Living language:language, power and identity

An exploration of different kinds of social power and the ways in which language is used by influential groups and institutions. Central to the work is the theme of consumerism and the three contexts in which it may be investigated: media, gender and citizenship.

Globalisation, markets and healthcare policy:redrawing the patient as consumer

Although the last two decades have seen the healthcare systems of most developed countries face pressure for major reform, the impact of this reform on the relationship between empowerment, consumerism and citizen’s rights has received limited research attention. Globalisation, Markets and Healthcare Policy sets out to redress this imbalance. This book explores the extent to which globalisation and commercialisation relate to current and emerging health policies. It also looks at the implications for citizens, patients and social rights, as well as how policy making interacts with the interests of global and European trade and economic policies. Topics discussed include: •How the impact of globalisation on health systems is apparent in the influence of international actors and European policies. •How the impact of globalisation is mediated by national priorities and policies and is therefore reflected in diverse influences. •How commercialisation of health is presented as benefiting citizens and patients but has the potential to undermine the aims and values inherent in health systems. •How the role of citizens' interests, social rights, patient’s rights and priorities of patient and public involvement need to be separated from commercialisation, choice and consumerism in health care. Essential reading for policy makers and students of public policy, politics, law and health services, Globalisation, Markets and Healthcare Policy will also appeal to those interested in patient involvement international healthcare, international relations, trans-national organisations and the EU.

Divided care and the Third Way:user involvement in statutory and voluntary sector cancer services

In health care, as in much of the public sphere, the voluntary sector is playing an increasingly large role in the funding, provision and delivery of services and nowhere is this more apparent than in cancer care. Simultaneously the growth of privatisation, marketisation and consumerism has engendered a rise in the promotion of 'user involvement' in health care. These changes in the organisation and delivery of health care, in part inspired by the 'Third Way' and the promotion of public and citizen participation, are particularly apparent in the British National Health Service. This paper presents initial findings from a three-year study of user involvement in cancer services. Using both case study and survey data, we explore the variation in the definition, aims, usefulness and mechanisms for involving users in the evaluation and development of cancer services across three Health Authorities in South West England. The findings have important implications for understanding shifts in power, autonomy and responsibility between patients, carers, clinicians and health service managers. The absence of any common definition of user involvement or its purpose underlines the limited trust between the different actors in the system and highlights the potentially negative impact of a Third Way health service.

Editorial

The year so far has been a slow start for many businesses, but at least we have not seen the collapse of as many businesses that we were seeing around two years ago. We are, however, still well and truly in the midst of a global recession. Interest rates are still at an all time low, UK house prices seem to be showing little signs of increase (except in London where everyone still seems to want to live!) and for the ardent shopper there are bargains to be had everywhere. It seems strange that prices on the high street do not seem to have increased in over ten years. Mobile phones, DVD players even furniture seems to be cheaper than they used to be. Whist much of this is down to cheaper manufacturing and the rest could probably be explained by competition within the market place. Does this mean that quality suffered too? Now that we live in a world when if a television is not working it is thrown away and replaced. There was a time when you would take it to some odd looking man that your father would know who could fix it for you. (I remember our local television fix-it man, with his thick rimmed bifocal spectacles and a poor comb-over; he had cardboard boxes full of resistors and electrical wires on the floor of his front room that smelt of soldering irons!) Is this consumerism at an extreme or has this move to disposability made us a better society? Before you think these are just ramblings there is a point to this. According to latest global figures of contact lens sales the vast majority of contact lenses fitted around the world are daily, fortnightly or monthly disposable hydrogel lenses. Certainly in the UK over 90% of lenses are disposable (with daily disposables being the most popular, having a market share of over 50%). This begs the question – is this a good thing? Maybe more importantly, do our patients benefit? I think it is worth reminding ourselves why we went down the disposability route with contact lenses in the first place, and unlike electrical goods it was not just so we did not have to take them for repair! There are the obvious advantages of overcoming problems of breakage and tearing of lenses and the lens deterioration with age. The lenses are less likely to be contaminated and the disinfection is either easier or not required at all (in the case of daily disposable lenses). Probably the landmark paper in the field was the work more commonly known as the ‘Gothenburg Study’. The paper, entitled ‘Strategies for minimizing the Ocular Effects of Extended Contact Lens Wear’ published in the American Journal of Optometry in 1987 (volume 64, pages 781-789) by Holden, B.A., Swarbrick, H.A., Sweeney, D.F., Ho, A., Efron, N., Vannas, A., Nilsson, K.T. They suggested that contact lens induced ocular effects were minimised by: •More frequently removed contact lenses •More regularly replaced contact lenses •A lens that was more mobile on the eye (to allow better removal of debris) •Better flow of oxygen through the lens All of these issues seem to be solved with disposability, except the oxygen issue which has been solved with the advent of silicone hydrogel materials. Newer issues have arisen and most can be solved in practice by the eye care practitioner. The emphasis now seems to be on making lenses more comfortable. The problems of contact lens related dry eyes symptoms seem to be ever present and maybe this would explain why in the UK we have a pretty constant contact lens wearing population of just over three million but every year we have over a million dropouts! That means we must be attracting a million new wearers every year (well done to the marketing departments!) but we are also losing a million wearers every year. We certainly are not losing them all to the refractive surgery clinics. We know that almost anyone can now wear a contact lens and we know that some lenses will solve problems of sharper vision, some will aid comfort, and some will be useful for patients with dry eyes. So if we still have so many dropouts then we must be doing something wrong! I think the take home message has to be ‘must try harder’! I must end with an apology for two errors in my editorial of issue 1 earlier this year. Firstly there was a typo in the first sentence; I meant to state that it was 40 years not 30 years since the first commercial soft lens was available in the UK. The second error was one that I was unaware of until colleagues Geoff Wilson (Birmingham, UK) and Tim Bowden (London, UK) wrote to me to explain that soft lenses were actually available in the UK before 1971 (please see their ‘Letters to the Editor’ in this issue). I am grateful to both of them for correcting the mistake.