• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Democracy Chronicles

Towards better democracy everywhere.

  • AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
  • WORLD DEMOCRACY
  • POLITICAL ART
  • more
    • election technology
    • money politics
    • political dissidents
    • THIRD PARTY
      • third party central
      • green party
      • justice party
      • libertarian party
    • voting methods
  • DC INFO
    • author central
    • about
    • advertise with DC
    • contact
    • privacy policy
Home | DC AUTHORS | On Healthcare: Way of Life Versus Social Structure

On Healthcare: Way of Life Versus Social Structure

May 26, 2015 by Aydasara Ortega 1 Comment

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet
On Healthcare
Digital collages by Aydasara Ortega

“The question of free will touches nearly everything we care about.1”

The continuous discussion regarding health disproportions worldwide covers various diverse aspects, one of which is the debate between way of life versus social structure; free will and determinism face each other. “I am the keeper of fragile things and I have kept of you what is indissoluble … I AM THE OTHER FACE OF YOU.2”

On HealthcareThe first outlook states that health disparities are a result of assuming individual accountability for one’s health. “Maintaining physical and mental health is crucial to an individual’s longevity. The more time spent on hygiene, physical fitness, and diet regulation, the healthier lifestyle they have.3”

That is: “We ourselves must walk the path.4”

The second view embraces that health discrepancies are beyond the effects of personal choices and doings but are consequences of social disparity in numerous areas of life: “a difference in which disadvantaged social groups such as the poor, racial/ethnic minorities, women and other groups who have persistently experienced social disadvantage or discrimination systematically experience worse health or greater health risks than most advantaged social groups.5” From this side, the main concerns are health equity, social justice and human rights .6”

On HealthcareTo evaluate the level of responsibility that could be attributed to a person or a collective regarding their health, we have to begin with the premise that everything has specific conditions of existence. Understanding the conditions of existence will prevent the prejudices and perceptions we haven’t revised from prevailing. We need to find out all the aspects that are contributing and propitiating a situation to exist in order to comprehend it. When we strive to know and understand these aspects, we come to acknowledge that there’s a problem with the idea of free will in the sense that it assumes the will and the conscience of an individual to be alienated, to be something different, unconditioned and divorced from the circumstances in which that individual lives, exists.

When we don’t take the time to research and to study the conditions of existence, we are not doing the groundwork. Groundwork – a solid base where to build our conclusions from – requires thorough study of all the shaping forces that are acting in every individual situation. This approximation is a pluralist one, which seeks enrichment, evidence, and casualty; asking: What allows this to happen? What conditions it? If we do this and analyze our findings, we see that for certain things to occur or not occur there need to be certain social, historical, economic, political … circumstances, specific conditions of existence.

If we think of an individual’s will as one removed, detached, free of his or her conditions of existence, thus concluding – for instance – that the issue of health disparity results only from an individual’s lack of will towards procuring his or her own health – mental and physical – we are forgetting or ignoring that our will depends on our interpretation. And that everyone’s interpretation is always conditioned.

“How do we change mentalities,
how do we reinvent social practices that would give back to humanity
– if it ever had it –
a sense of responsibility, not only for its own survival,
but equally for the future of life on the planet, for animal and vegetable species,
likewise for incorporeal species such as music, the arts, cinema,
the relation with time, love and compassion for others, the feeling of fusion at the heart of the cosmos?

The only acceptable finality of human activity is the production of a subjectivity
that is auto-enriching its relation to the world in a continuous fashion
.7”

Links:

1 Free Will. Sam Harris.

2 House of Incest. Anais Nin.

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_%28sociology%29#Health

4 Buddha.

5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_inequality#Healthcare

6 Ann R. Taket Health Equity, Social Justice and Human Rights

7 Felix Guattari. The Three Ecologies.

On Healthcare

 

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet

Filed Under: DC Authors Tagged With: Capitalism and Big Business, Worldwide

Some highlighted Democracy Chronicles topics

Africa American Corruption American Local Elections American State Elections Asia Capitalism and Big Business Celebrity Politics China Democracy Charity Democracy Protests Democrats Dictatorships Education Election History Election Methods Election Security Election Transparency Europe Internet and Democracy Journalism and Free Speech Middle East Minority Voting Rights Money Politics New York City and State Elections Political Artwork Political Dissidents Political Lobbying Redistricting Republicans Russia Socialism and Labor Social Media and Democracy South America Spying and Privacy Supreme Court Third Party Voter Access Voter ID Voter Registration Voter Suppression Voter Turnout Voting Technology Women Voting Rights Worldwide Worldwide Corruption

About Aydasara Ortega

Aydasara Ortega Torres writes for Democracy Chronicles from New York. She is a Faculty Member of Psychology at the College of Mount Saint Vincent. Also take a look at her website for more of her work.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Tom Dougherty says

    June 15, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    The evidence is already in on the Q you’ve raised. Examine the World Health Organizations work on the social determinants of health. Freewill plays a rather minor role. In fact, as evidence, take some imaginary person with the healthiest possible lifestyle. Assume that person is not killed by war, infectious disease beyond the person’s control, murder, or unavoidable accident in odd circumstances (such as being hit by a falling meteorite while exercising in the backyard. Eventually, that person will die. It is inevitable–a result of having been born. Thus, at that point, freewill has nothing to do with continued survival and it is easy to see that all the social determinants of health that affected the person, laid over the person’s genetics, have finally extinguished the person life.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

democracy chronicles newsletter

democracy around the web

  • CPJ files declaration in support of detained journalist Mario Guevara 
    Source: Committee to Protect Journalists Published on: 7 months ago
  • “Musk must face lawsuit brought by voters he convinced to sign petition in $1 million-a-day election giveaway, judge says”
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 7 months ago
  • “Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump”
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 7 months ago
  • “Adams Adviser Suspended From Campaign After Giving Cash to Reporter”
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 7 months ago
  • “Obama applauds Newsom’s California redistricting plan as ‘responsible’ as Texas GOP pushes new maps”
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 7 months ago