Mh Mehrolhasani, V Yazdi Feyzabadi , N Oroomiei, R Seyfaddini , S Mirzaei,
Volume 13, Issue 0 (Vol.13, (Special Issue) 2018)
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Different governance approaches have various definitions and systems about health. The purpose of this study was to compare the appropriateness of the health system performance with the ideology of the selected countries.
Methods: In this comparative study, liberal countries (America, Canada, France), social countries (Russia, China, Cuba) and mixed countries (Sweden, Norway, England) were selected purposefully. Data were obtained from World Bank and WHO’s published documents and discourse literature studies. Causal layered analysis framework was used for data analysis.
Results: Comparison of health indicators showed that mixed countries were in a better position than the other two groups. The health system’s stewardship of the liberal, mixed, and social countries were decentralized, semi-centralized, and centralized, respectively. Discourses of the liberal states were based on the capitalist economy, with lack of reliance on natural resources. Socialist countries, a socialist economy system emphasizes the use of natural resources. In these countries governmental involvement is maximum. Mixed countries have a constitutional monarchy government and benefit from both of these approaches to create welfare based on the ideology of liberalism and the welfare state approach.
Conclusion: Mixed countries with appropriate economic- social conditions, semi-centralized structure of service delivery, suitable financing system, and regional and local management of services (highlighting the role of municipalities), have better health status than other countries. The ideology of the countries forms the social, economic, and political structures as well health. Iran should consider various layers of metaphor, discourse, casual structures, and litany for redesigning the health system.
V Yazdi Feyzabadi, R Seyfaddini, M Ghandi, Mh Mehrolhasani,
Volume 13, Issue 0 (Vol.13, (Special Issue) 2018)
Abstract
Health and human rights are two inseparable and interrelated elements, whose provision and assurance enhance welfare in any society. Definition of welfare, human rights, and health as indicators of welfare development is controversial which is done in accordance with different approaches and discourses. Although the WHO definition is currently the only definition of health agreed upon by the member states of the Organization, it has been subject to criticism by the international society. In general, the most important criticisms include ambiguity, ideality, limitlessness, lack of comprehensiveness, lack of weighting to aspects of health, being non-operational, reductionism, and lack of a precise definition of the normal condition and disease. These criticisms would expose health systems to some challenges such as increased expectations of people, rapidly growing health expenditure, inconsistent expansion of technology-based systems, increased vulnerability to corruption, and equity and efficiency issues. Identifying and examining these criticisms can lead to a more informed decision to redefine health according to the favorable and context-sensitive discourse of the health doctrine in each country. This short review briefly describes the context and the most important criticisms of the WHO definition of health. Eventually, some policy suggestions are presented for redefining health according to Islamic-Iranian discourse.
