Will we do any better in the next half-century?
I’ve recently been reading a book written in 1969 about the 1968 Presidential campaign, called An American Melodrama. It is a very long book about a very short political campaign by today’s standards. Bobby Kennedy, for example, didn’t announce for the Presidency until March, and George Wallace – who won several southern states as a third-party candidate – didn’t pick his running mate until October. Political scientists will find many parallels from that time to today. One example: former Governor Romney was the early favorite for the Republican nomination. (He never made it to the starting gate.)
It was a campaign and a time repeatedly rocked by violence, and worries about domestic terrorism consumed policymakers and the public. About halfway into the book, the authors – without today’s benefit of hindsight – searched for an explanation for the tensions of those days. They found it partially in a mental health study published in 1961.The authors surveyed a sample of 1,660 adult residents of Midtown Manhattan. They found that 23.4% of Midtown adults were impaired by mental illness, and 45.2% had at least moderate symptoms of mental illness.
These percentages are almost identical to the percentages of US residents today who have diagnosable mental illness in a given year (around one quarter of the population) and who will have a diagnosable mental illness in their lifetime (around one half of the population).
They believed that the high percentages of mental illnesses must be related in some way to the conditions in which people lived.So they tested this belief, by identifying and measuring attributes of good mental health:
· Freedom from disabling inner tension· Ease of social interaction
· Feeling of adequacy in social roles
· Capacity to accept deprivations and individual differences
· Identification with ethical and moral values
· Adaptability to stress
· Healthy acceptance of self
· Conservative handling of hostilities and aggressions
They divided the Midtown population into six socioeconomic groups, and found a direct relationship between class and mental health. Only 17.5% of those in the highest socioeconomic group had symptoms of serious mental illness, versus 32.7% of those in the lowest group.
Arguably, their most important finding wasn’t just about class, however. It was about child health. They divided the adult population into the socioeconomic groups based on the socioeconomic status of their parents, not themselves. In other words, the “class” measure was a measure of the impact of childhood socioeconomic status on adult mental health.We know today that many of the preventable causes of adult mental illness are rooted in childhood, and socioeconomic status is the culprit in a variety of chronic diseases besides mental illness.
In its recent publication Cancer Facts and Figures 2011, the American Cancer Society devotes a special section to a description of socioeconomic status as a carcinogen. Low socioeconomic status leads to a doubling of cancers among men and similar large increases in many types of cancer among women.As public health professionals have been explaining for years, environmental factors linked to socioeconomic status – such as exposure to violence, abuse and neglect, poor diet, unsafe living conditions, lack of health insurance, limited educational opportunities, and increased risk of smoking – are among the causes of some of the most common chronic diseases in America – mental illnesses, cancers, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes.
We haven’t addressed these environmental factors adequately in the last fifty years, and we have no unified governmental vision for doing so now, either.We’ve been too busy fighting endlessly about the role of our government at home and insufficiently about the role of our government overseas.
We celebrate Independence Day this weekend. As we do, we should remember that we didn’t fight for our independence on foreign soil and we weren’t magically transported from 1776 to 2011 without anything happening in between. We can explain why Americans today are less healthy than their counterparts in many other developed nations by taking notice of the conditions in which we live and how we got to this point.We may know where we want to be in the future. But if we stumble around in the present with no clear sense of our relatively recent past, we won't get there.
If you have questions about this column, or to receive emails notifying you when future Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment