We've had the opportunity to discuss an array of public health issues in this class; from urbanization to Covid-19 protocols, organ allocation to feminism, we've touched on so many issues that affect human health. While we've grappled with the vastness of this field, so many of our public servants have a very narrow view of it. The scope of public health is all-encompassing, calling on all levels of society to pay in, whether that be monetarily or socially. It baffles me that anyone can believe that public health has its limits. The American public health system certainly does, but in an ideal world public health policies would incorporate so much more than healthcare policies.
The effects of the environment on one's health have been studied for centuries (think nature vs. nurture). In our modern world, we know so much more about the nurture end of this debate; we now know that something like inadequate housing in childhood can result in chronic stress responses that can shorten someone's lifespan and drastically decrease their quality of life. In many cases, low socioeconomic class alone can result in increased adult morbidity and mortality. Studies have supported these statements for decades - so why are public health policies still colloquially limited to healthcare?
The listed responsibilities for the government's public health organization is vague to say the least. It includes responsibilities that many believe the government shouldn't have any say in, yet mentions nothing about aiding people without proper resources or proper access to things like healthy foods, clean water, financial advice, adequate housing, the list goes on. Public health implementations have even had the reverse effect on communities unknowingly, highlighting the need to close the gap between policymakers and community members.
I want to know what you think - do we need to reevaluate the responsibilities we allot to our public health agencies? Does the public put too much pressure on our public health system or are we asking for too much of the wrong thing from it? I think public health needs to live up to its name; it should be specific and broad, not vague, and certainly not narrow.
As climate change progresses and other problems tumble on top of that I suspect that most of what we will need government for will become "public health" if not "survival of the species". We have built up huge military institutions around the planet which can only lead to our destruction. If those resources were redirected to global public health, we would all have a better chance of survival.
ReplyDeleteI think putting all the power into government hands would only exasterbate the situation. Central control is extremely inefficient and ultimately hurts the people its trying to help. Although just letting the market control it allows for the wealthy to take advantage of the poor. Its a hard situation to be part of and no clear answer.
ReplyDeleteNeither way would provide complete control of the situation. As mentioned in our reading from this week in lifelines, there needs to be a drastic change. Many thought it would come from Medicaid, it did not.
DeleteOne thing is for certain: our public health system is failing rural America. In that sense I would say it is too "narrow" of a system. I would say maybe not reevaluate the responsibilities of the public health system, but instead define the responsibilities in a way to accomodate everyone!
ReplyDelete