Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues - Assignment Example

? Health sciences and medicine Question From the perspective of a health professional, health can be defined as a of complete mental, social and physical well-being, and not just the absence of infirmity or disease. However, there are three main identifiable health aspects namely, mental or emotional health, structural health and chemical health. To start with, mental or emotional health refers to healthy attitudes and thoughts. The emotional health, which at times is called the emotional intelligence, plays a very critical and usually unrecognized role in the overall fitness and health state of an individual. If an individual suffers from the mental health problems, they might seek psychotherapy or counseling for the purposes of ‘unlocking’ the past emotional distress and then use their previous emotional distress in growing and developing their emotional intelligence, thus enhancing their emotional health overall (Callahan, 1993). Structural health means the body health is well structurally; that is, the organs, bones and muscles are in good condition physically without any damage, performing all the functions that they are supposed to. Structural health, which is also known as physical health, can actually be determined by taking into consideration the ratio of height against the weight of an individual, his or her BMI (body mass index), his or her resting heart rate as well as the recover time after exercise (Douglas, et al, 2001). It should be noted that the lower the rate of resting heart, the healthier or better the heart is since this shows the heart muscle’s strength is in good condition and can pump blood well around the whole body. On the other hand, chemical health means that the chemicals in the body are appropriate; that is, there is no presence of harmful chemicals, and the tissues are made up of the correct nutrients balance. Chemicals, both man-made and those occurring naturally usually get into the body (Farmer, 1999). They may be inhaled, swallowed, or even in some instances, absorbed through the skin. The body is usually in a position of breaking down chemicals or even releasing them, therefore decreasing their accumulation and the always poisonous or dangerous consequences of the ‘toxic overload.’ The health of human beings is affected depending on the duration of the exposure, the trends of exposure as well as the characteristics of the chemicals (Freier, 1993). Furthermore, some chemicals kill or damage tissues and cells, while others might affect the genetic material (DNA) in a direct manner, altering it, and consequently causing cancer. It is always important for health professionals to know how lay people think about health, so that they can be able to understand their problems well. When a person goes to a health professional for assistance, they might not be able to understand what they are really suffering from; their explanations might not generally reflect the real problem that they are experiencing (Kemm, 2001). Therefore, from the understanding of the health professional on the knowledge of the lay people on health, he or she may be able to analyze or interpret the situation in his own professional perspective. The difference between the perspective of a health professional and lay people on health is that health professional has a deep understanding of the matter as they consider it from all view points, including all the identifiable aspects on it, while the lay people only know about structural or physical health. In fact, when most people are asked about their health, all they talk about is their physical fitness (Leppo, 2006). If one feels that he or she is structurally fit and does not appear to have any disease, the individual considers him or herself healthy, whereas for a health professional, all aspects including mind or emotions, chemicals and structure are considered. Question 2: For the largest part of the history of human beings, very little has been identified or known regarding the major causes of diseases in various nations and the kind of illnesses that kill most individuals. However, officials of public health should always know whether heart disease leads to the death of more individuals as compared to cancer in their nation, for instance, or even whether diabetes results to more cases of disabilities compared to mental disease so that they can be in a position of using their resources in a good manner. They should also have knowledge regarding the way patterns of diseases and death can change so that they can be in a position of planning for the future in an appropriate way. During the early 1990s, we find that the Global Burden of Disease study of 1990 was sponsored by the World Bank, and it was conducted by scientists at the World Health Organization and the Harvard University. The research offered the first all-inclusive, global approximations of diseases and death by sex, religion and age. The study also gave predictions of the global burden of mortality and disease up to the year 2020 by the use of models that had the assumption that the trends of health are related to some independent variables. Those variables included income per capita (people live longer as they become wealthier or richer), the average number of education years (as there is an increase in human capital, life expectancy increases), time (for enabling enhanced knowledge regarding different illnesses), and the use of tobacco (a major cause of diseases and death among people worldwide). These health predictions have been used extensively by governments and the World Health organization in assisting them to plan their policies of health (Eddleston, et al, 2004). Nevertheless, since their basis is on the approximations or estimations of the global disease burden of the year 1990, the predictions should now be updated, especially since they miscalculate the prevalence of HIV/AIDS and the related rise in death resulting from tuberculosis. This study was a major and vital step in the quantification of the regional and global effects of illnesses, injuries together with risk factors on the population health. In addition, is stimulated several national researches on the burden of disease (Sallis, et al, 1998). The outcomes of the study have been used by non-governmental organizations and governments in informing priorities for study, development, funding and policy. The improvement of well-being and health of the population of the world is a moral obligation and critical for the progress and stability of the world (Pollard, 2003). The immense energies, resources and technologies that are being poured into the world health have grunted us the ability of fighting diseases, deal with disability, and tackle entrenched health inequalities between populations or humanity. The Global Burden of Disease and Injuries together with Risk Factors will offer the relevant knowledge and tools for informing efforts for the making of really effective and efficient interventions feasible (Patel, et al, 2007). The models that were used by the researchers offer substantive information regarding the likely patterns of world illness and death in future, but since they include several assumptions, such as all modes, we find that they can only give indications of the future patterns, and not complete figures, all models, they can provide only indications of future trends, not absolute figures (Nutter, 2003). Nonetheless, the real figure might be slightly smaller or even bigger since accurate baseline death counts were not present for each country worldwide. Furthermore, another study’s limitation is that the models that were used have an assumption that the future rises in prosperity in the developing countries will have effects of the health of their populations just the way similar rises had effects on the health during the past in nations that have the data of death registration (they are mainly developed nations) (Nilunger, et al, 2007). However, even considering these and some other limitations, we find that the estimations that were reported in this research offer significant overview of the future world’s health. They can be used by the officials of public health in planning future policy as well as monitoring the impact of the new initiatives of public health on the global burden of death and disease. Question 3: Public Health refers to the science of the protection and improvement of the health of communities via initiatives such as promotion of good and healthy way of life, education, and research for disease together with prevention of harm. Public health professionals examine the impact on the environment, personal choice and health of genetics so as to develop programs that can address the heath of families and the community (McEwen, 2006). In general, public health is mainly concerned with the protection of health of the whole populations. However, these populations can actually be as diminutive as a local neighbourhood, or even as enormous as a whole nation. The example of a ‘healthy public policy’ that I have chosen is education on the importance of cleanliness or sanitation. This involves the government’s program to educate communities on what they should do to be clean. The general meaning of problem identification and issue recognition is actually seeing or determining the problem before even trying to look for its solution. It can also be described as the first strategy in problem solving. It is first important to realize and then accept that there is a problem. Once the problem has been identified, one can now examine and reflect what is happening, collect information that is related to it and start working on the possible solutions. In this context of educating the community on the importance of cleanliness, we find that the government discovered that there are several cases that were reported daily in relation to diseases caused by lack of hygiene. It was discovered that people did not value cleanliness whereby most of them drunk water unpurified, which led lead to the prevalence of cholera and typhoid. Policy formulation is the next step after problem identification and issue recognition. After the problem has been identified and then accepted to be a real one, the next important step is thinking about the solution by exploring all the possible remedies (Lucas, 2003). Immediately the government found out that people have not been taking matters of sanitation seriously, it decided that it was important to introduce education, whereby people are to be taught to be clean. The programs or education centers were established at schools, churches and markets. Policy implementation is the next step after policy formulation whereby after the possible solutions have been decided, they are put into practice. In this case, after the government had formulated the policy; that is how the education is to be conducted; resources were discharged to the communities, where health professionals were sent to schools to educate children, markets and churches to educate all those who were found there. Announcements were even made so that nearly everybody could attend the sessions. Policy evaluation is perhaps the last step that comes after policy implementation. This is the stage where the success of the implemented policy is evaluated (Lloyd, 1993). After the government had overseen the education programs in various places within the communities, it reviewed its success in various ways. The first major way of evaluation was by comparing the current rate of the prevalence of diseases that are associated with untidiness to the past; that is before the introduction of education. However, I believe this policy was a great success there was a substantial decrease in the number or prevalence of cases of diseases such as cholera and typhoid, diseases that are related to dirty things, as compared to the past before the introduction of the program. Therefore, it is true that public health is a very important part in human health or well-being as it deals directly with the problems facing people in the communities. It mainly serves as a prevention of the impending tragedies. Reference Callahan D. (1993). "The WHO definition of 'health'." The Hastings Center Studies, 1(3). Douglas, M., et al. (2001). "Developing Principles for Health Impact Assessment." Journal of Public Health Medicine. Vol. 23, No. 2, pages 148-154. Eddleston M., et al. (2004). Oxford Handbook of Tropical Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Farmer P. (1999). Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues. Berkeley: University of California Press. Freier, J. E. (1993). “Eastern equine encephalomyelitis.” Lancet 342: 1281-82. Kemm J. (2001). Health Impact Assessment: A tool for healthy public policy, Health Promotion International, 16(1): 79-85. Leppo K. (2006). Health in All Policies: Prospects and potentials, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health: Helsinki. Lloyd, S. A. (1993). Health and climate change: Stratospheric ozone depletion. Lancet 343: 1156-60. Lucas AO. (2003). Gilles HM. Short Textbook of Public Health Medicine for the Tropics. Oxford University. Press. McEwen BS. (2006). "Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators: central role of the brain". Dialogues Clin Neurosci (4): 367–81. Nilunger M., et al. (2007). Window of Opportunity for Intersectoral Health Policy in Sweden: Open, half-open or half-shut? Health Promotion International, 22(4): 307-315. Nutter S. (2003). The Health Triangle. Anchor Points, Inc. Patel V., et al. (2007). “Mental health of young people: a global public health challenge.” Lancet. 369 (9569): 1302-1313. Pollard, T. (2003). "Policy Prescriptions for Healthier Communities." American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 18, No. 1, pages 109-113. Sallis, J., et al. (1998). "Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity." American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 15, No. 4, pages 379-397. Read More