Ethics in Public Health - Assignment Example

Title: Ethics in Public Health Name: Institution: Lecturer: Date: Part A Health and Social work Human rights are universal fundamental principles which call for equal treatment to all human beings regardless of religion, gender, race, status or nationality. The principles protect the voiceless against the mighty. Human rights cover all spheres of life like civil, economic, social, political, and cultural justice. Globalization as significantly increased the need of international corporations to promote human right in its area of jurisdiction (Jenkins, R., 2005). Multi-corporations are obliged to promote human rights through observing labour laws in its jurisdiction area. Its activities are linked to human rights as stipulated in national and international laws. It is the duty and obligation of international companies to promote justice and protect the rights of its workers and child labor. They demonstrate this by, improving labor rights and combating employment of children. Impartial participation to protect minority rights in favor of good deliberated democracy in governance is required from them. . Recently, many international companies have come together to address issues like security, justice, freedom of expression and dictatorship in conflicting areas. More so, countries where their leaders kill democracy through killings or silencing human activists and journalists like Zimbabwe. They ought not to corporate with the state to denial civil rights to its citizens through corrupt ways, like supporting the rules to avoid taxation or government monitoring (Eigen, 2004). Most of international companies work with non-governmental organization in policy making to spearhead most needed changes in developing countries. As a result, there are several benefits like creation of good brand image, promotion of rule of law and enhancing good relation with host nation. According to international and national laws they are obliged to account for crime committed against labor laws thus calling them to address such crimes. Furthermore, human rights activists are calling for transparency of the companies in respect to labor laws. Some of the companies have initiated several programs to address abuse of human rights, by involving private and public sectors to monitor and audit their public reports. Through business initiatives the companies are able to allow human rights watchdog to spy their policies as well as stakeholders. Some companies also formulate their policies as per country’s guidelines in order to conduct their business in line with global human laws. Moreover, Companies use both external and internal staff to remain within the human rights policies with collaborated projects and information sharing. Injustice remains to be a challenge to developing country’s economy which is largely contributed by corruption and lack of freedom (Agrawal, et al 2008). In most cases, countries that call for Multi-international Corporation to invest in their territory seem to suffer more. This is when the corporations secure a tender or avoid levies by use of corrupt means. Corruption deprives people basic rights, respect and dignity for human belief. It denies their basic needs like food, shelter, education, health care, sanitary and good living condition which need to be promoted not only by state but also multi-international corporations. Many international companies scrabble for natural resources in developing countries like Oil and other mineral resources instead of promoting human rights. According to World Trade Organization (WTO) Multi-international Corporation ought to be in front line to promote justice and better living conditions in developing countries (Teegen, et al 2004). Part B In the awareness of economical global effects of 2008/2009 society concerns has raised questions on inequalities in different regions in the nation (Konow, 2003). As a result, some of the liberals from Western democracracies came up with a common market constituting of economic based policies. It allowed equality between the wealthy and poor income earners with the aim of prospering them. This was done by the use of systems consisting of tax transfers, where tax progressive system applied to individuals with high income who had a greater capability to pay as a redistribution of taxes to the poor. However, the policymakers and some of the economists interpret fairness as a subject of assessment that relies on ethical and moral policies. Rawls’ theory of distribution states that justice is essential in society (Konow, 2003). He terms justice as an essential concept that is at times influential in social sciences and philosophy. This kind of description begs for answers as to what “Justice” is in the society. It seems the term “justice” is derived from the subject’s flexibility and fairness from both oppositions of a dispute. Justice in most parts of literature involves theories including prescriptive theory, which attempts to form a phenomenal that describes what “is” (Rawls, 1971). Rawls’ theory states that people are “ignorant” of their place in society. Under this situation, he argues that people in the society should conceive a particular concept of justice whereby, there should be equal distribution of goods between the different people living in the society. Rawls’ theory argues that, distribution greatly entails helping the needy and demonstrates people’s readiness to substantial sacrifice in a collective manner applying to the rich and poor in society (Rawls’, 1971). Thereby, it integrates the “need principle” that involves equality to the needy. In this concept, the theory of distributive Justice adheres to the concept of distribution of basic needs equally. Specifically, the theory suggests that “need” is one major principle that dominates human necessities necessary for survival an example, health issues (Rawls’, 1971). The next concept in Rawls’ theory is the allocation consequences and schemes in place involving welfare economics and utilitarianism. In welfare economics, the theory of dominant approach applies prescriptive economic concept, while utilitarianism is an example of consequential dominant theory in the philosophy of moral (Walzer, 1983). This promotes the state of happiness and contentment in distributive justice theory. As a result, the term justice in application is more ethical involving characters like honesty, loyalty, generosity and courage. It can be noted that Rawls theory in health issues, the less unfortunate in society have an equal right as the fortunate individuals in society (Walzer, 1983). They have the right to access health facilities despite their state of being disadvantaged. This state could have occurred at birth or after birth. Rawls’ theory has played a big role in relation to the poor and rich way of access of health facilities including medications to individuals (Stephen & Cass, 1999). It is of important to note that, Rawls theory of distributive justice inequality addresses the issue of poverty as not a “choice” one makes and at times, options like being insured are impossible at some moment (Daniels, 1983). On the other hand, the capability of one being fortunate is not also a choice. The reason being, a disaster could occur unexpectedly. Therefore, Rawls’s theory of distributive and justice mediates between the fortunate and the unfortunate in the society both economically and in market places as a solution of inequality (Olsen, 1997). The law addresses that justice is a crucial fundamental structure in society that determines equal distribution of resources in accordance to the social perspectives. In addition, justice in distributive theory in major institutions both basic and political constitutions contributes in the well working of the theory. The basic theory behind justice contains a range of positions having different perspectives on human social life that are influenced by both political systems in place and economic circumstances (Cohen, 1987). This affects humans from the stage of birth and develops to be a determinant for justice. Rawls proposal on inequality is well justifiable from the setting time to the future. However, the advantage above can be measured using the primary social goods as termed by Rawls’ theory on distributive justice. Addressing that it is a constitution of privileges in terms of goods and services necessary for everyone (rich or poor) despite the differences (Mooney, & McGuire, 1987). Rawls’ theory in application, states that, there are two important social positions that includes the citizen’s position which determines equal distribution of wealth. In conclusion, Rawls theory is effectives and mostly ensures that inequality in the society is catered for in a justice manner. Moreover, it takes care of the less unfortunate in the fight of justice to health issues and well being of individuals in the society. Part C Public health interventions by governments Brownson, et al (2010) it is the government’s duty to identify considerable interest and justify restrictions, the government involvement in public health is very important. It must show slender tailoring of regulations to the interests of the public; it must therefore not employ least restrictive means possible. This fit is not essentially ideal but is practical; it represent single best outlook and whose range is in proportion to serving peoples interest. The exploration of interventions demonstrates the dynamic nature of the relationship between individual autonomy and public health by government in developed countries. Public health tends to be programmatic, context dependent and complex. The substantiation for their effectiveness must be adequately all-inclusive to encompass the complexity. Across the developed countries like Australia the government has a notable participation in the health system through health interventions adopted to promote health services and ensure ethical standards are upheld in health institutions. Public health has the core objective of promoting good health to all the population within the country at a subsided cost. The government participates by funding activities, providing the required equipment and facilitating research for the ever increasing changes in the country’s health sector. The government also through the public health department promotes public health ethics which enhances good morals among the patients and the workers. According to Jamison, & Mosley, (1991) the government has broadly participated in financing health services in developed countries. This has facilitated offering of quality service since the government is able to dominate in offering the services, hiring and payment of qualified health professionals, acquisition of quality medicines, establish quality infrastructure and health facilities and support research programs that boost public health practice in the developing countries. The private sector is unable to ensure enough aid to the health sector because kit is able to channel few funds for the establishment of the health sector in developed countries like Australia. According to Audibert, et al (2007) individual autonomy in the health sector in developing nations is very important for the public health to be able to offer up to standard services for the population. This is because individual autonomy creates room for competition such that the government can improve their services as there try to cope with the efficiency that is evident in the private sector as they deliver goods and services in the health sector. Public health interventions by the government also offer insurance services to the population. These insurance services enable all the people of the population to equally be in a position to access insurance. The government through its interventions is also committed to disease control and ensuring sustainable food security within the country. Individual autonomy health intervention in developed countries The private health care system and nongovernmental health sector play an important role in the healthcare industry in developed countries. They are well developed and structured in developed countries hence do not need rigorous changes, National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (2008). The private healthcare comprises the health care insurance covers, private hospitals and nongovernmental organizations. They act as the commissioner or purchaser for their members for cash out basis form as Fiebig et al, (2008) asserts. They fund care packages for patient groups in connection to complex and chronic care. Among the developed countries, Australia’s system is much less costly than for US and Canada and produces good results than for those countries. However, Tuohy et al, (2004) explain that the though private health care system in Australia has been lauded as better than that of Canada and the United States, the system needs tweaking. The failure of health insurance companies to honor their promises is legion, is one area that should be improved, Rix et al, (2005). The health insurance is the biggest health care fund provider in developed countries, with private insurance; one has the opportunity to be treated as a private patient even in public hospitals. Comparison The health care system in developed countries is complex; it comprises both private and public hospitals and the medical practitioners. Dozens of insurance schemes, both public and private, for funding the health care system, back this up, Hurley et al, (2002). The level of private health insurance range from full hospital covers to ancillary (optical treatment and dental), National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (Australia) (2009). The government encourages people to take up private health insurance by making changes to the tax structure. For instance, the Australian government loads two per cent every year for persons who do not have private cover after their 30th birthday. This is a means of penalizing individuals who do not take cover during their youth; this cost to an individual is expensive, Australian Government Department of Human Services (2010). It is removed after ten years. The high earners are also charged one per cent if they do not have adequate private hospital cover The approach that has been adopted by the government developed countries is to have both private and state or public health interventions and care work together harmoniously, Jackson (2007). The government encourages the partnership of both, mixing the individual autonomy and public health care interventions. This is evidenced by the fact that the Australia’s Medicare system, commenced in 1984, is amongst the best in the world. This system is non-discriminatory and hence allows any individual, nonresident or resident, to have it, Dwyer et al, (2004). For private health insurance covers, the state governments subsidize payment of premiums for the private insurance covers. In addition, there is usually a refund on the private medical insurance of 30 per cent; this is a government way of drawing the younger generation to take private hospital and health care cover. Besides the health care system being world class in outcomes, it is very efficient and effective. The governments funds almost 70 per cent of the total expenditure on health with the state and territory governments contributing the rest, Anderson et al, (2006). If one is a private patient going in private or public hospital, one is allowed to have a choice of doctor to treat him/her, Podger (2006). The public insurance cover, such as Medicare, caters for 75 per cent of the schedule fees (procedures and services) charged by the doctor chosen. The private health insurance takes care of the rest of the fees. In essence, the private and public health interventions must be aligned as Leutz (2005) recommend, the funding arrangements, skills; policies, accountabilities and roles should be a linked set. Their certainty and how they affect each other is currently unpredictable. Conclusion Public health interventions are widely accepted as a basis for evaluating the performance in the public health and for crediting the delivery of goods and service to the public. These interventions also facilitate planning such that the population’s health needs are adequately addressed. Public health interventions when adopted in the health sector for developing countries then we are assured of a sound moral system through the health ethics put in place to direct service delivery. This promotes social development and enhances the value of the health services that the population receives. The support of the health sector by the government makes the cost of getting health care cheaper to the population. This is because all people can access insurance cover without discrimination. The government intervention makes it possible for the government to subsidize medical cost by financing some of the costs through the budget. Individual autonomy is however limited in how much they can support the public health sector since they may strain in the amount of finances they raise. References Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., & Hardin, R., (2008), Changing governance of the world's forests, science, Vol 320, Iss 5882, p. 1460-1462. Anderson, I, Crengle, S, Leialoha Kamaka, M., Chen, T, H., Palafox, N, & Jackson-Pulver, L, (2006), Indigenous health in developed countries, New Zealand, and the Pacific, The Lancet, 367(9524), 1775-1785. Audibert, M, Mathonnat, J, Pareil, D, & Kabamba, R. (2007). Analysis of hospital costs as a basis for pricing services in Mali. The International journal of health planning and management, 22(3), 205-224. Australian Government Department of Human Services, How does Medicare work? (2010), http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/public/register/how-works.jsp (accessed Dec 2011). Basic Books, Inc. Brownson, R. C., Baker, E. A., Leet, T. L., Gillespie, K. N., & True, W. R. (2010). Evidence-based public health. Oxford University Press. Cohen, R. L. (1987). Distributive justice: Theory and research. Social Justice Research, 1(1), 19-40. Daniels, N. (1983). Health care needs and distributive justice. In Search of Equity (pp. 1-41). Springer US. Dwyer J, Silburn K and Wilson G (2004), National strategies for improving Indigenous health and health care, Canberra, Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Eigen, P. (2004), Chasing Corruption around the World: How Civil Society Strengthen Global Governance ‘, Lecture transcript for Arthur and Frank Payne Distinguished Lecture Stanford Institute for International Studies, 4. Fiebig, D, Jones, G, & Savage, E, (2008), Advantageous selection in private health insurance: The case of Australia, University of Technology, Sydney, Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation. Hurley, J, Vaithianathan, R., Crossley, T, F, & Cobb-Clark, D, A, (2002), Parallel private health insurance in developed countries: A cautionary tale and lessons for Canada (No. 515), IZA Discussion paper series. Jackson, T, J, (2007), Health technology assessment in developed countries: challenges ahead, Medical Journal of Australia, 187(5), 262. Jamison, D. T., & Mosley, W. H. (1991). Disease control priorities in developing countries: health policy responses to epidemiological change. American journal of public health, 81(1), 15-22. Jenkins, R. (2005), Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty, International affairs, Vol 81, Iss 3, p. 525-540. Konow, J., (2003). “Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol 41, Iss 4, pp. 1188-1239. Leutz W, (2005), Reflections on Integrating Medical and asocial Care: Five Laws Revisited, Journal of Integrated Care, 13(5):3-12. Mooney, G. A. V. I. N., & McGuire, A. (1987). Distributive justice with special reference to geographical inequality and health care. Health and economics. London: Macmillan, 68Á. National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (2008), Beyond the Blame Game: Accountability and Performance Benchmarks for the next Australian Health Care Agreements, NHHRC, Canberra. National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (Australia), (2009), a healthier future for all Australians: final report June 2009, National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. Olsen, J. A. (1997). Theories of justice and their implications for priority setting in health care. Journal of Health Economics, 16(6), 625-639. Podger, A. (2006), a model health system for Australia, Inaugural Menzies Health Policy Lecture at the Menzies Centre for Health Policy, 3. Rawls, John, (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Rix M, Owen A, and Eagar K, (2005) (Re) form with Substance? Restructuring and governance in the Australian health system 2004/05, Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2:19 Stephen H & Cass S., (1999). The Right of Costs: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, p. 35. Teegen, H., Doh, J. P., & Vachani, S., (2004), the importance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: An international business research agenda, Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6), 463-483. Tuohy, C, H, Flood, C, M, & Stabile, M, (2004), How does private finance affect public health care systems? Marshaling the evidence from OECD nations, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 29(3), 359-396. Walzer, M., (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Read More