Contemporary Health Issues
This assessment aims to raise your awareness of Contemporary Health Issues and how these issues are represented in the public domain. The assessment has three parts to it.
1. Part One ? Select Media articles
Select two media articles from within the last 12 months about current issues in health care. These can be online media articles, newspaper, popular magazine articles; radio or television shows with transcripts accessible etc on Contemporary Health Issues. You will need to provide the reference for each article including a working web link if a media article is used. You must reference each media article using the Harvard Referencing style. See the following Version 1 (24 February 2014) 6link for guidance re this :
Two appropriate articles from two appropriate sources. Criteria re currency, and diversity cleverly used.
Appropriately cites the details of each media article( Perfect citation/reference)
2. Second Part ? Summarize, and Critically Question
For each media article the following is required (total of two articles):
a. A short paragraph summarizing the issue being reported in the media article. This will require you to paraphrase, synthesize and summarize the information (refer to your Foundations of Health information if unclear re these terms). Accurately and succinctly paraphrases article content; synthesizes issue to key points.
Clearly outlines key facets of health issue that is reported in each article.
b. Three questions based on Ulrichs critical questions that can help you to “unpack” this issue and critically explore it.
please do not use question from your mind, USE 3 question for each article from these sources:
SOURCES OF MOTIVATION Who is? OR Who ought?
(1) Who is (ought to be) the client or beneficiary? That is, whose interests are (should be) served?
(2) What is (ought to be) the purpose? That is, what are (should be) the consequences?
(3) What is (ought to be) the measure of improvement or measure of success? That is, how can (should)
we determine that the consequences, taken together, constitute an improvement?
SOURCES OF POWER
(4) Who is (ought to be) the decision-maker? That is, who is (should be) in a position to change the
measure of improvement?
SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
(5) Who is (ought to be) considered a professional or further expert? That is, who is (should be) involved as competent provider of experience and expertise?
(6) What kind expertise is (ought to be) consulted? That is, what counts (should count) as relevant knowledge?
SOURCES OF LEGITIMIZATION
(7) What worldview is (ought to be) determining? That is, what different visions of ?improvement? are
(should be) considered, and how are they (should they be) reconciled?
c. The rationale (or reason) for asking these questions – again refer to Ulrichs thinking for help in shaping your rationale:
For example ?How many people will be impacted positively by this technology?? (see Ulrich question 1 – who is the beneficiary?)
Rationale ? Scarce public funds may be spent on expensive technology that provides little positive change for very few people (but huge kudos for those associated with the technology eg manufacturers, technological specialists…) OR "What are the core beliefs/world views underpinning this discussion?" (see Ulrich question 12 – what worldview is determining?) Rationale – Some value bases are valued more highly than others and this has implications for what is funded.For example – if I was considering an article read new health technology or what people are dying from now
compared to 10 years ago – most health discussions now position living a long time as extremely important – quality of life, quality of dying, even considering that a long life may not be everyone choice (e.g some religious groups reject various medical interventions) are valued far less (or even despised). Funding decisions re scarce
public funds are guided by dominant world beliefs though and so money may constantly go to keeping people alive at any cost; with reduced funding going to things such as palliative care and life-quality responses. Care for people may be subsumed to technical aims of maintaining life.You should have a total of 6 questions (3 per article) that you submit with your media articles. You will need to clearly link your questions and rationale to the content and your summary of the article. Hence tangential questions (e.g ?How many people have X (a similar condition)??) may be good but your rationale would need to explain the connection (?Y is a neurological condition that leads to fluctuating mobility impairment and X has a
similar impact on people hence a shared response system could be useful?). NB This part of the media analysis process is aimed at facilitating your ability to critically look at media content and to ask questions that enable better understandings of health issues. Please include the following ( Succinct throughout; Grammar and spelling are almost always accurate)
3. Third Part ? Question and Answer
The third part of the assessment task is to choose ONE question from each media article (TWO questions in
total from the questions you have chosen ) and provide an informed response to the question you have posed. The response should clearly identify the question being asked (Contemporary Health Issues), what media item it relates to and the response you have constructed. You will need to consult sound sources. This should include good data sources such as the ABS, AIHW other government sources, peer reviewed literature (journal articles); Government information (hard copies or online) etc that cover Contemporary Health Issues.
depending on the question you are responding to. You may find that there is little data on an issue in which case you will still need to provide your reader/marker with information as to how you have come to such a conclusion, i.e where was information searched for? Is there any tangential information (similar conditions/ issues, international data in countries that could be seen as similar to Australia).
Use data source form the list for the essay:
South Australian Department of Health
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW)
OECD – Statistics from A to Z
PHIAC – Private Health Insurance Administration Council
Social health atlas of South Australia
http://data.australia.gov.au/ Central Australian government data site
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!