Impact of “Healthy Lives, Healthy People” Policy

mend of good enoughish Lives, water-loving People PolicyImpact of Healthy Lives, Healthy People Policy on Childhood corpulencyThe clich Health is wealth rings true for anyone and in any situation. As individuals address their own wellness concerns, giving medications endeavor to come up with policies cogitate to health that would benefit either in all. However, even if such policies ar intended to be for the common good, inequalities in the murder of policies and still occur consistently.Policies argon cr fertiliseed as guidelines for mint to fol petty(a). With regards to unexclusive health a more general and complete(a) form _or_ system of g all overnance paper is presented to e veryone so that non only atomic number 18 they capably guided about the rules and supplys of regimen alone they besides joc bring up what to seem. For this paper, the insurance document to be analyzed with regards to a loving enigma is Healthy Lives, Healthy People Our strat egy for public health in England (2010).PolicyMay Jochim (2013) explain that public policies provide benefits, regulate harms and salve service (p. 426). In relation to politics, policies trigger the selection of citizenry who ar deserving and undeserving of its benefits. It also sets up a method to intoxicate feedback from all arenas which could affect the political operations of the policy as well(p) as its future changes and demands. Public policies are considered key in governance. Lowi (1972) simplifies it as policies beget politics (cited in May Jochim, 2013, p. 427). Hence, policies may change with each term of incumbent politicians.Healthy Lives, Healthy People (2010) is one type of policy document that cl ends to embellish changes from its previous platform. It presents the governments strategies for their programs in public health in England. It promotes a radical new access code that empowers topical anesthetic anaesthetic communities to implement the gover nment opening moves to improve the health of their constituents and reduce the inequalities that exist. This style that the government will allocate funding for health programs and run to local government agencies as well as increase their accountability. Thus, integration and union working across care, the NHS and public health shall likewise increase (HM political relation, 2010).Grogan (2012) explains that in terms of ideologies, liberalism favors such radical transfer of power from the government to local communities. Liberals support individualism and the market mechanism that promotes competition. They prefer that the government pass a minimal role in the implementation of health initiatives and instead provide equal opportunities to all local communities and non-government agencies in terms of the provision of education, health care, housing and nutrition programs. On the other hand, conservative-controlled governments fetch been know to spend less on hearty welfare a nd would rather deliver the funds centralized in government stewardship.Because it is in the interest of everybody, the government has plown the responsibility to ensure that everyone is levelheaded. The World Health Organization (WHO) (Sorte et al, 2011) defines health as a state of total physiological, mental and social well-being, not just the absence of disease (WHO p. 286). If health issues arise such as health inequalities or roughly disease becomes prevalent in society, so it becomes a political issue. This is echoed by the government in the following(a) avowala healthy population is fundamental to prosperity, security and stability a cornerstone of economic growth and social victimisation. In contrast, light health does more than damage to the economic and political viability of any one unsophisticated it is a threat to the economic and political interests of all countries(Government HM 2008,, p.7). non only does ill-health weaken members of the population but it also depletes government funding, hence affecting its economic status.Childhood ObesityOne health problem that needs to be communicate is puerility obesity. The De subtractment of Health (2013) reports that to the highest degree 30% of children aged 2-15 are considered either overweight or cogent, which is following the trend for overweight or obese adults (60%) in England. Obese children are at risk for high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, orthopaedic problems, sleep apnea, diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, among others (Snorof et al, 2004). It can also affect their use levels and egotism esteem (DH, 2013). Such children can also be prone to social discrimination and are likely mugs for taunts from peers and negative reactions from others. This may cause some(prenominal) psychological pain, lowered self-esteem and even depression at their very younker age (Holmes, 1998). These negative effects pose to be pestilential to obese children, so the problem of obesity needs to be addressed early on to reverse the trend (Barnes, 2011). If not, the health problems may step forward and the risks can heighten as they grow up to be obese adults. Ignoring the problem leads to a great societal impact which concerns NHS because the burden and be of health care provision for obese patients with various health complications polish on them (NHS, 2011). More importantly, it deprives obese children of their right to a quality of spirit that promotes their well-being. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1989) declared thatthe child should be fully prepared to live an individual vivification in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity (para. 7).That is why the government transmits untold effort and planning of policies aimed to optimize the health of everyone , well-nigh especially the threatened children.Healthy Lives, Healthy People White Paper and The Marmot check intoThis policy documents the governments strategic plans to ensure the health and well-being of volume. It gives speech pattern to providing fall apart care for childrens health and development because these are key in improving their educational attainment and the reducing of mental health risks, windburnt lifestyles, hospitalization and deaths (HM Government, 2010). It addresses the issue of health inequalities as reported by Professor Sir Michael Marmot in Fair Society, Healthy Lives (2010). This report acknowledges a social gradient in health, meaning that the poorer an individual is, the worse is his or health. companionable inequality should not hinder the delivery of health care services to all. Action on health inequalities must be universal, but with a scale and intensity that is proportionate to the level of disadvantage. Reducing health inequalities is vi tal to the countrys economy, and as one delays in addressing this issue, the cost to the economy continue to increase (The Marmot Review, 2010).The Marmot Review (2010) presented six policy recommendations to target the reduction of health inequalities as followsGive every child the exceed dent in lifeEnable all children, young people and adults to maximise their capabilities and prevail control over their livesCreate fair craft and good work for allEnsure a healthy measure of living for allCreate and develop healthy and sustainable get ins and communities assure the role and impact of ill-health preventionHealthy Lives, Healthy People (HLHP) responds to the Marmot Reviews recommendations and examines to reduce health inequalities by cascading authority to implement programs to local communities because it is believed that local officials take for a greater knowledge about the ad hoc conditions of their constituents. With Marmots highest antecedence in their policy recommen dation of providing children with the best start in life, HLHP shall invest to increase the accommodation of health visitors in public health centres partnering with the Family Nurse Partnership programme and the Sure Start Childrens Centres.Sure StartOver the years, government efforts to improve health initiatives for the poor have increased. It targeted a great reduction in health inequalities and value in health outcomes. Sure Start is a multi-agency working initiative established in 1999 to ensure the well-being and welfare of children. This organization implements the governments initiative to ensure the best start in the life of every child. Start brings together early education, childcare, health and family support services for families with children aged five and under. In line with the governments dumbfound to fight child poverty and social exclusion, Sure Start plant life with parents and future parents, carers and other professionals working with children to promote th e physical, intellectual and social development of babies and young children so they are readied for the challenges of school (Sure Start, 2009). Sure Start also networks with other service providers from the health, social services and early education sector as well as voluntary, private and community organisations to provide the necessity services for young children and their families (HM Government, 2006). Sure Start is one organization that shares the aim of breaking cycles of deprivation, closing achievement gaps in education between the favour and the disadvantaged, endorsing better parenting strategies, enhancing child development, confronting poverty issues, promoting safeguarding and community cohesion and supporting healthier lifestyles and seeking opportunities for learning for all individuals (House of Commons, 2009).Childhood Obesity Embedded in Health InequalityThe Black Report (1980) identifies the issue of health inequalities start that ill health and mortality is related to social class but also more generally to the health differences between people in more or less favourable situations with respect to income, prestige ( bear out up in the community) and education (p. 1). The House of Commons (2009) identify some causes of health inequalities as lifestyle factors that people adopt that make them and the people nigh them rheumy. Some of these are smoking, poor nutrition, lack of exercise and sleep. new(prenominal) determinants of poor health are poverty, poor or lack of housing, transaction and education and limited access to healthcare. Children are vulnerable to parental influences on health habits and attitudes because they are dependent on their parents. Section 4 of the child care Act of 2006 mandates local authorities to improve outcomes for all children in trim inequalities. It was suggested that provision of early years services should be a anteriority and these should be delivered in integrated ways that maximize the acces s and benefits to young children and their families (Armstrong, 2007).Childhood obesity also follows the social gradient. Economic deprivation is a strange bedfellow of childhood obesity. One wonders how children of the poor can afford to eat so oftentimes to the point of obesity. This may be mainly repayable to the existence of obesogenic environments which encourage the consumption of unhealthy provenders and the adoption of lifestyle choices over healthier ones (Jones et al., 2007). With the cost of high quality healthier foods, people from low social economic status resort to buying cheap foods ofttimes lacking in the right nutrients. The feeling of deprivation may start out obese children to eat more than they should. Like the law of supply and demand, individuals who have an abundance of good food do not see much demand in it, and therefore, just eats enough as compared to individuals who seek more food because they simply do not have enough.Criticisms of the Governments H ealth ReformsThe Department of Health (2011a) of the English government claims to have updated its strategy on obesity in 2011 in continuation of the Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives (DH, 2008) policy commissioned under the previous administration. With the implementation of health policies, HLHP claims that hop on is being made with regards to child obesity.the rise among 210-year olds from 1 in 10 children in 1995 to almost 1 in 7 in 2008 appears to be levelling off. However, more than 1 in 5 children are still overweight or obese by age 3. evaluate are higher among some black and minority ethnic (BME) communities and in lower socioeconomic groups. (HM Government, 2010, p. 19)Although such report may be true, critics of this policy may doubt if such progress is directly due to the policy implementation. Since the main feature of HLHP is devolution of authority to local communities and multi-agency cooperation, sources of the cause of progress have increased. Parental cognisance ca n be one of them, and because parents have become alerted to the risks of obesity, it is most likely that they have taken charge. It is also possible, though, that such awareness may have been borne from campaigns instituted by the government as part of HLHP.The shifting of power to local authorities have shown marked changes in some programs. For example, the programme called Change4Life recruits families to participate in regular physical activity (Change4Life, 2011). Increasing physical activity and engaging in exercise inspection and repairs to keep abreast a healthy weight. This marketing campaign has been criticized for not directly promoting awareness on obesity and being sponsored by food and drink companies which were considered unhealthy. Still, this initiative was endorsed by the government because it was believed to create balance between self-reliant choices of adults while protecting children from an obesogenic environment. With the implementation of HLHPs shift in authority to more localized agencies, central government decreased its funding, ever-changing it from a proactive central government marketing campaign for physical fitness to a light-touch brand available for sponsorship from commercial and independent partners (DH, 2011a).The effects of HLHPs reforms in the provision of health services such as cuts in funding and less participation of central government in implementation are slowly being noticed by touch groups (Penn Kerr, 2014). Health professionals have been lobbying for taxation of products which are high in borecole and fat and for food and drink companies to significantly reduce large calories on their products as well as well as recommended the banning of junk food advertisements (UKFPH, 2011). However, with due respect to the voluntary Public Health Responsibility mount (DH, 2011b) which the government endorsed, food and drink companies were then asked to just lower the calorie content of their products. Penn Kerr (20 14) argue that while the governments actions shows respect for the self-sufficiency and choice of people, it also frees it from responsibilities and leaves the bulk of the accountability to companies, local authorities and individuals. The UK efficacy of Public Health (UK FPH) agrees with this contention. This group of academic commentators criticized the government for being self-complacent with regards to tackling the problem of rising rates of obesity. They expect more upstream government initiatives to investigate the underlying causes of obesity such as obesogenic environments, exposure of children to unhealthy food advertisements, control and quality of school meals and food prices. They also expect less of downstream programmes that HLHP advocates, which encourage people to be more accountable for their own health and weight (UK FPH, 2011). Children who are at risk for childhood obesity are not yet reliable in presume responsibility for their own food choices and frequen cy of physical activity to go on a healthy weight. Hence apart from the influence of their families, schools and other social, environmental and economic influences, the government should take a more active stand in its advocacy to battle childhood obesity and intervene in alleviating health inequalities, as the Marmot Review has strongly recommended (Penn Kerr, 2014).Implications on ChildrenBeing the most vulnerable members of the population, children need to be protected from threats to their health and well-being. The people around them, their parents, teachers, peers, and health advocates and government leaders should be dutiful in mould healthy behaviours and attitudes to steer them in the right direction that prevents them from developing obesity. Parents should evacuate creating obesogenic environments for their children, meaning they themselves should avoid unhealthy food and lifestyle choices as these are easily imbibed and copied by children. It is one of their main re sponsibilities to nourish their children with healthy and nutritive food and beverages that will help the children to grow and develop as healthy individuals. Such healthy practices should be consistently observed in all environments children are exposed to. Schools should have health promotion programmes in place which aim to inculcate in the students the value of adopting healthy practices such as eating right, exercising regularly, being well-groomed, having enough rest and visiting their doctors and dentists regularly.The Healthy Lives, Healthy People policy claims to put children as their top priority in the provision of programmes that reduce health inequalities. The document presents all their good intentions in helping children have the best start in their lives and achieve a their optimal development. It takes on the challenge recommended by the Marmot Review in battling health inequalities. The government enjoins all parts of society to actively take part in pursuing thei r own health and well-being and cling to collaborative partnerships with local communities and other agencies such as Sure Start, which actively addresses childrens rights to quality health services, care and education.Because the policy is relatively new, its manque strategies for public health may often be criticized and regularly evaluated if they are being trenchantly carried out. Health advocates similarly have the best intentions in ensuring good health in everyone else so they keep a reason out watch on government efforts. Even without the mandate that individuals should be prudent enough to make wise lifestyle choices for themselves and their children, common sense dictates that all individuals in their right minds are expected to do this. However, it would greatly help if the presented strategies of the HLHP are truly put in place and appropriately delivered to the people especially those who are disadvantaged by health inequalities. HLHP should keep endorsing sound he alth programmes especially those for children which have been adopted by schools. Since it is in schools where children commonly learn conformity to societal expectations, food choices in the cafeteria should be well-planned, difference out junk food which contributes to childhood obesity. The curriculum should also emphasise the pursuit of healthy living and the encouragement of physical exercise.People from the medical field, especially doctors and nurses who mainly advocate for childrens health should also take a more active stand in pushing for effective health policies. They are in a position to empower children and their families to adopt healthy lifestyles. Penn Kerr (2014). Being vigilant in watching policy implementation unfold, nurses should support strategies that best serve childrens interests and speak out when they entertain that they are not working well. With regards to the prevention of childhood obesity and the reduction of health inequalities in its management , an awareness of all factors contributing to obesity, coming from the environment, economic science and society in general can help nurses support children and families better by providing informed, relevant and effective guidance to battle the illness (Penn Kerr, 2014).