FREE THINKING: EXPLORE THE REALMS OF KNOWLEDGE

The discussion around public health often shifts between focusing on personal responsibility and the need for systemic accountability. While neoliberal views prioritise individual choices, many researchers have warned against reducing health outcomes simply to lifestyle factors. 

In his influential book, The Status Syndrome, Michael Marmot (2005) emphasised that "health inequalities are not a footnote to the story of health; they are the story." His studies highlighted how social factors—such as income, education, and environment—play a much larger role in determining health than personal habits do.

​

This issue becomes particularly evident when debating healthcare access. Is it fair to deprioritise individuals with "unhealthy" behaviours within public health systems? Taking such a stance risks moralising health conditions and overlooking the structural limitations that affect people’s choices. 
Paul Farmer (2003) pointed out that “The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world.” His work in global health emphasised the ethical obligation to treat every patient with respect, regardless of their situation.

​

Advancements in technology, especially in artificial intelligence, open up new options for early detection and customised treatment. However, as Shoshana Zuboff (2019) cautioned in her book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, these developments need careful scrutiny concerning how they exploit human data and could potentially perpetuate inequality. 

The benefits of AI in healthcare must be weighed against the risks of misuse and exclusionary practices.

​

Furthermore, the negative perception of disability and ageing in health discussions reveals a deeper societal unease with vulnerability. 

Rosemarie Garland-Thomson (2002) argued that society exhibits a “normate” bias, where being able-bodied is seen as the standard and anything else is viewed as abnormal. 

This perspective not only sidelines individuals with disabilities but also neglects the diverse experiences of bodily existence.

​

Lastly, the rise of preventable diseases linked to vaccine hesitancy showcases the complicated relationship between misinformation, trust, and public health. 

Jonathan M. Berman (2020) noted that “Vaccine scepticism is not just about science; it’s about identity, autonomy, and power.” Addressing these issues requires more than just scientific education—it calls for compassionate engagement and inclusive conversations.

​

In conclusion, health should be viewed as a collective duty, not just a personal challenge. 
Ethical healthcare should move away from punitive measures and focus on compassion, fairness, and systemic improvement. As we consider the future of medicine, the key question is not only how we live but also how we support one another in caring for ourselves and each other.