I HAVE no wish to perpetuate my differences with Dr J Duncan (March
7). He has, however, accused me of making a political statement aimed at
discrediting the Government.
I was careful to avoid making any such statements. If he will read my
article again he will note that my statements were based on scientific
fact and on more than one occasion I indicated the need for all parties
to reconsider their policies in the light of research evidence linking
poverty with ill health.
I have no sense that politicians in general have a good grasp of the
issues involved in this debate. There is no reason why they should. Up
until now it has been seen by the public health community as a subject
for academic study rather than political pragmatism.
I believe it is time to stop describing the relationship between
poverty and ill health and start formulating plans to tackle it.
There is every reason for the present Government to see this issue as
an opportunity rather than a threat. Improving opportunities for
education, increasing self-reliance, and allowing communities to take
control of their own development are consistent with the principle of
subsidiarity to which the Government has subscribed as part of its
membership of the European Union.
There is good reason to believe that genuine investment in such
principles would bring health benefit. Equally there is evidence to
suggest that redistribution of wealth to the poor will also have health
benefits.
It is not for me to advocate either policy. I must, however, ensure
that the issue is on the political agenda. The electorate must then
decide if the response of political parties has been adequate.
Natural justice suggests we should be concerned for those who, by
force of circumstances, are in difficulty and unable to help themselves.
We must also be determined in ensuring that all members of our community
have the opportunity to live fulfilling, productive lives. I think,
however, they remain important to the people of Glasgow.
H Burns,
Director of Public Health,
Greater Glasgow Health Board,
112 Ingram Street,
Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article