NHS Health Check betrays the ethos of public health.
نویسنده
چکیده
NHS Choices has gone to town on the NHS Health Check project. New web pages aim to encourage people to use this “sophisticated check of your heart health.” Through blood pressure, cholesterol, and body mass index being “properly checked,” they say that strokes, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, and some forms of dementia can “often be prevented.” Helping people to stop smoking, increasing their physical activity, and encouraging a balanced diet, with weight and diet being classed as “healthy,” are fine aims. But is NHS Health Check the way to achieve it? The responses to “Why should I have an NHS Health Check?” are emotive, such as “watching your children and grandchildren grow up,” “living independently for longer,” and “improved emotional wellbeing.” The website also claims that “the NHS Health Check is based on the best scientific evidence from Britain and around the world.” Yet there is no direct evidence that NHS Health Check will deliver on these claims. I have heard from several public health doctors who had read the literature and didn’t believe this either—but it is mandated, meaning that the scientific brakes are off. Health checks are all about individual actions and self determination. This is an odd departure for public health, which is a specialty poised on the true observation that our environment and circumstances make many choices for us. Health checks create the illusion that GPs can solve health inequalities by prescribing exercise, statins, or weight loss. Politicians can think that a solution is being created for them. Yet we are simply throwing money towards those people most likely to attend, who may also be the least likely to benefit. We are creating a fallacy that will, of course, fail. We need a dose of real public health. Inequalities harm us all. It should be easier to walk or cycle to work or school than to drive. Alcohol should have a minimum price assigned and its advertising curtailed. Cigarettes should be in plain packs, and salt and sugar added to food should be controlled under restrictions designed for health, not the propagation of a sweet toothed marketing strategy. Unemployment and poor housing should be prioritised, because it is insanity to suppose that prescribing a statin and instructing a patient to exercise will somehow level the playing field for a child born into poverty. And children should be able to play on the streets they live on, because they should have priority over cars. Public health has a history of being strong, outspoken, and determined—challenging politicians of all colours on harmful policies and damnable silences. It would be a tragedy if it started to become a charade of policies that were weak on evidence.
منابع مشابه
Wolves and Big Yellow Taxis: How Would Be Know If the NHS Is at Death’s Door? Comment on “Who killed the English National Health Service?”
Martin Powell suggests that the death of the English National Health Service (NHS) has been announced so many times we are at risk of not noticing should it actually happen. He is right. If we ‘cry wolf’ too many times, we risk losing sight of what is important about the NHS and why.
متن کاملThe Slow, Lingering Death of the English NHS; Comment on “Who Killed the English National Health Service?”
The death of the English National Health Service (NHS) may be slow in coming but that does not mean that it is not the Conservative-led UK government’s desired end state. The government is displaying tactical cunning in achieving its long-term purpose to remould the British state. Powell seeks greater clarity amidst the confusion but the lack of clarity is a principal weapon in the government’s...
متن کاملMorality and Values in Support of Universal Healthcare Must be Enshrined in Law; Comment on “Morality and Markets in the NHS”
This is a commentary on Gilbert and colleagues’ (1) paper on morality and markets in the National Health Service (NHS). Morality and values are not ephemeral qualities and universal healthcare is not simply an aspiration; it has to be enshrined in law. The creation of the UK NHS in 1948 was underpinned by core legal duties which required a system of public funding and delivery to follow. The mo...
متن کاملThe Changing National Health Service: Market-Based Reform and Morality; Comment on “Morality and Markets in the NHS”
This commentary explores some of the issues raised by Gilbert et al.short communication, Morality and Markets in the NHS. The increasing role of market mechanisms and the changing types of healthcare providers together with the use of choice and competition to drive improvements in quality in the National Health Service (NHS), all have important ethical implications. In order for the NHS to con...
متن کاملNational Health Service Principles as Experienced by Vulnerable London Migrants in “Austerity Britain”: A Qualitative Study of Rights, Entitlements, and Civil-Society Advocacy
Background Recent British National Health Service (NHS) reforms, in response to austerity and alleged ‘health tourism,’ could impose additional barriers to healthcare access for non-European Economic Area (EEA) migrants. This study explores policy reform challenges and implications, using excerpts from the perspectives of non-EEA migrants and health advocates in London. Methods A qualitative ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- BMJ
دوره 349 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2014