This question was brought up in seminar as part of our discussion on the future of the health care system. The government has been desperately trying to reduce the burden on the health system; however, the majority of funding is still allocated to “downstream” strategies. This means that people believe treatment is the most important aspect of health care. I believe funds need to be better allocated to target promotion and prevention of disease in order to improve health care in the future, but it can’t just stop there. We need to enable each other to take control of our own health, and think about how our actions can affect other people.
An example of an “upstream” approach to health would be tobacco control in Canada. In 2006, smokers in Ontario and Quebec were forced to smoke outside as laws in both provinces banned smoking inside any public place. As a non-smoker, I can vividly remember the smell on my clothes and hair after a night out in Montreal in first year-university (before the law took effect). It was disgusting! Friends of mine would insist on showering at 3 am because they couldn’t imagine getting into their clean sheets smelling like smoke. Even when I could get over the terrible odor that stained my clothes, I could not rationalize all the second-hand smoke that I was exposed to every weekend. The problem was that I didn’t have a choice. If I wanted to go out with my friends on the weekend and socialize at a bar or club, I was going to be surrounded by smokers.
I think that Canadians need to take care of each other. The concept of collectivism implies that people belong to extended families or ingroups, and that one should take care of others before him/herself. It’s a “we” or group orientation. When people smoke inside, they are not thinking of other people; about other people’s values, beliefs and concerns about health. We need to start thinking about our role in society. When the “no smoking” law took effect, people were outraged and concerned about how the change would affect them. To name a specific example, two bar owners in Montreal tried to launch a legal battle. They were concerned that the law would cause job losses because more people would stay at home, costing their business money. This is an individualistic view. Is this the view people should be taking? In my opinion, the smoking regulations positively impacted both smokers and non-smokers through reduction of exposure to second hand smoke. Never mind the fact that it reduced the amount of laundry and showers that needed to be taken after a night out on the town! We all need to start looking at the bigger picture. We need to start thinking about our future and the responsibility we have to each other to make it as healthy as possible.
What else can Canadians do individually to improve the country’s health as a whole?
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment