessments, environmental impact assessments and social impact assessment have the ultimate goal of addressing wellness of humanity and sustainability by ensuring liveability, harmonious development and healthy environment. Thus, these three entities converge in their aspirations and can be used to supplement each other for effective management of human health, environment and human welfare. Since certain functions under the three domains overlap, there is need to integrate them as opposed to conducting them independently so as to avoid confusion and create seamless and comprehensive assessment document. Indeed, if taken from the holistic perspective of where environment constitutes bio-physical, social and economic aspects then they should be integrated because poor environment is likely to effect on human health, a disturbed social system equally can have effect on human health the same as impact of direct impact of projects on people. The other advantage that would support call for integration lies on the synergy derived from an integrated process since it entails professionals from different backgrounds thereby giving rise to well argued document that show linkages as opposed to a document that is narrowed in scope. Moreover, it is a known knowledge that when various components/ elements operate in unison as opposed to individual input, the out normally exceeds single unit (Birley, 2003, p.314). Indeed such integration is useful in implementation process where the implementers’ tasks are ease since they are able to refer to one single study/ assessment as opposed to numerous documents that would make it difficult to conceptualise and follow as intended. Raisiene (2011, p.26-27) corroborates the observation by noting that by integrating various components in a system, there is higher opportunity in economical efficiency and increase in quality. In this regard, integration of the tree domains would be critical in organising the three processes smoothly, attain deadlines, adhere to budgets and curtail possibility of below par works (p.32-33). 2.2 Anti Integration/ Independent Approach 2.2.1 Framing the need for Independent Approach: Dispersed Power and Delegated Power From a theoretical perspective, the opposing views on integration can be best framed or justified based on the dispersed power and delegated responsibility versus centralised control. In support of independent institutions/ operations within a system as opposed to a centralised control where responsibilities are conducted with one authority is the dispersed power and delegated responsibility concept. The concept advances the thought that no institution/ individual can claim ultimate power since there is need for others input (Hollander & Offermann, 1990, p.179). The dispersed power through decentralisation aims at removing power and authority from one institution to numerous ones for ease of checks and balances (O’Donell, 1994, p.56). Indeed, such is the spirit exhibited when different authorities are mandated to carry out health impact assessments, environmental impact assessments and social impact assessment. The argument fronted by pro dispersed process as opposed to integrated and centralised system is the ability to establish cause-effect relationship linkages especially where there is weak internal control system (Ahmed et al, 2010, p.353). Mulgan (2000, p.555) notes that dispersed process help in developing a system of accountability where individuals/ institutions seeks explanations in a two way traffic. Such thinking is prudent in implementation of health impact assessments, environmental impact assessments and social impact assessment since the three can be used to offer checks to the failures of the others if taken from a supplementary perspective as opposed to complementary if implemented/ conducted independently as opposed to integrated manner where certain issues might be overlooked. In a nutshell, dispersed concept is anchored on processes as opposed to systems. 2.2.2 Rationale The justification fronted on non-integration/ stand alone approach is anchored on the fact the three domains are distinctive areas, but can be used to supplement each other and hence, should be pursued independently. For instance, the ultimate focus is on reducing any possible effect of any policy or project on human health (Collins & Koplan, 2009, p.315). In this regard the specialisation allows it to adequately address the issues related to human health. For social impact, the focus is on social wellness that might be impacted on by a project (Burdge & Vanclay, 1995). On the other hand, environmental impact assessment is larger than health impact and social impact since it addresses the two and other impacts that development programmes and projects are likely to have on environment including human beings (Canter et al (1977). 2.3 Standpoint From the above interrogation and viewpoints offered by proponents, it is significant to state that integrated impact assessments should be carried out instead of separate health impact assessments, environmental impact assessments and social impact assessments. The plausibility grounding the paradigm fronted here lies on inference that can be built and deduced from the fact that integration of the tree domains offers a unique approach that views the three components as distinct, but critical in addressing the wellness of humanity and overall sustainability of the environment. in pursuing and integrated approach, experts are able to ride on synergy created by a diverse team and a seamless document that is well informed as opposed to a narrowed document that has no holistic approach to the issues affect development control yet issues afflicting humanity are interconnected and thus, integration is the solution as opposed to stand alone approaches. 3.0 Conclusion The aim of this discourse was to examine and outline if integrated impact assessments should be carried out instead of separate health impact assessments, environmental impact assessments and social impact assessments. In discussing the above contention, the paper examined the two differing viewpoints in relation to those in support and the opposing ones. The paper established that the rationale for supporting integrated system is premised on the rationale that the three are components within the larger system of ensuring wellness of humanity and that of larger environment and hence have critical inter-linkages and thus, and integrated approach is the most suitable since it will result in synergy and ease of implementation. On the other hand, opponents see the three domains as distinct and should be pursued independently so as to ensure delivery of specialised formulations. Nevertheless, the standpoint advanced in the paper is premised on the justification that an integrated approach is significant is producing a holistic document that adopts a systems approach and appreciates the fact an independent/ stand alone can overlook certain issues leading to failure as opposed to integrated one that its cornerstone is on system as opposed to process. References Ahmed A.S, McAnally M.L, Rasmussen S and Weaver C.D, (2010). How costly is the Sarbanes Oxley Act? Evidence on the effects of the Act on corporate profitability. Journal of Corporate Finance, 16 (2010) 352–369. Becker, H. A. (2001). Social impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), 311-321. Birley, M. (2003). Health impact assessment, integration and critical appraisal. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(4), 313-321. Burdge, R. J., & Vanclay, F. (1995). Social impact assessment. Environmental and social impact assessment, 31-66. Canter, L. W., Canter, L. W., Canter, L. W., & Canter, L. W. (1977). Environmental impact assessment (p. 27). New York: McGraw-Hill. Carmody, J. and Trusty, W. (2005). Life cycle assessment tools. Informe Design, 5(3), 1-5. Collins, J., & Koplan, J. P. (2009). Health Impact Assessment. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association, 302(3), 315-317. Dettmer, H. W. (1997). Goldratt's theory of constraints: a systems approach to continuous improvement. ASQ Quality Press. Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. J. (1999). Introduction to environmental impact assessment: principles and procedures, process, practice, and prospects. Psychology Press. Goldratt, E. M. (1990). Theory of constraints. North River. Gulledge, T. (2006). What is integration?. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(1), 5-20. Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 45(2), 179. Lock, K. (2000). Health impact assessment. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 320(7246), 1395. Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: An Ever‐Expanding Concept?. Public administration, 78(3), 555-573. O'Donell, G. A. (1994). Delegative democracy. Journal of democracy, 5(1), 55-69. Raisiene, A. G. (2011). Advantages and limitations of integrated management systems: the theoretical viewpoint. Social Technologies, 1(1), 25-36. Read More

On the other hand, the paper conceptualises a non-integrated independent approach as system whereby various elements operate independently without mutual relation so as to attaining a desired goal in a parallel/ separate manner (Glasson, Therivel, & Chadwick, 1999). For the context of this paper, in a non-integrated independent approach, the three components (health, environment and social assessments) operate singularly as opposed to unison in addressing issues of sustainable development under development control and management so as to ensure liveability and healthy environment.

The argument fronted forthwith is that in regard to non-integrated perspective each is done independently in a sectoral/ vertical application where there is no inter linkages between the three domains. 2.1 Pro Integration 2.1.1 Framing the need for Integration: Systems Approach `Eliyahu Goldratt made an important observation that organisations exists or survives as a system as opposed to process and thus, their success or failure is anchored on how well the various components and processes interact with each other so as to create a holistic organisation (Goldratt, 1990).

In this regard, systems approach looks at interdependence or the linkages between the processes since a system exists to achieve goals. The plausibility of this proposition is anchored on what is termed as organisation being strong as its weakest links and the appreciation of the fact that internal processes are impacted upon by external pressures. Hence, there is need for integrated approach that ensures holistic view so as to avoid failure since the failures rests on a system/ organisation as opposed to a process/ component (Dettmer, 1997, p.4). The same argument can be extended to integration of health impact assessments, environmental impact assessments and social impact assessment which should be seen as various components within a system that are initiated so as to guarantee healthy, liveable and sustainable development as opposed to three different processes with competing goals. 2.1.

2 Rationale To substantiate the argument, let us examine the anchoring principles for the three domains and what they desire to attain so as to certify if they should be integrated or be operated independently. Collins & Koplan (2009, p.315) observes that environmental impact assessment has been utilised to indicate possible impacts of mega projects on the environment and how they can be mitigated. They further observe that ‘a natural extension of this work is the use of health impact assessment (HIA) to examine the effects that a policy, programme or project may have on health of a population’.

According to them, HIA is ‘a combination of procedures, methods and tools that systematically judges the potential and sometimes unintended, effects of a policy plan, programme or project on the health of a population and distribution of those effects within the population’. As such, Lock (2000, p.1395) indicates that HIA offers strategies of managing such negative effects. On the other hand, Canter et al (1977, p.27) notes that environmental impact assessment entails ‘systematic identification and evaluation of the potential impacts/ effects of proposed projects, plans, programmes or legislative actions, relative to the physical-chemical, biological, cultural and socioeconomic components of the environment’.

As such EIA aims at churning out projects and programmes that are compatible or friendly to the environment. In this perspective environment is taken from a holistic perspective. For social impact assessment (SIA), Becker (2001, p.311), notes that SIA entails ‘the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action which are related to individuals, organizations and social macro-systems’. Burdge & Vanclay (1995) indicates that SIA entails the systematic process of identifying possible social consequences that are likely to arise as result of certain policies and project developments.

Read More