Category: Sociology of health and illness

The Violence of Austerity 2

Rudolph Virchow (1848) argued that ‘medicine is a social science and politics is nothing more than medicine on a grand scale’.

Structural and Institutional violence arises from the implementation of Austerity. Cameron, Osborne, May and Hammond have blood on their hands. Johnson, Gove, Rudd, Grayling…….

In 2013 David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu published ‘The Body Economic – Why Austerity Kills’ and stated that since 2007 the total number of suicides had risen by 10000 across the US and Europe while millions lost access to basic healthcare. Chopra (2014) reviews the book and points out that ‘Mental health outcomes feature prominently in these analyses. For instance, the authors report 1000 excess suicides in the UK due to the effects of this recession and a second wave of ‘austerity suicides’ in 2012‘.

 

Following the Great Financial Crash (GFC) of 2008, the neoliberal project in the UK was given an opportunity to push further on its (class) agenda which had been based on reducing State support for the public sector and social security claimants, encouraging privatisations, establishing financial deregulation, reduction of corporate tax and removing ‘red tape’ (worker’s rights and enviromental protection). The theory was based on ‘trickle down economics’ and Hayekian ‘free markets’. Jobs, growth and investment would follow. Austerity in this context was seen as a necessary corrective to the failing economy. It was not mentioned of course that one reason for the GFC was neoliberalism itself. In effect we have a neoliberal policy being implemented to correct the failures of neoliberalism.

For the sake of argument, lets accept the claim that indeed the UK enjoyed pre crash levels of growth above OECD averages (it has not), produced a high number of well paid secure, high skilled jobs with wage growth (it did not), and that investment significantly rose (it has not) and that productivity has soared (it has not). What is Austerity and what are its founding myths?

If a major tenet of neoliberalism is a reduction in state withdrawal from services and from support for workers and claimants, Austerity turbo charges it in the name of deficit reduction to address the national debt.

Austerity is first and foremost a move to permanently dissemble the protection state (Cooper and Whyte 2017) through reductions in targetted public spending. The view is taken that skivers and shirkers have grown fat on the largesse of the British Welfare State, a State that breeds dependency and since the GFC it is argued is now unaffordable. It is not about reducing state spending per se, as subsidies to the nuclear industry and help to buy schemes attest. Indeed State spending as a % share of GDP has not really moved since 2010. It is this that makes the ‘reduction of state spending’ neoliberalism rhetoric (as ideologically based class war) but not reality for the rich.

 

Austerity is based on the idea of ‘expansionary fiscal consolidation‘ (Alesina and Perotti 1995). Government cuts to public spending will (the theory says) encourage more private consumption and business investment. Not cutting public spending jeopardises investment and competitiveness. The reality is that public consumption in the UK is debt fuelled rather than from higher wages, and investment remains very poor.

Three myths underpin this approach from 2010:

  1. We all played a part in the financial crisis (New Labour caused the crash).
  2. Austerity is necessary.
  3. We are all in this together.

However, this masks real reasons for the policy:

  1. To further ease Capital Accumulation for the rich.
  2. To further extend wealth by growing inequality and through dispossession.
  3. To permanently dissemble the protectionist State.

In short: the violence of class war. Capital v Labour, the irreducible foundational contradiction of capitalism.

The institutional violence meted out by for example by G4S and ATOS is ‘ordinary’ mundane process violence, it is not exceptional but routine as experienced in people’s lives, involving fear humiliation, hunger, shame and early deaths. Using ‘maladaptive coping’ such as eating high fat sugary food, smoking, excessive drinking, taking drugs and having unprotected promiscuous sex, are as much reactions to as causes of poverty and violence. This ‘Moral Underclass Discourse’, which points to poor individual lifestyle choices, ignores the wider determinants of health, the mass of data on the ‘social gradient’ in health and of health inequalities. It also does not understand the complexity of personal agency and social structure in which reflexive deliberations (our inner voices) mediate between objective social structures, cultures and our personal concerns and projects.

We make our own history, but not in the circumstances of our own choosing“.

Institutional violence is pervasive and normalised so that we don’t always see it or feel it for what it is. Food banks, deportations, homelessness, debt, trafficking, evictions, precarity in low wage jobs are becoming part of the social fabric that is getting thinner by the day. This violence is slow violence whose effects may take time to come through. It also provides a pervasive threat of violence for those lacking the financial, social, cultural capital to either protect themselves or to escape.

Richard Horton (2017) in the Lancet (note not ‘Marxism Today’) outlined the arguments well:

Economists are the gods of global health. Their dazzling cloak of quantitative authority and their monstrously broad range of inquiry silence the smaller voices of medicine, trapped as we are in the modest discipline of biology. Economists stepped beyond the boundaries of the body long ago. They now bestride the predicaments of our planet with confident insouciance. It is economists we must thank for the modern epidemic of austerity that has engulfed our world. Austerity is the calling card of neoliberalism. Its effects follow an inverse harm law—the impact of increasing amounts of austerity varies inversely with the ability of communities to protect themselves. Austerity is an instrument of malice. Search under austerity and you will find few countries unaffected. Greece, of course, but also Mozambique, France, Scotland, Brazil, Portugal, Spain, Cameroon, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, and England. Economists advocating, and governments implementing, austerity naturally reject the word. Instead, they call austerity, “living within our means”. But be clear. What is promoted as fiscal discipline is a political choice. A political choice that deepens the already open and bloody wounds of the poor and precarious. The Financial Times, a newspaper usually in thrall to the spectacle of economics, called these policies “inhumane” last weekend.

But austerity is also a social contract. People accept severe restraints in public spending, actively in democracies or passively in autocracies, because they accept the unpalatable prescription of abstinence. Yet the public too has a choice. And they are exercising that choice in countries across the globe. Take the UK. Back in 1991, two-thirds of the British population wanted more taxation and spending. But by 2006, only a third of people backed redistribution of wealth. If not welcomed, austerity was accepted. Not now. In the latest British Social Attitudes Survey, published last week, public opinion had turned against the idea of brutal scarcity. 48% of people wanted taxation increased to enable greater investments in society. 42% supported redistribution of income. And health was their priority—83% of people wanted more spending on our collective wellbeing. After a decade of cutting back the reach of government, the public is now demanding a stronger and more generous state. The contract authorising austerity has been torn up“.

Richard seems to be suggesting we may be at a turning point. I hope he is right, but with a Brexit fixated government backed by 30% of those eligible to vote (the 52%) and the cheerleaders in the right wing press driving politics onwards, I don’t yet see much hope.

The Violence of Austerity

Photo by Samuel Zeller on Unsplash

This is based on the recent 2017 book by Vickie Cooper and David Whyte.

When society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual.” Engels (1845) ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England’.

Let us be clear from the outset. This is not about interpersonal violence carried out by one person directly on another using physical or emotional force. This is about Institutional violence, carried out by smartly dressed ordinary men and women in offices up and down the country, who often are merely following orders or who were architects of the policies that kill or cause physical and psychological harm. The malefactors of great wealth stand behind the lines cheering them on, using their propaganda news media to convince the victims that the victims are to blame. The malefactors of great wealth also grow fat on the proceeds of the sales of products designed to dull the senses and anaesthetise the pain caused by institutional or structural violence – high fat, sugar loaded fast foods, cigarettes, alcohol, cheap TV and mass culture in a dystopian miasma of false dreams.

Some may doubt the existence of institutional violence, perhaps arguing that only human beings can directly inflict pain. Johan Galtung (1969) in ‘Violence, Peace and Peace Research’ wrote of structural violence; a violence in which some social structure or social institution causes harm by preventing people from meeting basic needs. This is a model of violence that goes beyond notions that focus only on individual agency. Gregg Barak (2003) in ‘Violence and Nonviolence: pathways to understanding’ argues:

Like interpersonal forms of violence, institutional forms include physically or emotionally abusive acts. However, institutional forms of violence are usually, but not always, impersonal: that is to say, almost any person from the designated group of victims will do.

Yes. “any person” from the sea of faceless ‘skivers, shirkers, unemployed, disabled, sick, mentally ill, low paid and feckless’ who have been systematically stripped of their personhood by bureaucratic processes designed to make their lives hell in order to ‘incentivise’ them to find work.

Barak goes on: “Moreover, abuses or assaults that are practiced by corporate bodies—groups, organizations, or even a single individual on behalf of others—include those forms of violence that over time have become “institutionalized,” such as war, racism, sexism, terrorism, and so on. These forms of violence may be expressed directly against particular victims by individuals and groups or indirectly against entire groups of people by capricious policies and procedures carried out by people “doing their jobs,” differentiated only by a myriad of rationales

People “doing their jobs” using thoughtlessness, banality and cliché to justify their actions or perhaps in fear of joining the ranks of the precariat themselves. The current most important banality and cliché currently in force is ‘Austerity’ and its attendant lies used as justification.

Galtung: “violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations”

  1. Violence is a phenomenon which reduces a person’s potential for performance. A distinction must be made between violence and force, since the former breeds negative results, while this is not necessarily so in the case of the latter. This is an important option, because many people consider that violence may have both positive and negative results.
  2. Violence should be objectively measured according to its results, not in a subjective manner. Suicide, mental illness, mortality and morbidity rates, hunger, and poverty.

Felipe, MacGregor and Marcial Rubio refer back to Galtung and provide their own definition of violence:

A physical, biological or spiritual pressure, directly or indirectly exercised by a person on someone else, which, when exceeding a certain threshold, reduces or annuls that person’s potential for performance, both at an individual and group level, in the society in which this takes place”.

Criticism of structural or institutional violence, and the denial thereof, may focus on the need for an actor; an actor who can then be held liable for such action. Personal or direct violence is a violence in which an aggressor can be identified, face to face, whereby the victim can recognise a guilty person through direct confrontation. This is far too narrow a definition with perhaps the paradigm case for institutional violence being Adolf Eichmann who never actually got his hands dirty.

If these definitions hold, current government ministers, civil servants, local authority bureaucrats are complicit in the violence inflicted upon claimants for universal credit, those who died undergoing work capability assessments and those who died in Grenfell Tower.

It is the contention of Cooper and Whyte, along with Stuckler and Basu, that ‘Austerity kills’.

The Sociological Imagination

“The sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society. That is its task and its promise” C. Wright Mills

Photo by Lance Anderson on Unsplash

This is a key work in the sociological literature and provides a way of thinking about our experiences as individuals in society at any given point in time. The argument is that to fully understand ourselves we have to apply the ‘sociological imagination’ to our ‘personal troubles’.

The relevance for health is that this takes us beyond making overly simplistic analysis of our health behaviours, experiences and decisions. If our analysis is too simplistic then we come up partial answers to health care issues at best and irrelevant, judgemental or dangerous answers at worst.

C Wright Mills wrote:

‘…men (sic) do not usually define the troubles they endure in terms of historical change…’ (p3).

So, what is a ‘trouble’?  That might be an episode of illness.

 

 

Personal troubles:

 

  • Having type 2 diabetes and thus having to manage that condition
  • Living alone
  • Being overweight
  • Worries about changes in the benefits system

 

 

We may not consider that our issues (as personal troubles) are better or more fully understood as being linked to living in the 21st century, or that the roots may lie in current society. We are

‘…seldom aware of the intricate connection between the patterns of their own lives and the course of world history.’ (p4).

We do not

‘…possess the quality of mind essential to grasp the interplay of man and society, of biography and history…’  (p4).

In addition we:

‘…cannot cope with their personal troubles in such ways as to control the structural transformations that lie behind them.’  (p4).

What ‘structural transformations’ might be behind living alone, diabetes, weight gain and money worries?

What is a ‘structural transformation?’

If we think of society has having ‘structures’, which vary from society to society and which varies within the same society over time (history), we may begin to understand that society is but the outcome of individuals, groups, communities and populations deciding to act out their relationships one with another. In doing so they create (and are created by) society and its social ‘structures’. We have family structures, gender role structures, work organisation and employment structures, educational structures, health care delivery structures, food manufacture, marketing and delivery structures, economic structures…..  A commonly experienced social structure today is the baking or buying and eating of cake and coffee as a social event. In response to, or perhaps to encourage this, we now have both small businesses in town centres and global corporations (Nestle, Starbucks, Costa Coffee) oriented to selling us high calorie non essential  food and drink.

Relationships between people evolve as humans live their lives and develop their capacities and these relationships then act as structural patterns for others to follow. This process of ‘evolution’ and ‘pattern’ changes over time and between societies. An individual thus is both shaped by these (structural) patterns of living, and in living their lives they in turn shape the patterns (structures). Our lives are thus ‘structured’ but not determined by these structures.

What social structures are there and what are those structures that lie beneath the personal troubles outlined above?

To help answer that question Wright Mills argued that

 

what they need…is a quality of mind that will help them to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves… this quality…(is) the sociological imagination.” (p5).

 

What information do we have about Type 2 diabetes – its rate, prevalence, risk groups, epidemiology, aetiology, and the wider determinants? To fully understand why anyone now has Type 2 we need to get this information and consider for example that:

 

We might be ‘overweight’. What exactly does that mean and how much of an issue is it? The fact that we might now have type 2 diabetes suggests that previous diet, levels of exercise and lifestyle may have contributed. What do we know about weight gain and the link to diabetes?

Our personal story of being overweight is linked to various structural and technological changes in society over our lifetime. These changes include the abundance of fossil fuels to use for energy (a technological change) instead of food, so that cars replace cycling/walking. Active travel is replaced by driving, while the social meaning of driving and car ownership underpin our unwillingness to cycle, walk to the bus stop or railway station.

So, to what degree are we responsible for gaining this weight? Many of us have lived through a time when the public’s understanding of diet was perhaps rudimentary, constrained as it was by rationing and availability and the social norms that construct a ‘healthy’ diet. Many of us experienced ‘socialisation’ which involves learning the values, norms and beliefs of our culture regarding what is appropriate food. To what degree is  vegetarianism, veganism or the mediterranean diet, popular and or promoted as healthy option?

We need to consider what a healthy diet is and how the public get to know. Currently the eatwell plate is a suggestion, but to what degree do the public know about it, how much are they guided by it and what is the evidence base for it? We might want to consider if there are any vested interests in selling us high calorie, sugar dense foodstuffs?

Exercising a sociological imagination also asks what social changes occurred so that we have now an abundance of sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup?

Our early lives would have been guided by social norms and what shops could provide, as well as cost. the ‘personal trouble’ is weight gain but it is also a public issue as the whole UK population has gained weight. So we need to connect changes in social structures and historical events to the personal story that is a diagnosis of diabetes, to fully understand current health.

The role of sugar in the diet is an issue, what is the history of the dietary advice regarding fat and sugar? We may well have been consuming sugar in amounts that seems normal and indeed is hidden. This could be part of what is called an ‘obesogenic environment’ in which we are immersed and have been for several decades. What do we believe and think about sugar in the diet? To what degree does rational thinking about the risk to weight from eating a ‘normal’ UK diet, feature in buying, cooking and meal preparation decisions?

 

The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life….’ (p5).

This is what Wright Mills refers to when he argued that:

The first fruit of this imagination…is the idea that the individual can understand his own experience and gauge his own fate only by locating himself within his period, that he can know his own chances in life only by becoming aware of all those individuals in his circumstances’ (p5).

 

Wright Mills outlines:

‘The personal troubles of milieu and the public issues of social structure’. (p8).

Troubles:

These occur within the individual’s immediate experience and relationships. They relate to the individual self and to those areas of social life of which the individual is immediately, directly and personally aware. The description of what the trouble is and what the solutions are, come from the individual and within the scope of their ‘social milieu’. A trouble is a private matter; they are values that we feel are threatened.

One of our personal troubles may be feeling and living alone and feeling that whatever we does makes no difference (learned helplessness). The value being threatened here is the value of social relationships being missed.

 

 

Learned helplessness is a state of mind which results in the inability or the unwillingness to avoid negative experiences as a result of thinking that those experiences are unavoidable (even if they are avoidable). This arises because one has learned that one does not have control over the situation. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses may result from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation.

 

Public Issues:   

These are matters that go beyond the local environment of the individual and their inner life. They result as an ‘organisation’ of many such situations into the structure and institutions of society. The countless individual social milieux (i.e. ‘all the lonely people’ in the UK) overlap and create society at points in history. An issue is a public matter; issues threaten values held by the public. When this happens there may be public debate about what that value is and what really threatens it. There is some evidence that loneliness is becoming a public issue as the scale of the issue becomes clearer and its health effects become known.

One of Wright Mill’s examples to explain the use of the sociological imagination is unemployment:

‘When…only one man is unemployed, that is his personal trouble, and for its relief we look to the character of the man, his skills and his immediate opportunities. When…15 million…are unemployed, that is an issue, and we may not hope to find the solution within the range of opportunities open to any one individual. The very structure of opportunities has collapsed. Both the correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions require us to consider the economic and political institutions of society and not merely the personal situation and character of a scatter of individuals’. (p9).

What the individual unemployed man (out of the 15 million) experiences is often caused by the structural changes in society. When global economics means that steel can be produced more cheaply in a foreign country (a structural change) then a UK steel works shuts down. To be aware of the idea of social structure and to use it, is to be able to trace links among a great variety of individual social milieu which, as Wright Mills’ states, ‘…is to possess the sociological imagination’ (p11).

There is more than one person who lives alone, is overweight, struggling with diabetes and has money worries. Therefore these personal troubles are also public issues of society if we use the sociological imagination.

To fully understand our life means understanding how society has changed and the opportunities and threats to health that arise as a consequence. It means understanding that our personal agency, the freedom to act, operates within particular social structures that constrain action as well as providing enablements. So, what constrains our action, what enables us to take control of our lives?

Understanding obesity using the sociological imagination links the personal trouble of weight gain with the public issue of whole population shifts in BMI within the context of the obesogenic environment. A fuller understanding of ‘fatness’ goes beyond overly simplistic calculations of calories in = calories out type equations, and simplistic exhortations to “eat less move more”.

Implications:

Health and illness is to be thought as arising from social structure as well as, if not more than, biology. The knowledge that diabetes results not just from the individual’s choice of diet, but also from the social environment, should indicate a  public health and socio-political role. Health education is not just an individually focused issue, based on a biomedical understanding. Health itself has social origins. The concept of an ‘obesogenic environment’ suggests just that.

Therefore strategies that will assist people to move towards health must take into account the social and political context in which they live. Society has to change as much as the individual. Individualised models for change that ignore this will have less chance of success.

Understanding that illness, although at first may seem self-inflicted and out of free will, may result from the social milieu of the individual.  Victim blaming of the unpopular patient, the obese, the self-harmer, the drug addict, the alcoholic, is not only poor practice but is theoretically myopic. That is to say it does not understand the wider determinants of health. This realisation should change the language around health into a more open, less judgemental stance towards the people. For example, the label alcoholic implies the trouble lies within the individual when the roots may also be social.

To summarise: 

  • Health and Illness both derive from socially structured human agency, societal as well as biology.
  • The patterns, experience and causes of health and illness has to be understood in the context of history and culture.
  • The meanings that people attach to health and illness not only are built by social structure but go towards creating social structures.
  • Professionals need to acknowledge the complexity of health and illness and adopt a more open, non judgmental viewpoint.
  • There is a social/political and public health role.
  • Models for change have to go beyond individualised biomedical understandings of health and illness, realising that ‘education’ is not a universal panacea.

 

Benny Goodman      September 2017

 

Poverty Privilege and Health

In two of the richest nations ever to have existed on planet earth we have a separation which allows affluent whites to exist in a bubble of privilege; a bubble of privilege which survives the shooting of police, deindustrialisation, poverty, precarity and the social gradient in health. Privilege understands and sees how radical losers exploit poverty and exclusion, but does not want to address social and economic structures; privilege understands that pain and anger can be turned both inward and outward but looks for solutions in the individual and ‘security’; privilege sees the transmission of poverty and exclusion only in the personal agency of the poor themselves.

Washington Heights is a suburb of the most segregated city in America. Charles lives in a part of Milwaukee where the residents are 99% white, yet a few blocks up are black neighbourhoods where shops are boarded up, many houses have repossession notices on their front doors, and the air is one of decay and poverty. The separation of black and white in Milwaukee is replicated in big cities right across the US, and separation breeds a lack of empathy.”

“Local authorities which report the highest rates of people facing severe and multiple disadvantage are mainly in the North of England, seaside towns and certain central London boroughs”

“Women who live in the least deprived parts of Kensington & Chelsea can expect almost a quarter of a century more of good health than their female counterparts in the most deprived part of the borough. For females at birth, the number of years an individual could expect to live in good health based on current rates – known as healthy life expectancy – differed by an average of 24.6 years between the most and least deprived parts of the borough” (ONS, 2015)

…and yet politicians like to focus on a ‘moral underclass’, blaming them for their behaviour that causes poverty. Drink and drugs are key factors in this regard:

“Ian Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, shocked readers of the Daily Mail with: ‘Addicts and alcoholics cost us £10billion a year, says Duncan Smith: Blitz launched to help people with drink drug problems find work’ “. (Glen Bramley LSE Blog)

There is a very old debate about whether poor people owe their circumstances to structural economic factors or to moral/behavioural failings. Sandra Carlisle in 2001 argued that there are ‘contested explanations, shifting discourses and ambiguous policies’  for health inequalities: there is the ‘Moral Underclass’ discourse, the ‘Social Integrationist’ Discourse and the ‘Redistrubutive’ discourse. Each has its own explanation as to why there are inequalities and then what to do about them.

Since Sandra Carlisle wrote her paper, there has been a a good deal of evidence to suggest that structural/economic forces are a major factor in people’s health and illness. There is some evidence also of ‘transmitted poverty‘ due to adverse childhood experiences. The misuse of Alcohol and Illegal substances (they are all drugs) are of course correlated:

“There is a huge overlap between the offender, substance misusing and homeless populations. For example, two thirds of people using homeless services are also either in the criminal justice system or in drug treatment in the same year”.

Many people faced with adverse social situations learn to cope, or they become fatalistic,  or they cling together in supportive communities or they become activists fighting for social justice.  Some self harm, some drink to excess, some go to University and become doctors or lawyers or politicians.  They exercise their personal agency and succeed or fail within structurally determined circumstances. They succeed, despite not because of, the activities and ideology of the privileged. A few of the successful however, then refuse to provide more ladders while shouting “I did it so can you”.

The lack of empathy, the total separation of lifeworlds, arises partly from moral intuitions that both blinds many politicians and commentators to alternative explanations pf poverty and binds them together in a bubble of privilege that prevents them from analysing the evidence. As we all do, they engage in post hoc rationalisations – in their case that that the poor are a moral underclass who are less intelligent, lazy, and hard working than the successful – to explain and justify their own positions.  This is almost a moral imperative, because not to blame the poor opens one up to the need to justify or critique the structural and economic privileges one has unequal access to. Placing the focus on the work, drinking and drug taking habits of a ‘moral underclass’ provides one with a sense of superiority and entitlement so much on show in both US and UK politics. No doubt the same occurs in Russia and China. To acknowledge that there are structural and economic conditions, for example the public school system or the service sector low wage economies,  or the inverse care law, opens up the middle class to accusations of champagne socialism.

This is a common tactic to deflect the argument away from an examination of causes to one of ‘ad hominem’.  Another tactic is to argue that the best way to address structural and economic factors is more of the same economic policies that have held sway especially in the US and UK. Indeed on a global scale the numbers of people living in absolute poverty is decreasing. Inequality is also decreasing with in the UK (gini coefficient). However these two factors are not the only issue.  Both the UK and the US are rich and other measures of inequality have increased, see for example the use of the Palma ratio. It matters greatly for very poor people to get incomes, and mortality rates, enjoyed by the poor in the UK and the US, but that is not enough as the social, health and political problems in both countries testify.

Privilege looks around and is satisfied knowing that the ‘have nots’ only have themselves to blame. They reach for the moral underclass theory and publish it relentlessly in their newspapers and commentary. They also have the wealth and political power to ensure this ideology is accepted by the poor themselves. However, many do not. In this context:

The losers get sick.

The losers get poor.

The losers get defeated.

The losers get mad.

The losers get even.

‘Many professions take losers as the object of their studies and as the basis for their existence. Social psychologists, social workers, nurses, doctors, social policy experts, criminologists, therapists and others who do not count themselves among the losers would be out of work without them. But with the best will in the world, their clients remains obscure to them: their empathy knows clearly-defined professional bounds’ (Enzensberger 2005). Enzensberger (2005) goes on to argue:

‘one thing is certain: the way humanity has organized itself – “capitalism”, “competition”, “empire”, “globalisation” – not only does the number of losers increase every day, but as in any large group, fragmentation soon sets in. In a chaotic, unfathomable process, the cohorts of the inferior, the defeated, the victims separate out. The loser may accept his fate and resign himself; the victim may demand satisfaction; the defeated may begin preparing for the next round. But the radical loser isolates himself, becomes invisible, guards his delusion, saves his energy, and waits for his hour to come’.

Shoots a Policeman, drives a truck through a crowd, blows himself up in an airport…..all the while privilege looks on in dumb uncomprehending horror calling for more security and economic crackdowns on the moral underclass upon whom the often middle class radical loser preys.

Our social environment encourages obesity

our social environment encourages obesity

Your health depends in where you live

Your health depends in where you live

What doctors don’t know about the drugs they prescribe

What doctors don’t know about the drugs they prescribe

Child Mortality, poverty, globalisation

Global Perspectives on Child Health.

 

It might be a little trite and clichéd to state that our future is bound up with the current health and welfare of our children. Nonetheless, it is a matter of ethical practice how the next generation is faring. This is not about creating a healthy workforce for the economy, that is a secondary (and possibly questionable) ethical aim. It is a good in itself, to care for children. As a society in our concerns for children, we should not rely on utilitarian ethics (i.e. the consideration of ‘what good comes of doing it’), this is about a ‘universal good’, one that applies in whatever time in whatever culture.

 

 To consider the issue of child health I would like us to think about:

 

1.  Issues – ethical practice what is our responsibility? To whom are we ethically responsible?

2.  What is the role of the nurse as a global citizen for health ?

3.  What are our actions that flow from this?

 

Issues:

 

“Considerable evidence suggests that neocolonialism, in the form of economic globalization as it has evolved since the 1980s, contributes significantly to the poverty and immense global burden of disease experienced by peoples of the developing world, as well as to escalating environmental degradation of alarming proportions. Nursing’s fundamental responsibilities to promote health, prevent disease, and alleviate suffering call for the expression of caring for humanity and environment through political activism at local, national, and international levels to bring about reforms of the current global economic order” (Falk-Rafael 2006).

Falk-Raphael implicitly draws upon a social determinants of health approach which argues:

 “The social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, including the health system. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities – the unfair and avoidable differences in health status seen within and between countries”.

Globalisation results in large capital flows, labour movement and displacement and the increasing dominance of TransNational Corporations (TNCs) on economic, social and political life. The demise of state power – its withdrawal from public services, the rise of TNCs and the primacy of the market are three voices guiding politics.

 

I would argue that there is a need for a fourth voice to defend global public goods such as health. This voice is civil society, which includes nurses. Collier (2008) suggests that we have a bottom billion stuck in poverty. Even for the Rich, threats to survival are not domestic but global. Perspectives are changing from local to global, the ethics of healthcare thus need to be discussed in this context. The WHO’s Millennium Development Goals also set a global policy framework.

 

The fact of children dying under the age of 5, and the concentration of that statistic in certain countries, is largely preventable. The developed rich nations of the West have achieved huge gains in child mortality, despite a socioeconomic gradient still evident. By that I mean the children of the poor are over represented in mortality statistics. This will be true in countries with high mortality rates (Nigeria, India and China). It is the children of the poor who die young.

 

Globalization cannot be the cause of poor child mortality rates, rather it is the poverty that existed before global capitalism that is the main cause. Therefore efforts at eradicating poverty will bring down the rates (along side simple things like fresh water, malaria nets and vaccinations). Global capitalism is producing the goods we need and improving the living conditions of many so that many countries will eventually join the developed west with their low mortality rates. However, we must not lose sight of the socioeconomic inequalities in health in the rich West. However, there is an ideology attached to globalization that would rather spend trillions of $s and £s on bank bail outs, military spending (estimated cost of the UK’s trident replacement  – anything between £20 and £100 billion) and the mismatch between research funding and the research need of low and middle income countries remains. This has been referred to, by the Global Forum for Health Research, as the 10:90 gap (10% of global funding going towards 90% of global needs –research favours the rich in the rich world).

 

Ethical practice. Paul Ricoeur suggested that ethics are about “aiming at the good life”, and so if this is the case we ought to consider the good for all. If everyone has a right to the opportunity for a good life, what should the Nursing response be? 

 

Consider the codes of Ethics that govern nursing practice. Where are they, and what do they say? Consider the international nursing codes of ethics rather than just the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s.

 

As stated above, child health should be a matter of universal concern to us all. To focus only on the children of the rich in the rich world, who already have a surfeit of resources and health access, may be an abrogation of our moral obligations as global citizens for health. There is therefore a need to think differently about our role in the world as a nursing community.

 

Acting Ethically as a nurse in a global community requires a need for Transformative thinking.

 

 

 

Part of that thinking involves seeing our selves as interconnected in systems on a finite planet. We have been told that climate change is the biggest threat to public health this century. Children already at risk in the developing world could face, some say are already facing, health threats from changing climates. Food shortages, droughts and crop failures have affected many parts of the world in 2012. Current economic practices are implicated in carbon emissions. Thus mitigating and adapting to climate change will be on the agenda in the developed world if we are to keep our gains. In the United Kingdom carbon reduction already is an NHS aim.

 

 

Child Mortality: the facts:

 

Use the websites below to gather a fuller picture of current trends in child mortality and the factors that reduce child deaths. Consider what role nurses can play in this. Think about the relationship between maternal health, family size, female education and child mortality.

 

Websites:

 

http://www.globalissues.org/about – facts about global health issues. Click on issues and then health issues for an overview.

 

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/childhealth.shtml – the WHO’s Millennium Development Goals.

 

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/reducing-child-mortality-a-moral-and-environmental-imperative/ -Hans Rosling on child mortality

 

 

Levels and Trends in Child Mortality 2012 http://www.unicef.org/videoaudio/PDFs/UNICEF_2012_child_mortality_for_web_0904.pdf   UNICEF.

 

Every Woman Every child is a United Nations campaign which acknowledges that the health of women and children are priorities, as reflected in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG 4 and 5). See box 1.

 

 

MDG 4 Reduce Child Mortality

MDG 5 Improve Maternal Health

 

By focusing on the maternal and child health it is hoped that we will help to maximise global health gains.

Box 1

 

What is Every Woman Every Child?

 

 

Launched by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during the United Nations Millennium Development Goals Summit in September 2010, Every Woman Every Child aims to save the lives of 16 million women and children by 2015. It is an unprecedented global movement that mobilizes and intensifies international and national action by governments, multilaterals, the private sector and civil society to address the major health challenges facing women and children around the world. The effort puts into action the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, which presents a roadmap on how to enhance financing, strengthen policy and improve service on the ground for the most vulnerable women and children.

 

‘Every Woman Every Child’ http://www.everywomaneverychild.org/about

 

http://www.everywomaneverychild.org/images/content/files/global_strategy/full/20100914_gswch_en.pdf

 

Conclusion.

 

We know there is a huge disparity in the under 5 mortality rate (U5MR) and that this is linked to socioeconomic status. This may well be exacerbated by climate change. There are variances within countries as well as between them. We know that rates are falling on a global basis and many countries are making good progress. We also know that nurses are charged with having a health promotion and public health role to play. This could go beyond a medical approach (e.g. vaccinations) and adapt the social model of health. As global citizens nurses could address social determinants through individual actions as well as through their socio-political roles, the least of which means developing political awareness of such things as the UN’s ‘Every women every child’ campaign.

 

Benny Goodman 2012

Class divide in health widens

Class Divide in Health Widens

http://gu.com/p/3av95

 

What is the mechanism at play which prevents poor people from changing their lifestyles? Why do many not ‘take responsibility’ for unhealthy choices? The structural issues (e.g. unemployment which leads to sickness which leads to unemployment; another is long term low pay and part time work) are some mechanisms. Try living on <£12,000 pa on a monthly rent of £450 to see just how hard it is…so why smoke and drink and eat junk food then, all activities which eat into the funds that are available?? The evidence suggests that relative social status is a key mechanism (Wilkinson and Pickett 2010), i.e. living in a social group means also comparing oneself to those around us, a negative appraisal results in stress and physiologically this means corticosteriod release as well as adrenaline.  It sets up anxiety (physical stress as well – it makes the body unwell), now it just so happens that smoking, drinking and high sugary junk foods are great at hitting the pleasure centre in the brain, and giving us a shot of the pleasure hormone dopamine (the same hormone that ecstacy floods your system with). The advertising industry and corporate activity manufactures demand in the population, it needs you to buy stuff and one mechanism it subliminally uses is social comparison, you are invited to consider how your present self is and how your future self could be if you had this product. This also involves comparison with other social groups. So a lack of resources to engage in that activity advertised as a ‘good thing’ paradoxically leads to precious resources going into activities that relieve the stress and provide instant gratification. Smoking, drinking a junk food are excellent at instant gratification. Add to that mix a sense of fatalism, long term sickness, poor education, a lack of ‘self efficacy’, poor social capital and a perceived and often actual lack of a means to address these issues and hey presto you have an underclass mired in poor health and the cycle begins again. These are just some of the mechanisms at play. We are living in an insane society (see Erich Fromm ), which also creates this underclass and ensures this class has the mechanisms to self defeat. Social mobility in the UK has all but halted, so my advice is: choose your parents very carefully.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137585/Britain-worst-social-mobility-Western-world.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/may/30/milburn-social-mobility-politics-live-blog#block-10

Skip to toolbar