We course through the twenty-first century with our modified vision of coexistence: globalization. Our economies, societies, and even cultures have become helplessly intertwined in the global network, as advancements in communication and technology have surpassed our humblest expectations. We inevitably forgo our singularities when we trade them for our commodities, customs, and diseases.
Despite the numerous scientific and medical achievements over the past two decades, all trends point to “the relentless worldwide spread of non-communicable diseases.” Globalization arguably trademarks the burgeoning awareness of global health, a field that seeks to examine the concerns of Public Health on a worldwide scale. The New England Journal of Medicine’s 2010 article “Global Noncommunicable Diseases – Where Worlds Meet,” contemplates these very implications for health on a global level through the lense of prevention, policy, and community.
Globally, the article emphasizes that the six leading risk factors for developing a non-communicable disease are “high blood pressure, tobacco use, high blood glucose levels, physical inactivity, overweight or obesity, and high cholesterol levels,” all of which directly correlate to the rising levels of mortality rate from chronic disease. The revelation is simple: despite the socioeconomic, cultural, and political differences between countries, non-communicable diseases, risk factors, and health-related issues can be frighteningly uniform. Non-communicable diseases are no longer linked to an individual’s income, but rather attributed to the increased globalization of our world. Even developing countries suffer from the impressing “epidemiologic stage and behavioral transition” that couples non-communicable diseases with the existing burdens prevalent in low-income countries.
The vicious cycle, the everlasting burdens in Public Health, connects health with the economy. As the rates of non-communicable diseases increase globally, so does the need for expensive tertiary treatment options with ramifications on the financial sector. But why grapple with disease when we can take measures to prevent it in the first place? The New England Journal of Medicine asserts that solutions are at the “levels of policy, health care delivery, health communication, and education.” “Proactive, preemptive intervention, and participation” are the integral efforts that will adequately confront the communication of disease by our global media and lifestyles.
However, we begin to wonder how a disease that once primarily affected the affluent can become a commonality to all. The reality is that globalization is to blame for the overlap between risk factors for death in the richest and poorest of countries. Developing countries that once did not have access to the western media or the “luxuries” of inexpensive products now do because of the interconnectedness of our trade. Developing non-communicable disease risk factors relies heavily on the environment that we live in. As our commodities and cultures become homogeneous through the process of globalization, it becomes clear why we are all equally prone to any disease.
The commonalities of chronic diseases worldwide can be observed through osteoporosis, a bone disease that typically develops in postmenopausal women and causes an increased risk of fracturing in porous bones. Biologically, the bone mineral density is reduced dramatically due to either hyperparathyroidal issues or increased protein intake (which reduces the calcium present). 75 million people worldwide are inflicted with osteoporosis, yet with simple Public Health measures, it is highly preventable.
Primary Prevention – an intervention to prevent the onset of a disease in anyone – would advocate lifestyle changes in nutrition and exercise. A Secondary Prevention – eliminating the maturation of risk factors in those who are prone to a disease – would call for increased screening of women and men and the distribution of therapies and medication for who are at risk for developing osteoporosis. And Tertiary Prevention – addressing those and treating those who have the disease – would entail providing greater access to antiresorptive agents or bone anabolic agents to heal those who already have osteoporosis.
Yet, it is important to take into account the vast majority of people in this world, reconsidering our differences and our uniqueness, once again. While it may be simple for us to suggest using these preventative methods for osteoporosis or any other chronic disease, resources may not be available everywhere due to the socioeconomic gaps and the mere understanding of what health need (or even basic need) is a priority.
So, can we really foster individuality in our globalized world? With efforts in Public Health to prevent diseases, we can definitely try and preserve it in as many ways as we can. Yet, our individuality ironically depends on our unified undertakings. I want to be connectedly unique – definitely.
Excellent post. Your choice of osteoporosis as a model for showcasing the various degrees of prevention is interesting, if not unorthodox, but certainly spot on. You can argue a point clearly and succintly, which will serve you well in the future. Good insight, excellent analysis and close to flawless form - I like it.
ReplyDelete