What approach to public health issues is more affective
What approach to public health issues are more affective, restrictive laws or education?
I believe it is not either or. What is more effective depends on the situation. If you are talking about hey I need to find out whether I have HIV or hey I don’t to take the risk of getting HIV.
Education is a major role in preventing people from making choices that could cause them to come in harm’s way. It helps them to understand what the does and don’ts of what they may face. From STD’s to breastfeeding and childhood immunizations the person who has information can develop judgments that can cause the whole community to be in better health. This is where education has a role in preventing a community to be healthier.
Restrictive laws on the other hand help to put in motion help for the population who need it. HIV testing would not be as effective if the laws of confidentiality were not in place. Restrictive law also helps to obtain results that might not be offered. How many people would give up their sexual partners if it were not for the fact that it is a law? Imagine how bad syphilis would be in the population if not for that type of restrictive law. If not for restrictive law we would all be exposed to things that could potentially destroy our families and our communities.
The problem we are facing is where to put the dollars we have to the most use. As the economy seems harder and the problems seem bigger, well then how do you decided what pot gets how much of the gold? No one wants to put up money now for the problems we face tomorrow. Especially when you can barely see today’s bottom line as most people have to do today.
Public health is built on health of the community, not nessacarily individual health. But where does the line in the sand when one person can affect so many different lives. Measles can kill, so if one person’s is not inoculated then that individual can affect a whole school system and therefore a community. So where in essence does primary
I believe it is not either or. What is more effective depends on the situation. If you are talking about hey I need to find out whether I have HIV or hey I don’t to take the risk of getting HIV.
Education is a major role in preventing people from making choices that could cause them to come in harm’s way. It helps them to understand what the does and don’ts of what they may face. From STD’s to breastfeeding and childhood immunizations the person who has information can develop judgments that can cause the whole community to be in better health. This is where education has a role in preventing a community to be healthier.
Restrictive laws on the other hand help to put in motion help for the population who need it. HIV testing would not be as effective if the laws of confidentiality were not in place. Restrictive law also helps to obtain results that might not be offered. How many people would give up their sexual partners if it were not for the fact that it is a law? Imagine how bad syphilis would be in the population if not for that type of restrictive law. If not for restrictive law we would all be exposed to things that could potentially destroy our families and our communities.
The problem we are facing is where to put the dollars we have to the most use. As the economy seems harder and the problems seem bigger, well then how do you decided what pot gets how much of the gold? No one wants to put up money now for the problems we face tomorrow. Especially when you can barely see today’s bottom line as most people have to do today.
Public health is built on health of the community, not nessacarily individual health. But where does the line in the sand when one person can affect so many different lives. Measles can kill, so if one person’s is not inoculated then that individual can affect a whole school system and therefore a community. So where in essence does primary