The purpose of this essay is to define public health and compare it to personal health, also a discussion of benefits and disadvantages of public health. The following questions will also be answered: What are the benefits of public health assessments? What are the disadvantages, if any? Give an example of a potential conflict within the community that could arise as a result of public health assessments. How can public health advocates and policy makers prevent and/or manage such a conflict? How can public health assessments be used to form public policy? Additionally, this paper will debate the how the community has or will be affected by the smoking in public places laws. Definition and comparison According to Schneider (2006) public health is defined as the focus on maintaining the health of a community. Personal health is individualized for each person. Every individual has a free will to make their own choices when it comes to diet, exercise, sexual preferences, smoking, and family and health matters. All of these choices affect the outcome of personal health, whereas the study of a combined group or community on any one subset or commonality within this group can become a public health education or crisis. “Promoting public health requires activating health-enhancing communicative behaviors (such as interpersonal advocacy and mutual responsibility taking) in addition to individual behavioral change. To facilitate such communicative behaviors, it is imperative to first construct a new discursive environment in which to think and talk about health in a language of interdependence and collective efforts” (Ye, 2014). The use and importance of health assessments are deemed necessary in identifying and formu... ... middle of paper ... ...ntability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page Edberg, M. (2007). Essentials of health behavior. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Barlett Learning Kemm, J. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/1/79.full Oriola, T. (2009). Ethical and legal analyses of policy prohibiting tobacco smoking in enclosed public spaces. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 37(4), 828-840 doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00454.x Schneider, M. (2006). Introduction to public health. Jones and Barlett Publishers, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.jblearning.com/samples/0763746347/46347_CH01_4849.pdf (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States Ye, S. (2014). Rethinking Public Health: Promoting Public Engagement Through a New Discursive Environment. American Journal of Public Health, 104(1), e6-e13. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301638
Shi L. & Singh D.A. (2011). The Nation’s Health. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Journal of Public Health. Vol. 70, No. 4, Apr. 1980, pp. 348-351. EBSCOhost. 2017 October 25.
According to Allender, Rector, and Warner (2014), public health is a combination of both an art and a science (2014). The mission of public health nursing is to promote health, prevent disease and ultimately prolong life (Allender et al., 2014). In order for this to occur an assessment must take place. An aggregate or community assessment begins with a collection of data. This includes: the community’s health needs, risks, environmental conditions, financial resources through local census data, and a windshield survey (Allender et al., 2014). Through public health nursing, communities can collectively come together to help promote an overall better health standing.
No matter how an individual exposed to smoke, it is damaged. The only way we can guide ourselves from contact to secondhand is inside or outside we must forbid any smoking on the property altogether. Splitting smokers to non-smokers into restaurants and public places cannot retain non-smokers from being unprotected from secondhand smoke. Smoke-free areas in restaurants and public places are critical to an individual’s health risk. The key factor is that all public places, workplaces, homes, and vehicles should be smoke-free and protect an individual well-being of Secondhand
...fected as secondary smokers. Universities, public places, and stores have laws to control smoking in their locations, but since there are thousands of people, customers and the public in general who smoke, it is a very controversial topic and it is difficult to have a final decision about it. Many people argue that why it is possible to drink beers in some activities the university organizes, as a result we can see there are no laws that is focus one single aspect and many people believe that the administrative of the university want to have that market of students who do smoke instead of sending them to other location so they loss people, so loss money. The most important aspect is to take into account that health disorders can take place and smoking is not a specifically and advantage. Smoking is actually a negative variable for any heath problem we can have.
... “Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. It causes serious illness among an estimated 8.6 million persons, it costs $167 billion in annual health-related losses, and it kills approximately 438 000 people each year. (n1, n2) Worldwide, smoking kills nearly 5 million people annually. If current trends continue, this number will double by 2030, and smoking will kill more than 1 billion people during this century” (Frieden and DE). Therefore, banning smoking in public places can reduce at least some of these problems and would enable people to live in a healthier way.
Smoking cigarettes is a detrimental practice not only to the smoker, but also to everyone around the smoker. According to an article from the American Lung Association, “Health Effects” (n.d.), “Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., causing over 438,000 deaths per year”. The umbrella term for tobacco use includes the use of cigarettes, cigars, e-cigs and chewing tobacco. While tobacco causes adverse health consequences, it also has been a unifying factor for change in public health. While the tobacco industries targets specific populations, public health specifically targets smokers, possible smokers, and the public to influence cessation, policies and education.
Results of several researches from studies have proven that concentrations of tobacco smoke in public places possess the risk to individuals, children, and the environment. Even cigarette butts are equally hazardous for the environment and many creatures, especially in the sea. Cigarette filters are the single most picked up thing in international beaches cleaning every year [5]. Smoking ban can benefit in several ways – from saving of lives, the prevention of disability, to a dramatic decline in health care costs – majority of which are carried by nonsmokers who otherwise are impelled to pay exaggerated health insurance premiums and higher taxes. The recently laid ban on smoking in public places is a smart move. Support of smokers for smoking ban in public places is truly much-needed to make it successful. Smoking is extremely harmful to the health of nonsmokers and to nature; smokers should be self-discipline, socially responsible, and avoid smoking in restricted public outdoor areas even if no official eye is catching them.
Public health as it is implicated in the lives of the community – it is important to conceptualise what this might mean. Moreover, public health has seen as a multidiscipline perspective in which it can be defined on many levels, and I find that it could be elusive to understand its meaning. By simple understanding of public health, I refer to an approach derived by Winslow (1920) and Baggott (2000).
Michael B. Siegel’s “A Smoking Ban Too Far” argues that banning smoking outdoors has no contribution to public health. States that the smoking outdoors’ ban is much weaker case than indoors, consequently it could cause a backlash that could threaten the goals of the antismoking movement. Instead antismoking organizations should focus on extending the policies that prevent smoking indoors in the 21 states that still allow it. Siegel’s article is somewhat effective, because the claim is backed up with facts that show the experience of the author on the subject, however it lacks stylistic elements that would bribe the audience to accept Siegel’s claim.
Every day someone loses his or her life due to previously inhaling cigarette smoke. Although banning smoking in public places will not altogether end the loss of people’s lives, it will be a leap towards reducing their risk. Smoking in public has become an act that most people consider normal. Smokers do not think twice about smoking in public, and the non-smokers are simply used to being around smoking. To reduce health related issues linked to cigarettes, a ban against smoking in public places should be put into motion to protect non-smokers, to improve the health of smokers, and to reduce the overall use of tobacco products among smokers while protecting their rights.
Taylor P., (2003), the lay contribution to public health in: Public health for the 21st century. Buckingham Open University Press, Buckingham, 2003, pp 128 – 144.
Could you imagine a world without secondhand smoke, harmful effects to the environment, and a world that is more supportive of quitting smoking? As impossible as it seems, it’s actually not as far out of our grasp as you may think. Over the course of this paper I will be arguing for smoking to be completely banned in public places because of the numerous health concerns as well as environmental hazards. To smokers this may seem as an attack on their freedoms. By banning public smoking we are removing their freedoms so to speak. The point isn’t to remove freedoms from anyone, but to avoid imposing our choices, such as how we handle our health, on others. Smoking is a serious health risk for smokers and non-smokers alike. While it is unrealistic for smoking to be completely banned anytime soon, I don’t think banning smoking in public is out of our reach. It isn’t legal for people to go around killing each other, so why should smokers be able to affect non-smokers with secondhand smoke, which has the same effect? While comparing smoking to murder may seem a bit extreme, I believe it helps emphasize just how bad secondhand smoke and smoking in general really is. Smoking should be banned in public because of secondhand smoke, environmental damage, and it would influence people to stop smoking.
Most controversial debate is going on public smoking ban. The reason is simple, smoking ban affects directly all people rapidly and we can see its effects in a short-term period. There have been a lot of arguments brought up both in favour and against a public smoking ban. Some of the arguments in favour are the following. Smoking ban is one of the controversial ways for reducing smoking and recognizing non-smokers’ right to health protection. The health risks of smoking are clear. Passive smoking does carry risks. Many leading medical and scientific organizations recognize second hand smoke as a cause of a range of life-threatening conditions. The health situation could be drastically improved if one of the risk factors - tobacco - was eliminated. People have a right to protect themselves from smoke inhalation. People shouldn’t have to inhale the ill-effects of other people’s smoking. The creation of smoke-free public places also improves air quality.
Public Health is the science of preventing disease and promoting health through many different ideas and functions by informing society and different community-based organizations. The idea behind Public Health is to protect and serve; it helps improve the lives of countless individuals through promoting a healthier lifestyle, education, research, prevention, detection, and response management. From the beginning, the idea of Public Health has become a stepping-stone that is essential to the longevity of humans and the environment. As society progresses and new advents are created or modified, Public Health