Been thinking a lot about community health. On a health and fitness blog, it's an OK thing--and an expected one--to talk about foods that are good for you, fitness tips and extraordinary things like trans-fat-free cruises. But that is so micro (and actually very American). What food should go into MY mouth? What exercise is best for ME? Conversation at the refrigerator with self: "What kind of milk do I want with my Cheerios?" Conversation at the gym: "How many pushups should I do today?"
But do you ever think what sort of impact your own health choices make on the wider world? Does it matter to the community if you maintain a healthy lifestyle? To your spouse? Does it matter what kind of cereal you choose? In real dollars and cents? It matters on the one hand if you are a crack addict, refuse treatment, get kicked out of your group home and end up in a state-run institution. Taxpayers pay. It also matters, on the other hand, if you use your money to support charities that assist crack addicts and others in need. Someone comes off drugs and off the dole. Those are just financial examples, never mind other tolls.
What is public health? (Physical, emotional). How is it related to private?
And on a spiritual level: How do my innermost thoughts and decisions and prayers affect the wider circle? Should that matter to me? Within Christianity alone (which for the sake of argument we'll isolate since this blog comes from the Bible Belt), the myriad denominations vary in their emphasis on decision-making; is the group paramount or the person? In very, very general terms, groups that include the Quakers, for instance, are more communal-oriented than not (meaning decisions within the body are made with the whole in mind; think Catholic monastic communities); Baptists and Protestants less so; the "priesthood of the believer" is a key tenet there, similar to how individuality is celebrated in this country. Both (and all) systems have merit, unless of course you're a Jim Jones or David Koresh character but that's for another day.
All of which leads to this: Are we here merely to secure our own place, serve ourselves and see our way to a happy afterlife? To do our own pushups and sit-ups? Or, does "salvation" occur when, and only when, everyone has a chance to be well?
Micro and macro. Private health and public health. Both essential, and intertwined in intriguing and mysterious ways.
Thoughts?
3 comments:
I would add the comment that it is interesting how much time, energy, and effort the American medical system spends on making us look beautiful and healthy. It is a sad thing that the American medical system, both private and public, can't seem to get it's act together for the people we send off into harm's way- our veterans. Certainly we owe them a lot more than stupid magnetic ribbons on cars and prayers. And while we might not agree on why they are sent into harm's way, we sure might agree that dollars spent on "rehabilitating the crack addict" might better be spent on "rehabilitating the wounded GI." That's what we should be thinking about in terms of public health- because we owe it to the soldier and his/her family.
It's offensive to me as a citizen that a two star general- the former commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center- gets off with a relief of command and a guest appearance in front of Congress, where he abjectly apologizes to the soldiers he couldn't find time to take care of. Were he the civilian hospital administrator of a place like, oh, The Medical Center, he would be checking in with his lawyers about now- because he would be getting sued for malpractice and negligence.
The VA, which is the largest government agency around, except for the military, has been goofing off since it's inception. What happens there is not new: Bill Mauldin did cartoons about the VA way back in 1947. If ancient history doesn't appeal to you, try watching Tom Cruise in "Born on the 4th of July."
Then, if none of the above affects you at all, continue to write about the noble battle our doctors wage against trans-fats. But if you are asking about public health- then read the front pages of your paper. Either weep, write about it, or become irrelavant.
Good points, all. Been following the Walter Reed story, too.
and, to add to one of your points, some crack addicts ARE veterans. the lines aren't so neat between public and private, which I guess was part of my point. ... though I am not a veteran, I have a stake in what happens at Walter Reed, if only because I help pay for its services.
a.
The concept of public health is interesting. But I think I have the same problem evangelizing that cause that I have with a religious one -- that I've got so much work to do on my own that it would take real gall for me to suggest a course for someone else.
That said, good health is non-denominational, at least. And if someone's debating between whole milk and skim, I can nudge them the right way.
Post a Comment