Fundamental Causes, Inequity and Public Health

Social injustice particularly that of public wellness, has been a incessant pariah to the common society. Various theories were posited as to the root cause of public health injustice Phelan and tangency (2005) directly associated the fundamental causes of public health inequity with the socioeconomic statuses (SES), the social conditions, the gradients that existed therein. The fundamental cause lies on the visible/ resources imbalance as the authors Phelan and Link (2005), Farmer (1999), and Lynch et al (2000) demonstrated.The fundamental causes of morbidity and death rate consist of (1) influences to multiple ailment outcomes, (2) operation through multiple risk factors, (3) intervening mechanism purge the association, and (4) finally, the most important feature of fundamental causes, it involves accession to resources that can be used to avoid risks or minimize the consequences of the disease involved. Health accession is shaped by extent of socio-economic resources (Phela n and Link, 2005).Here it is noted that the cognitive ability or intelligence cannot explain the relation between resource and health. SES, is, admittedly a never-ending and persistent state of the oecumenical society (Phelan and Link, 2005). Not even the introduction of knowledge or the epidemiology of the disease was able to completely eradicate the health maladies present instead, it seems to encourage health inequity.The US, a supra-economic world engine, has a system of rulesatic health care delivery system yet a relatively large residual of their populationAmerican Indians, Blacks and Hispanic and Asian immigrantsdo not enjoy the benefits of the health care system as much as their rich counter parts. Localization of public health inequity is provide by the health biased name like Third World, Blacks, the abject, and other terms that denote social stigma and racism . The aggravation of health inequity is destined to worsen with the authoritative trend on commodifying me dicine and health and their money-making participation in the market industry.Health inequity, as a result of multi-faceted elements of the society, is, as much as a disease as the paniced bacillus tubercle, the causal agent of tuberculosis Farmer (1999) illustrated the consumption of the disease agent consuming the lives of the pocket-sizeder strata that existed in the previous(a) twentieth century. Farmer illustrates the case of societal infection with different experiences of tercet stereotype tubercle patients jean Dubussoin (Haitian rural peasant), Corina Valdivia (Latin American with a multi-resistant drug strain of bacillus tubercle) and Calvin Loach (Afro-American and injection drug user).It was social factors that find out the fate of these three-infected persons. Their struggle against their disease demonstrates the common obstacles they faced during health accession. Jeans very low income and the long distance from the hospital dilapidated her chance at having a good accession to medical exam services offered. Corinas case was exactly the same except that it demonstrated that of improper treatment of her disease and medical vigilance. Calvins case was psychosocial wherein there was suggested wariness between him and the medical practitioner due to racial wariness and late detection.Health inequity of tubercle bacillary patients does not stem from medical mismanagement, from physician-directed errors, as the three stereotypes demonstrate, but more on the conglomeration of factors like race, income, economic policies, ease of health accession and fear of being apprehended or ignored by the medical staffs (Farmer, 1999). According to Lynch et al (2000), health inequity may also be associated with neomaterial interpretation differential accumulation of exposures and experiences that wee their sources in the material worldand differences in individual income.Health inequity, then, in general, is highly dependent on the resources of the individual . This is in oppositeness of the psychosocial theory which precludes that inequity is, more or less, a result of hierarchy stress or the combining of maladaptive behaviours as a reaction to the SES. The association between the standard of living and health cannot be easily dismantled, yet, on the face of such social health injustice, what actions are available for the State to ease this particular problem? Lynch et als (2000) on solubilizing the problem was vague and inconclusive .. trategic investments in neo-material conditions via more equitable distribution of public and private resources that are likely to have the most wedge on reducing health inequalities and improving public health in both rich and poor countries in the 21st century (p. 1203) Farmers (1999) ultimate solution is pragmatic solidarity. The term was earlier vague and inconclusive with no proper definitum Pragmatic solidarity was loosely defined as something that would mean change magnitude funding for contr ol and treatment of diseases, making therapy available in a systematic way and preventing exit of diseases.Farmers primary intent is to target the health anathema at the specific level. On the other hand, Link and Phelans approach was different. Link and Phelan (2005) posited a barrage of solutions which capitalizes on indemnity friendship as macro-level approach to the problem creating intervention that benefit state members irregardless of their own resources and actions, monitoring the dispersion of health enhancing information and interventions and creating policies that would distribute resources to the poor.A good solution to the problem would be targeting health inequity using combinatorial methods on the macro and micro-level approach. Interventions created at the larger scale such as policy consideration is a good approach and finding out the etiology of various diseases obviously have positive outcomes for curing. Such interventions are necessary to preserve not only t he health of the general public but also to maintain a relatively pure, socially just and a sinewy environment.