“Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle” - Prov 23:4-5
This verse, from the New International Version Bible, tells us that we shouldn’t thrive to be rich. Although being rich would be nice, there are more important things: our health. However, there is a correlation between ones health and income. This is evident when you look at The Social Determinants of Health 10 Tips to Better Health (Raphael, 2005). All 10 tips have one common theme, something that ties them all together: socio-economic status. This means that money does matter.
However, you may be thinking: doesn’t everyone, no matter their socio-economic status, have the same access to health care through Medicare? Indeed, that is true. Matter of fact, those with a lower socio-economic status visit physicians and hospitals more often than those with higher socioeconomic status, but that is only because they are getting sicker (Picard, 2011). Although Medicare offers the same health care access to all Canadians, the problem is that the other social determinants of health are not being addressed; they all lead or spin out of low socio-economic statuses. Is this reminding you of last week’s post? I hope so. I am once again going to talk about health promotion.
You’ve probably noticed a trend, that I have a strong opinion about health promotion. I think health promotion is very important in creating a health Canadian population. The Globe and Mail’s André Picard tells us readers that many of Europe’s countries spend less on healthcare, but more on social welfare than Canada, and still have greater health outcomes (2011). That tells me that these European countries are targeting more so the social determinants of health, and thus health promotion is greater. It would be interesting to see how they manage to allocate their financial resources into the social welfare programs, and who are they targeting with these programs.
I wonder if Canada were to apply the same approaches as Europe, would similar results occur? In the short term, the answer would be no, because changes in policies and distribution of funds to health promotion takes time to see it increase the overall health of Canadians. Also, with Canada having such a great diversity in race, ethnicity, and culture in comparison to each individual European country, a greater difficulty will arise during the planning stages. An ethical dilemma may arise if all Canadians are treated in the same way without taking into consideration the implications of either using an upstream or downstream approach.
In my opinion, something that needs to happen with an increase in health promotion is an increase of choice. By allowing Canadians to chose whether they want to participate in health promoting activities or not, without victim blaming, we may create stronger communities. Perhaps, those who previously would have decided not to participate may see the benefits of living healthier lifestyles through their neighbours, and thus will make the decision to make the same lifestyle changes. This may seem like wishful thinking, but it needs to happen for Canadians to live longer and healthier.
Maybe one day socio-economic status will no longer be a social determinant of health.
Sources:
FNN 400 week 4 lecture notes
No comments:
Post a Comment