Major inequalities in health exist within Pakistan and between Pakistan and the United States

2001 ◽  
PEDIATRICS ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 112 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 725-726
Author(s):  
David Gordon

The Issue. A major independent inquiry into inequalities in health—and policies that would reduce them—was published in December 1998.1 It identified >40 recommendations designed to reduce inequalities in health. Lifting children out of poverty is among the most important strategies to improve child health. If we want to change policies on health and poverty, then we have to consider the broad political context within which our health systems work. In the United Kingdom, we have a welfare state that sends checks and cash income to 85% of households every month. Many people pay into the welfare state, many people get money back, and everybody receives services.2 In the United States, the situation is different. There, many people pay into the state, but only the poor and corporations actually receive a check. I leave you to decide who gets the most out of these respective systems. We also have fundamental differences in our health systems. In the United Kingdom, 97% of expenditures on health are made by the state; there is virtually no private spending. In the United States, only 44% of health expenditures are made by the state. The limited amount of private health expenditures in the United Kingdom will be reduced further as the National Health Service provides more dentistry in the future. In terms of the amount of resources, the United States spends 14% of its gross domestic product on health, compared with 6% in the United Kingdom. The United States spent $3700 per person on health care in 1997. In the United Kingdom, we spent less than one third of that.


Author(s):  
A. Hakam ◽  
J.T. Gau ◽  
M.L. Grove ◽  
B.A. Evans ◽  
M. Shuman ◽  
...  

Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant tumor of men in the United States and is the third leading cause of death in men. Despite attempts at early detection, there will be 244,000 new cases and 44,000 deaths from the disease in the United States in 1995. Therapeutic progress against this disease is hindered by an incomplete understanding of prostate epithelial cell biology, the availability of human tissues for in vitro experimentation, slow dissemination of information between prostate cancer research teams and the increasing pressure to “ stretch” research dollars at the same time staff reductions are occurring.To meet these challenges, we have used the correlative microscopy (CM) and client/server (C/S) computing to increase productivity while decreasing costs. Critical elements of our program are as follows:1) Establishing the Western Pennsylvania Genitourinary (GU) Tissue Bank which includes >100 prostates from patients with prostate adenocarcinoma as well as >20 normal prostates from transplant organ donors.


Author(s):  
Vinod K. Berry ◽  
Xiao Zhang

In recent years it became apparent that we needed to improve productivity and efficiency in the Microscopy Laboratories in GE Plastics. It was realized that digital image acquisition, archiving, processing, analysis, and transmission over a network would be the best way to achieve this goal. Also, the capabilities of quantitative image analysis, image transmission etc. available with this approach would help us to increase our efficiency. Although the advantages of digital image acquisition, processing, archiving, etc. have been described and are being practiced in many SEM, laboratories, they have not been generally applied in microscopy laboratories (TEM, Optical, SEM and others) and impact on increased productivity has not been yet exploited as well.In order to attain our objective we have acquired a SEMICAPS imaging workstation for each of the GE Plastic sites in the United States. We have integrated the workstation with the microscopes and their peripherals as shown in Figure 1.


2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rehfeld

Every ten years, the United States “constructs” itself politically. On a decennial basis, U.S. Congressional districts are quite literally drawn, physically constructing political representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of where one lives. Why does the United States do it this way? What justifies domicile as the sole criteria of constituency construction? These are the questions raised in this article. Contrary to many contemporary understandings of representation at the founding, I argue that there were no principled reasons for using domicile as the method of organizing for political representation. Even in 1787, the Congressional district was expected to be far too large to map onto existing communities of interest. Instead, territory should be understood as forming a habit of mind for the founders, even while it was necessary to achieve other democratic aims of representative government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document