Health Reflective Journal One

Word count: 489

Madison Short

In my first workshop of Health Education my knowledge was thoroughly expanded. In an

activity with a new classmate that was unfamiliar to me I initially thought of health as
simply eating healthy and exercising. Talking to my classmate and exchanging thoughts
made me realise that my basic view of health was incorrect and that I needed to further
my thinking to understand a greater definition of health. I now realise that there is more
to health than eating heathy and exercising as many people in the world do not have easy
access to these basic resources yet they can still have elements of good health. My
knowledge has been broadened to realising aspects of health that I had not initially
thought of include physical health, social health, mental health, emotional health and
spiritual health and these aspects are extremely relevant to the overall stigma of health. It
is important for adults and children living in underprivileged countries and communities
to have high levels of mental health and spiritual health even though their physical,
emotional, social and mental health may be lacking because of their resources and living
conditions. I found that the information discussed in this workshop was very similar to a
reading from the Second Opinion health textbook. In chapter four titled Global Public
Health the social patterning of health and illness is explained by comparing global health
between different countries. This chapter taught me that the world is divided into three
categories; first world, second world and the third world. This made me consider that I
am apart of the first world and made me wonder what type of things would have to
happen to my family and I to fall into the second and third world categories. Other global
forces explained throughout this paragraph in the textbook include limited resources, food
insecurity and life expectancy (Broom, A. & Germov, J, 2014) I initially knew that food
insecurity is a big problem in developing countries because of the conditions they live in
and the limited access to money but I did not realise the difference between life
expectancy in different countries. The average life expectancy of a person living in a
developed country is 77 years of age in comparison to a person living in a poorer,
undeveloped region where the life expectancy is approximately 56 years of age according
to (Stadfeld, 2012). This is an approximate 21 year life expectancy difference between
two different types of countries in the world and although this is a large difference it has
decreased over the last 60 years. Hopefully the difference keeps reducing over the
progressing years to make a healthier community throughout the world. I am satisfied
with the way in which my thoughts have broadened since starting the Health topic and I
look forward to the information that I will learn in the rest of my course to help me as a
student and as an educator.

Reference List

- Broom, A. & Germov, J. (2014) 'Global Public Health' Chapter 4 in J. Germov (ed.)
Second Opinion 5th edition South Melbourne: Oxford University Press

- Stadfeld, R. (2012). The Evolution of Life Expectancy in the World. [online]

Inequalitywatch.eu. Available at:
http://www.inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article106&lang=en [Accessed 21 Mar. 2017].
 Health Reflective Journal Two
Word count: 917
Madison Short

During the workshop in week 5 of Health Education, my past knowledge and perceptions
about social class were totally changed. This workshop focussed thoroughly on financial
social class and how diverse it is in society and the link between social class and health
inequality. Before this workshop, I had my own perceptions and views on this topic through
experiences and information I have received through the media, however, through the activity
we completed in week 5 I found out my thoughts were misconceived. The activity we
completed in the workshop split the class into three groups. The three groups were named the
triangles, the circles and the squares and I began in the circle group. The different shape titled
groups represented groups of different financial social class however, at first, we were
unaware. The task involved choosing 3 coins out of a hat, each different coloured coin had a
different numerical value. The aim of the game was to exchange coins with members from
other groups to make up a higher numerical value, however, remaining with only three coins.

This game became very interesting when the square group refused to exchange coins with
the lower socio-economic groups of the triangles and the circles as they were happy with
their high numerical value. This became highly frustrating as the lower financial social class
groups could not advance through getting a higher numerical value. This situation can be
related to real life situations when wealthy countries do not want to trade or exchange with
less wealthy countries. What happened next was the square group had to swap all coins
with the triangle group, this caused a lot of controversy between the groups as the square
group now had worthless coins and no one wanted to exchange with them.

There are four key features of class analysis which include economism, groupness,
behavioural and cultural linkage and transformational capacity. Economism is defined as
class structure, based on the unequal ownership of productive capital and marketable skills,
that allows a minority to accumulate wealth (Broom, A. & Germov, J, 2014). This feature of
class analysis was evident in the activity when each of the three groups had different
resources which determined their wealth. Each of the groups also had different marketable
skills which became evident when some people would trade goods more than others. This key
feature is evident in everyday life as everyone has a different past and background that will
greatly determine their future wealth. Aspects of the past that influences future wealth
includes education, career, family relationships and the general characteristics of a person.
Any past criminal convictions are another factor that can greatly determine a persons wealth
as this will most likely conflict with a person trying to get a job.

Groupness is defined as; classes are real social groupings of people; these groupings result
from conflict over social and economic rewards (Broom, A. & Germov, J, 2014). This
became evident in the task as each group was highly social and interactive with their specific
group where as they were competitive and not as friendly with the other groups as they were
not on the same level as them and they felt like it was a big competition. The class example
of groupness is also a prime example of groupness that can be seen in society today.

Behavioural and cultural image is defined as members of a class share class consciousness,
political preferences, similar interests and lifestyles (Broom, A. & Germov, J, 2014). This
can be related to a real-life situation when people who are in the same social class share many
similarities such as the houses they live in, cars they drive, schools they send their kids to,
jobs they work and so on. Another example of behavioural and cultural image is the whole
idea of the American Dream and that wealthy people have the idea of a perfect world they
can live in and this could be there life goal.

Transformational capacity is defined as; classes allow for collective action and can transform
the social structure; class conflict is the central dynamic that shapes social life (Broom, A. &
Germov, J, 2014). I definitely agree with the statement of class conflict is the central
dynamic that shapes social life (Broom, A. & Germov, J, 2014) as it is seen prominently in
society today. Social life is well and truly shaped by class conflict as it affects every aspect of
a persons life as the world revolves around money.

The activity completed in week 5 was really eye-opening to me as it broadened my

knowledge about social class and they high level of importance it places on the views in
society. The issue was also raised of the comparison between social class and health
inequality. I think this activity was one of the most influential health lessons I have ever had
and I will use all information I have learnt from this point onwards. I am now well informed
about the four key features of class analysis as previously I did not know these existed. In the
future, I will be more cautious and considerate when making any judgements to do with a
persons social class as I now realise its not as easily resulted as I first intended.
In a dream world, it would be nice for all people to have equal rights to health resources and
food however this is highly unrealistic to ever happen as money is such a big issue in todays
society.

Reference List
Broom, A. & Germov, J. (2014) The Class Origins of Health Inequality' Chapter 5 in J.
Germov (ed.) Second Opinion 5th edition South Melbourne: Oxford University Press
 Health Reflective Journal Three
Word count: 1524
Madison Short

During the workshop in week 9 of Health Education, a heated debate took place which I found
highly interesting. This workshop focussed solely on the health systems in Australia and
specifically answering, is a one tiered or two-tiered health system best? Australia currently
provides a publically financed health system known as Medicare although there is also a private
healthcare system offered for those who choose this option.

The Public Medicare levy is funded by taxation. Medicare is based upon the idea of equal
health access for all Australians and it enables free or supported treatment from medical
practitioners to all Australians (Broom, A. & Germov, J, 2014). The Government through
Medicare, ensures people are provided with the best possible healthcare, where they need it
and when they need it (Pilbersek 2012). On the other hand, the private healthcare system
consists of approximately 32% of medical patients (Van Doorslaer, 2008). In the health
workshop, the class was split into two groups with one group arguing a two-tiered health care
system is best and the other was arguing a one tiered health system would be better. My group
was suggesting that a two-tiered health system is best. The debate during this workshop sparked
a huge discussion which I found interesting as it challenged my previous opinions and
knowledge of the topic. It was good to hear other students perspectives to form a more open
opinion on the topic from receiving different knowledge. My groups reasons for the two-tiered
health system included it gives people the choice of which healthcare they would prefer for
their family and factors including the size of a family, injuries, and money can help influence
this decision. Other factors included private health is important if you would like a set date for
your appointment rather than being on a lengthy waiting list. A group member from my group
stated that private healthcare takes the stress off public healthcare, this is something I had not
thought of myself before and I thought this was a really important piece of information. If there
was only one health system I now can only begin to imagine how busy it would be. A further
point made that was new to me and broadened my knowledge was that competition between
public and private healthcare drives prices down between the two and makes sure they are each
performing at the highest standard to gain patients. The private health insurance rebate was
introduced as a win for low and middle income earners who have been forced to subsidise the
private health insurance of higher income earners through their taxes. (Broom, A. & Germov,
J, 2014). These ideas were new to me as I did not have a high amount of knowledge about
Australias healthcare before this workshop began.

Points from the opposition that I previously had knowledge of included a one tiered health
system means equal healthcare and there would be an improved quality of healthcare as better
staff would become public rather than working in the private sector. Factors that I had not
considered included a single tiered health system would be less expensive as more money
would be spent on the one system and this means the quality of the services would be higher.
Some people may say that a private health system is in place to make money rather than the
public system which is there to help every person even if they do not have a lot of money with
Medicare.

The financing and organisation of health and more specifically private health insurance
reflects a flash of ideology, not so much over the need for insurance but over the issue of
compulsion of freedom of choice and over who should be responsible (Broom, A. & Germov,
J, 2014). This point was included in our rebuttal as we stated it is not unfair to have two
healthcare systems as people choose to pay for private healthcare as they have an option and
in no way, is it compulsory or expected. I disagree that this makes the healthcare system less
equal as it is a personal decision that may be influenced highly by money and health status. A
further important factor is that public health systems are already breaching the overload of
patients (Van Doorslaer, 2008). If the public and private system merged together this would
create a massive increase in numbers and would create even longer waiting periods which can
become highly dangerous to many patients. A factor that I had not previously thought of that
was mentioned in the debate was that if the public and private system were to merge together,
doctors that had studied for numerous years to become a specialist doctor may just leave the
country so they can still receive a high wage for their efforts. This would mean Australia would
have a decrease in the quality of their doctors.

Although my group put forward the idea that a two-tiered health system is best we also came
up with opposing views of the topic which made it hard to debate what we did not believe. An
example of this is we stated that a two-tiered health system is as equal as a one tiered system.
In reality, a two-tiered health system may not always be equal as a patient in the public sector
may have a more serious health condition than a person with private health and the patient with
the private health would be appointed first. This can become serious and even life threatening
in some cases which made it difficult to debate something I do not truly believe in.

The whole concept of this workshop with the debate between the class was highly beneficial
in aiding my knowledge. The debate helped to spark new discussion and ideas that various
people had which I was previously unaware of. I stand by my belief that a two tiered health
system is most beneficial in Australia as I believe the positives of this healthcare system
outweigh the negatives.

In week 10 of the health workshops we focussed on health promotion and a strand of this was
health promoting in schools. Health promotion aims to improve the health of whole
populations. (Broom, A. & Germov, J, 2014). This can be implemented by providing
communities with basic public health facilities, providing hospital based services and lastly
providing a health education (Broom, A. & Germov, J, 2014).

Health promotion practices can be split into two categories. These include individual health
promotion (IHP) and structural-collectivist health promotion (SCHP) (Broom, A. & Germov,
J, 2014). IHP is health education about lifestyle change and SCHP is participatory health
programs at a community level as well as legislation and administrative interventions (Broom,
A. & Germov, J, 2014). Something I find highly important in IHP is health promoting in
schools. Health promoting is important throughout a childs schooling years as in young age
groups it encourages children to become healthy individuals as their life progresses and in high
school the topic of alcohol and drugs start to arise and it is important that children are aware of
the health effects of this. A factor that is deemed important to me is the Australian Governments
SCHP initiative with cigarettes including their packaging and designated smoking areas. As
my workplace sells cigarettes I have been exposed to how common smoking really is. I am
well aware of the health effects of smoking as I have been exposed to the harsh reality with my
family and for this reason I am really fond of this SCHP global health strategy to hopefully
reduce the number of smokers.

There are four key health fields that influence the health of individuals. These include; the
physical and social environment, human biology, lifestyle and the nature and resourcing of
healthcare services (Broom, A. & Germov, J, 2014). It is important to teach health promotion
to address these four key health fields. The physical and social environment of an individual
relates to factors that an individual has little to no control of, factors of this include workplace
or family stressors. Human biology relates to an individuals physical and mental health,
factors that could influence this include family pressure and mental health issues. These factors
have the ability to be manipulated to influence the health of an individual. Lifestyle is a further
factor that influences the health of individuals. Lifestyle is something that can be manipulated
to increase the health of an individual. An example of this is to increase physical activity in the
lifestyle. The last of the key health fields that influence the health of an individual includes the
nature and resourcing of healthcare services. This could include the access to food, water and
medical services and this is a factor that can be difficult to be manipulated.

Both the workshop and textbook reading of week 10 broadened my knowledge of health
promotion and challenged my past knowledge. I am now fully aware of how I can influence
my own health by changing small factors and how I can inform my students when I become a
teacher about good health through health promotion in relation to todays society.

Reference List

Broom, A. & Germov, J. (2014) 'Power, Politics and Health Care' Chapter 19 in J. Germov
(ed.) Second Opinion 5th edition South Melbourne: Oxford University Press

Reading: Germov, J. Freij, M. & Richmond, K. (2014) 'A Sociology of Health Promotion'
Chapter 24 in J. Germov (ed.) Second Opinion 5th edition South Melbourne: Oxford
University Press