Skip to main content

Health and inequality

Significant health inequalities that persist between the richest and poorest parts of Scotland should “shame us as a society”, according to doctors in BMA Scotland. Men in the most deprived parts of Glasgow can only expect 44 years of a healthy life according to the latest statistics.

Official figures show the gap in healthy life expectancy between Scotland’s least deprived and most deprived communities of 26 years for men and 22.2 years for women. 

The rate of people being treated in hospital for a heart attack is twice as high in the most deprived areas than in the least deprived.
And analysis of cancer deaths in the same age group show people in the poorest areas twice as likely to die than in the wealthiest.
Alcohol related hospital admissions are six times higher on the most deprived areas than in the least deprived.
While the gap in alcohol-related deaths is 28 per cent lower than its 2002 peak, it has been increasing since 2013 and is now 13 per cent higher than in 1997.  The gap in alcohol-related hospital admissions has remained the highest over the longer term, while relative inequalities in heart attack admissions have increased since 2008. The difference in cancer incidence has stayed relatively stable. Relative inequalities in coronary heart disease, cancer and premature mortality have all increased over the long term.

BMA Scotland Chairman Dr Peter Bennie said: “These latest statistics show that efforts to tackle health inequalities still have a long, long way to go. “The gap in healthy life expectancy between our most and least deprived communities is stark and should shame us as a society. “Far greater action is needed to address Scotland’s health inequalities. That means stronger public health measures to address issues like obesity and alcohol misuse, but it also requires action to address problems like low pay, poor educational outcomes and inadequate housing. “We cannot keep letting more years pass without stronger action from every level of government to address these persistent inequalities.”


Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

No More Propertyless

Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. The first condition of success for Socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by every one. This has always been the primary purpose of the Socialist Party's promotion of its case for socialism. The idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two great classes that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the proletariat, is property-less the other, the capitalist, possesses the wealth of society and the proletariat in order to be able to live at all and exercise its faculties to any degree, must hire out their ability to work to the capitalis…