The Marmot Review on health inequalities

Hmm.

These serious health inequalities do not arise
by chance, and they cannot be attributed simply to
genetic makeup, ‘bad’, unhealthy behaviour, or difficulties
in access to medical care, important as those
factors may be. Social and economic differences in
health status reflect, and are caused by, social and
economic inequalities in society.

I agree, I\’ve only skimmed the summary, but I see no reference at all to the counter proposition. Even to reject it. That ill people become poor because they are ill rather than that poor people become ill because they are poor.

I don\’t claim that this is the be all and end all of the subject: I would claim that it does in fact happen though.

And not to consider it seems, well, umm, something of a failure in the review actually.

In fact, if I were the Minister receiving such a report I would be shouting at people, demanding to know why they hadn\’t at least considered this, if only to reject it as an explanation.

7 thoughts on “The Marmot Review on health inequalities”

  1. There’s a strong correlation between ill health and voting Labour. So, following the logic of this report, voting Labour should be banned.

  2. If I had smoked for the last 20 years I would be poorer and an unhealthy. But I would not be unhealthier because I was poor but because I had smoked.

  3. Brian, follower of Deornoth

    We know the reason that the second possibility wasn’t considered. The report’s conclusions are not derived from the evidence; the conclusions were pre-ordained, and the evidence selected to fit.

  4. They are poor and unhealthy for the same reason… unwise decisions about education, career, diet, smoking, exercise etc.

    The report’s authors clearly can’t distinguish between correlation and cause and effect.

  5. All Marmot’s solutions, or so I gather after hearing him on the electric wireless, take the form of state institutions and intervention thereby. Not one is in terms of reducing the number of parents who split (or were never together… well, apart from the essential few minutes) which stats seem to show is at the root of about 75% of the social problems he addresses.

    Or to put it another way, how has he not noticed that most of the problems he addresses seem rarely to arise in traditional nuclear families? And yes, there are a lot of them about. They’re just below the radar, which in itself could not possibly be anything to do with politics, could it? Or maybe it’s just because they trouble no-one and do not call on public services.

    Naturally, Marmot says he is apolitical. So am I, of course.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *