Issues in Relation to Health and Place Concerns Migration
33 Pages15626 Words327 Views
Added on 2019-10-12
Issues in Relation to Health and Place Concerns Migration
Added on 2019-10-12
ShareRelated Documents
Anne McMurrayand Jill ClendonCommunity Health and Wellness, Chapter 2, 24-41Open reading mode Close reading mode There was an error loading this content. Please refresh the page to try again, or contact us if you continue to experience problems.Introduction The notion of reciprocal determinism, whereby people affect and are affected by their environments, epitomises the relationship between health and place. Place is important to relative states of health because ‘it constitutes as well as contains social relations’ ( Cumminset al. 2007 :1825). Having a geographically bounded ‘community of place’ where people interact with others can help promote community attachment, cohesion and solidarity ( Kilpatrick et al. 2009 :285). As we know, certain places are more conducive to health and wellbeing because of their physical features. But places also affect the social and emotional aspects of health and wellbeing. People feel grounded in certain places, but these need not be only defined by a particular geographic boundary or distance or proximity to others. Interacting across multiple places has interesting effects on people's behaviour, particularly interms of power relationships that allow some people to negotiate access to services and other resources, while constraining others' ability to have equal access. Resources and support systems may also be more readily accessible to those with differing socio-demographic and cultural factors, such as age, gender, employment status, ethnicities and religious beliefs ( Cummins et al. 2007 ). These factors are all integral aspects of the SDH. So in terms of ‘place’ the effect of older persons being at home rather than in the workplace may create a differential health disadvantage or advantage, just as the neighbourhood may have differentialeffects on an adult or a young child, depending on the extent to which they are able to spend time in parks or other recreational facilities. In today's world, where there is an increasing concern about our global and local places, there is a need to look more closely at the intersection of health, place, and our personal geographies and how we transit through multiple contexts in the pathways to good health. One of the most important issues in relation to health and place concerns migration and cultural viability. Just as land and water shortages have caused forced migration, wars, urbanisation and poverty have driven people all over the world to assimilate into foreign cultures. As a result, the world has lost languages and culturally diverse elements that have historically maintained cohesion and trust. In some cases, the fear of protecting borders from refugees and other migrants has had the effect of disempowering some cultures. This in itself is a health hazard, as the disappearance of cultures and traditional ways of life have left
whole communities without an understandable means of sustaining health or avenues for communicating with others. Their cultural disempowerment is therefore an important factor in determining the extent to which they flourish in family and community life. The challenge in all communities is to find local, sustainable solutions and a sense of control or community comfort. As health professionals we assume an advocacy role, helping communities construct pathways to change on different levels. As social advocates, we adopt a respectful and culturally sensitive approach, shifting the balance of power to the community. As political advocates, we bring knowledge about the health and welfare systemsto the table and help link people together to access resources. As professional advocates, we have an obligation to stay abreast of new knowledge and strategies that will help us maintain professional competence as well as solidarity with others. These processes are developmentalin that by working together, people's skills, knowledge and self-confidence are developed, ultimately empowering them to go on to the next undertaking. Facilitating and enabling community empowerment also helps develop the skills of the health professional. Each community and the strategies it uses to strengthen capacity are unique, so every opportunity to work with a community yields new information that the health professional can use to consolidate and refine health promotion skills. In this respect, advocacy is a deliberate two-way process of mutual development, beginning with the global community. What's Your Opinion? Health professionals act as social, political and professional advocates. In what ways have you seen these differing dimensions demonstrated in your community? Objectives By the end of this chapter you will be able to: 1 explain the relationship between health and place 2 outline the global factors that influence community health and wellness 3 identify the major aspects of urban life that affect the community 4 analyse the pros and cons of rural lifestyles in relation to social capital 5 explain the effects of FIFO lifestyles in terms of the social determinants of health
6 explain how the health of young people is enhanced by the ‘layers’ of assets available to them in their social media communities 7 develop a planned approach to creating a ‘Healthy City’ that will help ease the transitions for migrants and refugees. The Global Community As part of the global community we need to be mindful that what occurs in one country affects all others. As mentioned earlier in the chapter, we depend on our natural ecosystems to provide life support throughout the world, and this affects our health and that of our communities ( Hancock 2011 ). The global community has a profound impact on our social world, particularly in terms of economic capabilities and our ability to access the social and cultural supports that help conserve our communities. Globalisation is therefore relevant to family life across the age continuum and across generations, from birth and child care to education, employment, recreation and a comfortable retirement. Our globalised world has brought significant changes to community life, some more dramatic and far-reaching than others. Global technology has enhanced knowledge for many people, providing instant electronic access to a wealth of information, including health information and research data; however, it has also created inequities. The term ‘globalisation’ refers to integration of the world economy through the movement of goods and services, capital, technology and labour ( Labonte & Schrecker 2007a ). Integration of these economic capabilities means that economic decisions affecting people in all corners of the world are influenced by global conditions. When we first encountered the notion of globalisation in the 1980s it seemed a palatable idea. A globalised world held the promise of increased markets for goods, porous borders through which people could pass freely, greater sharing of cultures, and economies of scale where goods might become cheaper because they could be bought and sold efficiently by large business concerns. Economic arrangements since globalisation have added wealth to various nations, reducing absolute poverty (the total number of people living in poverty). However, inequities have become evident from the fact that global markets privilege the global elite, those in control oftrade relationships, who have profited enormously from worldwide commercial endeavours atthe expense of social, environmental and health concerns. Globalisation Integration of the world economy through the movement of goods and services, capital, technology and labour. Open full size image The political environment that paved the way for globalisation was one that valued not only free trade between nations, but deregulation of financial markets and a host of other financial decisions that ultimately created the 2008–09 global financial crisis. The crisis occurred
primarily because too much power was vested in a small number of multinational global organisations, dominated by the wealthiest countries in the world, whose leaders made decisions that allowed them to control the lion's share of the global economy and world trade.With global markets gaining control over products and services industrialised economies have flourished, but many countries and communities have become impoverished in the process, especially those who were already poor. In some cases, multinational companies have destroyed the livelihood of entire farming communities by importing cheaper goods, effectively reducing the incomes of workers producing domestic products ( Cushon et al. 2010 ; Labonte & Schrecker 2007a b ). Large investors now control agricultural products throughout the world, which has created a food crisis in a number of developing countries ( Schrecker 2011 ). Because of competition and an inability to find markets for their food, some developing countries have stopped growing crops, leading to a vicious circle of poor nutrition, foregone education and ongoing illness among the most disadvantaged in society ( Navarro 2009 ). Other sources of production have become non-viable, as the products are now constructed in countries where both labour and taxes are cheap. This system maximises profits for the global company but erodes the local economy and its tax base that could have been used to fund infrastructure and support systems for health ( Schrecker 2011 ). Workers in these countries who are engaged in the new production processes are also exposed to new workplace hazards and industrial pollution, which have been tolerated to increase labour market position. Some have become deskilled, once again, magnifying inequalities between rich and poor countries. Large financial institutions have also played a part in eroding the local economy of small, developing countries. Over the last twenty years the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank provided loans to those nations that agreed to adopt ‘structural adjustment policies’ to reorganise their economies, but this placed them in a precarious, disempowered position. Because the loans were also provided indiscriminately to political leaders who had no moral obligation to defend the legitimacy of their rule, many local communities were deprived of democratic participation in decision-making. This type of non-inclusive, autocratic decision-making allowed a number of despotic rulers to maintain their leadership through repression ( Labonte & Schrecker 2007b ). To make matters worse, foreign loan repayments have been shifted to safer, tax-free havens, which stripped many developing countries producing goods of tax funding that may have been used to improve citizens' quality of life ( Schrecker 2011 ). Group Exercise Globalisation and nursing In groups of two or three, consider how globalisation may affect your practice. Consider the implications of commodification on job opportunities for new graduates, the drive for efficiencies and costs savings within health services, and the impact of globalisation on the people you care for. Add to your answers as you work through the chapter and report back your findings to the wider group. If working online, start a discussion forum on each of the above questions. Some African and Asian countries have experienced this type of inequity for many years. People in Zimbabwe starve to death regularly. In Bangladesh, which is the poorest country in the world, only a fraction of the food aid reaches the poor, the majority of it being given to
the government, which sells it at subsidised prices to the military, the police, and middle-class families ( Navarro 2009 ). Such inequality is not confined to developing countries, as there has been a parallel situation in many Western nations, where indiscriminate lenders allowed people and institutions to borrow money from them without them having the means or job security to repay their loans. This type of practice has led many families to the brink ofpoverty, to ‘survival circuits’ of low wage jobs and a cycle of debt from which they cannot recover ( Schrecker 2011 :205). Because globalisation has changed the focus of institutions from providing locally appropriate services to economically efficient services, health, education, transportation and other services have become commodified. What this means for health care is that if a particular service is seen as inefficient, it is typically downsized or removed, and people who may have relied on the service have to travel to a central location, creating a burden on people in many communities, particularly those at a distance from specialist services. Investors' search for cost effectiveness has also resulted in the casualisation of the workforce. Where a service is dominated by cost rather than continuity, job security and benefits are often eliminated ( Cushon et al. 2010 ). A further layer of disadvantage has arisen through privatisation of previously public services, which has led to user fees for health care and education. In addition, multinational pharmaceutical companies now dominate the trade in medicines, creating higher costs with no accountability to current and future generations in relation to local development or any social or environmental damage they may cause ( Baum 2009 ; Labonte 2008 ; Schrecker 2011 ). The growing number of free trade agreements (for example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) negotiated between the United States, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic partnership (RCEP) between the 10 ASEAN states, together with Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand) further exacerbates these issues, placing the interests of global companies well above the interests of local communities (see Box 2.1 ). Box 2.1 The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is a trade agreement under negotiation between Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Peru, Chile, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. However, the TPPA is much more than just a trade agreement. Instead of being simply about freeing up trade in goods and services between countries, the main focus of the TPPA is to create an attractive environment for overseas companies who want to operate in Australia and New Zealand. What this means is Australian and New Zealand laws on environmental protection, public health, intellectual property and economic regulation will be restricted to make it easier for foreign companies who wish to invest in Australia and New Zealand. In particular, US-based pharmaceutical companies are lobbying for provisions that will reduce government regulatory control of pharmaceuticals threatening equitable access to medicines (Faunce & Townsend 2011). The TPPA would also give foreign investors the power to sue the New Zealand or Australian governments in secret tribunals if they think that changes in law or policy have caused a substantial financial loss to their New Zealand or Australian investments. For example, tobacco companies would be able to sue governments if plain packaging has a detrimental effect on profits.
One of the most concerning aspects of the TPPA is that it is being negotiated in secret and there is no opportunity for community members to have their say in whether the TPPA goes ahead. And if it does go ahead, it will bind Australians and New Zealanders to a set of rules designed in the interests of big business, not everyday people. More information on the TPPAin New Zealand can be found at: www.itsourfuture.org.nz and in Australia at: http://aftinet.org.au/cms/ . How is this related to community health? Commitment to communities requires vigilance and advocacy so that people are aware of the layers of decision-making that affect their lives. In the context of PHC and the goal of social justice it is important to question whether policy decisions are made with equity in mind. There is widespread concern about our global community among those attempting to promotethe health of local communities. These concerns all converge on the centralisation of decision-making and the effects of these decisions on health. Researchers cite the health effects of excluding some nations from the global market, particularly the developing countries, many of which are already suffering from communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, hepatitis and malaria ( Schrecker 2011 ). These diseases, and the inequities of globalisation have affected women disproportionately, many of whom were already disadvantaged by poverty and discrimination and who, in a competitive global economy, have no hope of improving their situation ( Falk-Rafael 2006 ; Schrecker 2011 ). Insome developing countries the mass migration of health professionals has also eroded the capacity of the remaining workforce to deal with the burden of illness or health promotion. While many Western nations are happy to welcome migrant health professionals to fill workforce shortages, the net loss of these health workers has caused the near collapse of already fragile health systems in their home countries. What's Your Opinion? Globalisation has had a significant impact on individuals, families, communities and nations. What negative and what positive impact has globalisation had on you as an individual, your family and your community? The politics of global health care is clearly an issue for all nations. The global financial crisis of 2008–9 impoverished many people, sweeping the world with new claims on public moniesand alarming discussions about resource scarcity. Decisions taken by global leaders led to a reduction in funding for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria programs to the extent that in 2010 annual funding for these programs was cut in half to US$9.2 billion ( Schrecker 2011 ). Yet US$1 trillion is spent globally each year on arms and armaments ( Schrecker 2011 ). Surely there is an ethical and moral argument to be made for decentralised decision-making that would allow each community to establish its own priorities based on local needs. In fact, in recognising the need to decentralise their local economies, some developing countries haveseen the development of micro-financing at the neighbourhood level, aimed especially at helping impoverished women start their own businesses. This approach has provided small loans, savings, insurance and training to people living in poverty as a just and sustainable solution to alleviate global poverty (10thousandgirl, Online. Available: www.10thousandgirl.com/some-facts/how-microfinance-works/ [accessed 21 December 2013]). Although modest, some of these businesses have helped break the intergenerational
poverty chain, helping women become empowered through viable employment that also helps ensure an education for their children. Micro-financing developments are one of the positive outcomes of globalisation, for without global attention and support, poor countries like India and some African countries would not have had these opportunities. Despite the global attention to poverty in developing countries, another effect of globalisationhas been the loss of cultural identities, languages and the right to choice in securing the best level of health for the most number of people. The reality is that even as countries of the West celebrate new wealth, we are all aware that wealth is distributed unequally. So as the global community has continued to develop, there have been greater disparities between rich and poor countries, and between the rich and poor within most countries. Clearly, globalisation has wreaked havoc with the SDH. As Navarro (2009 :440) declares, ‘it is not inequalities that kill, but those who benefit from the inequalities that kill’. This includes the decision-makers who engage in a form of ‘predatory capitalism’ ( Schrecker 2011 :205) to control food and tobacco, pharmaceuticals, financial markets and health care ( Dickens 2011 ;Schrecker 2011 ). The effects of their decisions cascade throughout society, affecting the poor and vulnerable, including women workers, migrants, different cultural groups, and rural and urban dwellers. Urban Communities For the first time in history half of the world's population (3.4 billion people) live in cities ( WHO 2011 ). Many of these city dwellers are at the lower end of the social gradient and therefore subject to inequitable living conditions, but even middle-class urban residents can be affected by inequities in relation to those who are better off because they enjoy full employment ( CMAJ 2011 ). Across the global spectrum, many cities have experienced explosive growth over the past two decades, either through personal choice, migration to find employment or to escape wars and civil strife or environmental degradation ( Satterthwaite &Mitlin 2011 ; WHO 2011 ). In most parts of the world, the major cities are bulging at the seams, trying to accommodate the vast influx of new residents. With growth in numbers therehas been a growth in urban poverty, and research has shown that cities contain the largest proportion of those who are malnourished, have poor living conditions, and high maternal and infant mortality ( Satterthwaite & Mitlin 2011 ; WHO 2011 ). On the other hand, the cost of providing clean water, sanitation, schools, education and health care is more affordable in urban areas because cities enjoy better infrastructure than rural areas ( Satterthwaite & Mitlin 2011 ). In the city, the layered dimensions of life are played out in daily exchanges of social life and commerce, in celebrations and exploitative acts, through illness and wellness, and across the lifespan from birth to death. Urban life is a microcosm of the many relationships between health, social, cultural and environmental factors, portraying both visible and hidden aspects of family and community life. As population density increases in the cities, the differential effects on health and wellbeing for the rich and poor come into clear focus. For the unemployed or disadvantaged by birth or illness, the risks and hazards of city living include crowding, violence, virus infections, motor vehicle accidents, exposure to harmful subcultures such as substance abusers, environmental pollution and social exclusion ( WHO 2011 ). Yet there is a close connection between what is occurring in rural communities and inthe cities. In some cases, the hopelessness seen in impoverished city dwellers reflects the physical and social degradation of rural areas, which has brought many people to the city without their previous support systems.
Up Side, Down Side to the City • More services, more jobs, more people • Higher costs, poverty • Inequities • Substandard housing, crowding • Fewer family supports • Crime, pollution Life in the city is increasingly inequitable. As the rich get richer, the divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ becomes more entrenched, and this erodes social capital ( Hancock 2009 ; Kawachi & Kennedy 1999 ). For the ‘have nots’ life holds few expectations, given the drift of wealthier citizens out of the city and into the suburbs, leaving behind an inflated housing market that is out of reach of many of the working poor. The wealthy also take with them the tax base that might have funded additional services in the core of many cities. Because of declining commerce and conditions in the heart of the city many economically disadvantaged people are relegated to lower paying jobs. At the same time, most urban societies have an unprecedented need to support older citizens and other family members, especially for migrant and refugee families. Many live their lives in substandard housing, which places all family members, particularly children, at risk of ill health. Homelessness, the ultimate marker of disadvantage and inequality in society, is a particular concern, as inadequate shelters struggle to keep up with demand for food, clothing or safety. Many homeless people are the mentally ill who have been left on the streets by deinstitutionalisation and the inadequacy of mental health support services ( WHO 2011 ). Among the homeless is a growing number of adolescents and young families whose wages have not kept up with housing costs, a situation that has been worsened by the global financial crisis. One short-term solution has been house sharing, which has become increasingly common among low-income New Zealand families trying to cope with limited budgets and rising costs. However, this solution has resulted in severe overcrowding, which exacerbates the risk of infectious diseases such as rheumatic fever and respiratory infections—both diseases with marked prevalence in New Zealand ( Sharpe 2012 ; Trenholme et al. 2012 ).
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Nursing Care In Mental Health | Assignmentlg...
|3
|1590
|77
Cultural and Social Diversity in Health Carelg...
|13
|3176
|102
Role and Power of Australian Media in a Multicultural Societylg...
|9
|3274
|299
Factors Affecting Access to Health and Social Care Serviceslg...
|7
|2099
|66
Ethics in Nursing Assignment 2022lg...
|10
|1552
|16
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health: Social, Political, Economic and Cultural Factorslg...
|6
|1246
|346