Especially for you

Author(s):  
Alan Cribb

This chapter discusses one of the most important ideas shaping health-policy reform and debate: personalisation. It should be said that there is nothing new about individualising or tailoring healthcare. Clinical healthcare, unlike some aspects of population or public health, is always already ‘targeted’ healthcare. However, both technological and cultural changes mean that possibilities and expectations of the degree of ‘tailoring’—to people's bodies, on the one hand, or to people's values and/or life circumstances, on the other—have substantially expanded and intensified. Depending upon how it is interpreted, personalisation can be presented as contributing to both medicalising and de-medicalising currents of healthcare change. It can be used to refer to closer attention and responsiveness to individual biology. It can also be used to refer to closer attention and responsiveness to individual biography. The chapter then presents a very rough distinction between ‘personalised medicine’ and ‘personalised care’.

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  

Abstract Background During the past decades, the growth of knowledge to prevent disease on the one hand and the growth of public acceptance to prevent disease on the other hand led to form public health systems. Soon after, health was no longer considered as an individual responsibility only, and more effective interventions against health threats and communicable diseases were developed. As a result, public agencies and authorities were established to implement newly discovered interventions against health threats and to prevent non-communicable diseases. Though, the orientation of public health agencies and authorities shifted from prevention of disease to promotion of health in almost all countries, their public health systems are developed widely differently. While some countries look back to traditionally established public health systems, others are pursuing different approaches to achieve Health in All Policies through policy and legislation in Wales or are now evaluating their public health policies after a ten-years-strategy, like Sweden and still others have only recently (2015) introduced a new Preventive Health Care Act and follow a bottom up approach called “Future Forum Public Health”, like Germany. Objectives This workshop aims at presenting the very different perspectives on the achievement of public health and different systems around Europe. Both, the disparity of the approaches and their different forms, and different stages of their development will be addressed by each presentation. Despite differences of the public health systems in each context, the workshop will focus on identifying shared features and common challenges of the countries with the goal of identifying inspiring examples and discussing criteria of transferability. During the discussion that will follow, different possibilities of cooperation and exchange will be assessed and debated. In particular, the workshop will encompass a presentation from Wales on “the future generation’s act” and will include information on the requirements to turn the legislation into practice. The Swedish input will focus on the Swedish national public health policy and its achievements after ten years. France will give an overview of the structural developments during the last ten years. The presentation from Germany will consist of contrasting a top-down and a bottom-up approach, namely the act to strengthen health promotion and prevention in Germany on the one hand and the future forum public health on the other hand. And last but not least, we will hear about the particular success of the Slovenian example with a newly shaped and largely developed public health system. Key messages Acquiring insight into different approaches to achieve improvements in public health based on alternative systems is important to identify inspiring examples, shared features and common challenges. Identification of criteria of transferability of public health strategies, legislation and policies between countries, and requirements for implementation are crucial for learning from best practice.


1995 ◽  
Vol 21 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 241-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc A. Rodwin

Owen Barfield, the British solicitor and literary scholar, reminds us that many legal concepts have their origin as metaphors and legal fictions. We often fail to see the nature of legal metaphors, Barfield argues, because over time they ossify and we read them literally rather than figuratively. Look closely at changes in law over time, Barfield advises us, to see how effectively metaphor works in law and language. Many legal categories and procedures we now use had their origin in using a metaphor that revealed a new way of looking at a problem or that helped solve a legal problem. Legal metaphors also help us to identify critical limits and strains in adapting to new facts and circumstances.George Annas has pointed out that our choice of metaphors for medicine can reframe our debates about health policy reform. And Analee and Thomas Beisecker remind us that patient-physician relations have been viewed through many metaphors. These include parent-child relations (paternalism); seller-purchaser transactions (consumerism); teacher-student learning (education); relations among partners or friends (partnership or friendship); or rational parties entering into negotiations or contracts (negotiation or rational contract).


2009 ◽  
Vol 68 (12) ◽  
pp. 2256-2262 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ramesh ◽  
Xun Wu

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document