Australian And Ireland Health Care System

Health care is one of the basic and central factors of consideration of any state. The 21st century is being affected directly or indirectly by a lot of deadly diseases such as cancer, heart related complications, kidney failure and HIV and AIDS pandemic. It is therefore, the responsibility of government and the United Nations to help in safeguarding the health of the corresponding nations. In this piece of work, the paper will focus on the Australian and Ireland health care system. A comparison of the two healthcare systems will be analyzed critically. Australia is located in Continental Australasia or Oceania while Ireland is in Continental Europe. These two countries fall under top ten in the best health care providers in the world (Hungerford et al, 2014). The paper will majorly dwell on the health policies, current issues, and problems faced in the delivery of services in the two nations. Moreover, comparisons and the contrast as per the health care country will also be explained in an explicit way in the paper.

The two countries have the guarding regulations in the running of their health care. In both countries, the government majorly controls health care. In Australia, it is supervised by Australian Department for Health and Ageing (DNH) (Australia, 2006).It was formed through the Acts of Parliament in order to aid in giving the government the way things run or suggestions on what ought to be done in order to improve health care system in the country. This body was formed and implemented in the year 1984. After its implementation, the health sector in the country radically improved in both the public and the private sector. On the other hand, the government also facilitates Medicare in Ireland. It is the role of the Health Service Providers (HSP) of this nation to foresee the functionalism of the health sector and inform the government accordingly. It was founded in the year 2005 through the Act of Parliament (Lakeman, 2008) The formation was as a result of problems which had outlawed the government and thus the need for a special body was of great magnificent. In both the countries, Red Cross Society helps in delivery of blood in case an emergency arises (BRAITHWAITE,  HYDE & POPE, 2010).

The main reasons behind the two states taking over the responsibility of providing and running of the health care fraternity was to prevent its citizens from over-exploitation from the private health care providers. Apart from that, the government realized that the need for provision of quality health care depends solely on their capability. Moreover, the challenges brought about by the rising cases of chronic diseases such as cancer was looming and thus the need to act swiftly was required. Australia and Ireland also wanted to be like other nations whom the role of running health care fraternity was the responsibility of the government.

In both the nations, legal and ethical health care of the ageing population is involuntary. The old people have the right to whether accept to be taken to nursing home to spend the rest days of their lives or to remain at home. One realizes that, in both countries, the old people do not welcome the idea of being raised in nursing home. Most would like to spend their dying age at home since they feel comfortable because it is the place they have always been. According to statistics carried out, most feel that they are isolated by their children and the society when taken to nursing homes. Besides, women were found as the ones who preferred to be in nursing home as compared to their counterparts the male. It is estimated that 5% of the population in ageing stage live in nursing homes prior to their death.

The retention and use of human biological contents in both countries is considered. This biological sample such has kidneys of the diseased or heart or even the entire body is allowed by their respective countries to be used as control experiments for testing of drugs among other medical tests. Despite of it being constituted, it is faced with a lot of ethical challenges. It is countenanced by the wider competing public interest as a result of its potential value. Human body parts are very expensive and rarely found and thus the relatives and the public take this as an opportunity to get back into the government financially. Additionally, some people are very religious to an extent that they believe in respect for the death. This makes them not to allow any body part of their deceased to be used in biological process. This has raised a lot of alarm and slowed down the medical research.

Both countries have a constituted mental health law. According to this regulation, the persons of unsound mind are subject to detention in safe places in order to avoid causing of problems in the society in the event where the disease takes control of their capability. It is recommended that they are taken good care by the medical expertise during such times. It is also required that the predicament should be quite serious before one is taken to the hospital for the unsound. This is because in the case whereby one is subjected to that treatment and the problem is not that complicated the probability of committing suicide or being depressed is inevitable. It was also documented that before one is confined, the history of persistence in the disorder is provided. People who show that the unsound person had continuously shown the signs and symptoms are put into consideration since the evidence shows that one will be completely sick. In addition to that, the insane person is also given the voice to talk on whether to be detained or not. It should be a voluntary decision especially for persons of maturity age and those who used to live a normal life in the past. Both nations are strict on how these groups of people are handled by the medical personnel (Mckenna, Keeney & Hasson, 2008).

Patients’ autonomy policy is also a regulation governing the medical fraternity in both states. The patients have the ability to state that they want to be treated by whom, and the mode of treatment they should receive. They also have the freedom of engaging with the health care provider in relation to their health problem and on a wider range of issues. The patient also chooses which medication to be given and no medical personnel can force or compel a patient to take medications in which one does not want. The ill person can also dictate on the place one want to be treated from. This can be at home, school or place of work and the doctor has to follow without complaining and failing to do so; medical provider is subject to imprisonment. This is because it is seen as breaking the law (GALLEGO, CASEY, NORMAN & GOODALL, 2010) Permissibility of death is also discussed at length in the health constitution of these countries. A person who does not show any sign of recovering and is suffering too much can be suppressed to die by the medics. This is only done in the event where the relatives agreed upon it and show it in writing and signing. This clause has received a lot of debate from humanitarian agents since life is very fundamental. According to Jones (2007), one should be allowed to die in peace instead of injecting drugs to discontinue life.

Reproductive health and maternal health care also caries lot of weight in the health policy of the two nations. Mothers and girls have the privilege to deliver in hospitals of their choice. The parties involved should be specialized in order to avoid a complication, which comes with delivering. Both countries provide these services free of charge to all in any of its public hospitals. However, in the private sector, they subsidize this service in order to reach all at a cheaper and comfortable way. Another big concern is on the abortion-related matters (Milgrom, Heaton & Timothy Newton, 2013). The doctors have the mandate to perform abortion to the client given the state of the mother and the fetus is in danger. This faces serious ethical and legal concerns from humanitarian organizations. This is because most people believe that doctors have reached an extent of performing such for client of unwanted pregnancies brought about by unscrupulous behavior.

Their respective governments are mandated with the task of financing the medical fraternity of Australia and Ireland. In Australia for instance, it is estimated that 1.5% of income levied from both Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and National Domestic Product (NDP) of the country is used in financing the health sector (Mckenna, Keeney & Hasson, 2009). The government of this country also has separate pharmaceuticals, which are state owned. This assists its citizens in purchasing of drugs at a cheaper price. However, in the point of excess the patient pays own medications unless one is privileged to have medical insurance. Similarly, the government of Ireland also provides health care free to its citizens. It is estimated that health care is financed through taxation of 2% of wages received by the working population. This money is used to improve health facilities and for purchasing of drugs used in treating patients in the hospitals. Furthermore, a patient pays for one’s medication on point of excesses unless one has medical insurance. Children and dependent spouses receive medication free of charge in all hospitals. Australian and Irelands are provided medical care universally by their respective governments without discrimination on social class and so on (Embrett, Randall, Longo, Nguyen & Mulvale, 2016)

Cost of technology is one of the major current issues affecting the health fraternity in both countries. The innovation of machines such has x-rays, chemotherapy equipment, and kidney dialysis machines have caused more than enough problems in the medical fraternity. These machines are subject to breakage, the manner of using is also very complicated since most doctors, and nurses’ capacity of using is still below the estimated quality. This has made these nations to spend too much in changing and training of medics on how to use the so equipment. Another current issue affecting this nation’s healthcare is equity for health provision countrywide. Despite of these being implemented countrywide, it is noted that only those people of high class such has politicians have the privilege to access quality health care. According to research carried out in one of the hospitals in Ireland, it was realized that there is a special ward, which is used in treating of dignitaries and those people who are wealth. Moreover, the way they are handled is special as compared to ordinary citizens. These menaces need an immediate address otherwise; the entire health sector will soon diminish (Kowalchuk, 2011). The pandemic brought about by chronic diseases is also seriously eating on the government. This has majorly being as a result of change in demography. The working population is bound to contract chronic disease and thus the spending on medical care on the government and the dependent population escalates. This leads to much spending on unprofitable ventures and in return the concentration on nation building matters are left in the hand of international donors such world bank (RIPPON, 2000).

The degree on persistence on quality and safety concerns in the health sector is looming in both countries. This is as a result of serious reparations a nation is bound to face in case one fails to provide quality health care as required by World Health Organization (WHO) (Metcalf et al, 2016). This has caused immense struggle among them in order to meet these standards. This in the long run paralyses other important sectors of the economy and pulls back the economy of a nation. Besides, the cost of providing health increases day by day (MOHRMAN & SHANI, 2010). This is attributed to continuous change in climatic conditions making most people to be vulnerable to diseases. This causes a massive expenditure by the government and their citizens. The problem emanating from uncertainties on how to balance between public and private health care fraternities is strongly hitting on the government. Most private investors more so the doctors have realized that health fraternity is very profitable. This has caused majority of them to compete with the government in this field. Some have even left their jobs in public sector to run their own business (MITCHELL, 2009). This has caused a big gap which is needed to be filled as soon as  possible otherwise the tyranny of health care will fail the sooner. Governments from the two countries experiences big problems while trying to bring about balance in these two sectors providing health (VAN, CLARKE, SAVAGE E & HALL, 2008).

According to Varley (2016), primary health is defined as health provided at the grass root level. It is provided by different groups both qualified or unqualified health providers. The similarity between the two nations is that both of them have this method of running health care facility in place. It is majorly provided at home or a region where a large population is concentrated. The parties involved are the government, private and non-governmental organizations. Their main agenda is to deal with factors such has drug abuse, asthma, and cancer and sex educations. This is because a person needs holistic health, social welfare, and educational needs (VAN, CLARKE, SAVAGE & HALL, 2008) The difference in primary care between Australia and Ireland in that, Ireland is specific on the geographical location a number to be administered by a certain group of health personnel. It is estimated that they should deal with a population ranging 7000 to 10,000. On the other hand, Australian bases on the communities or social sites without any specific number of persons being targeted.

In both the countries, health care is provided equally to all citizens free of charge. Every citizen is subjected to be treated in any public hospital where one specifies without a big deal. In this universal health, the government finances through taxes from the wages and incomes of the working population (Liamputtong, 2011). The patient pays the excess amount required in medical care or the insurance if at all one has subscribed to any. This distinctive feature between these two countries as far as universal health care is concerned is that, in Australia, the government owns pharmaceuticals outlet, which are used by the common citizens to buy drugs (McMurray & Clendon, 2014). This was intended to prevent overexploitation since majority of private organizations sell at a high price, which is not affordable to the common citizen. On the other hand, the Ireland government does not have such projects and thus their citizens solely depends the private sectors.

The living standards of majority of citizens of these nations have been constantly doing well and have improved tremendously. This is because when one is healthy, everything sounds good and even morale of working or doing business is negotiable. However, according to international reports health care in Australia is far much better than that of Ireland (Guzys & Petrie, 2013). This is because the dedication extends of Australian medics is of high magnitude as compared to Ireland.

Health care is paramount to all citizens. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that their citizens have quality health care in order to counter on the challenges brought by disease pandemic. Moreover, the nations should work together in helping structure health care across the eight world continents in order to reduce human suffering caused by diseases.

Australia. (2006). Aged care in Australia. Canberra, A.C.T.: Dept. of Health and Ageing.

Biswas, R., Sturmberg, J., Martin, C. M., Ganesh, A. U. J., Umakanth, S. U. J., & Lee, E. W. H. (January 01, 2011). Persistent Clinical Encounters in User Driven E-Health Care.

Braithwaite, J., Hyde, P., & POPE, C. (2010). Culture and climate in health care organizations. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. https://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=578807.

Embrett, M. G., Randall, G. E., Longo, C. J., Nguyen, T., & Mulvale, G. (2016). Effectiveness of Health System Services and Programs for Youth to Adult Transitions in Mental Health Care: A Systematic Review of Academic Literature. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research.43, 259-269.

Gallego G, Casey R, NORMAN R, & GOODALL S. (2011). Introduction and uptake of new medical technologies in the Australian health care system: a qualitative study.Health           Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 102, 2-3.

Guzys, D., & Petrie, E. (2013). An Introduction to Community and Primary Health Care in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hungerford, C., Hodgson, D., Clancy, R., Monisse-Redman, M., Bostwick, R., & Jones, T. (2014). Mental health care: An introduction for health professionals in Australia.

Jones, D. A., & Roy, C. (2007). Nursing knowledge development and clinical practice. New York: Springer Pub. Co.

Kowalchuk, L. (2011). Multisectoral Movement Alliances and Media Access: Salvadoran Newspaper Coverage of the Health Care Struggle. Latin American Politics and Society. 52, 107-135.

Lakeman, R. (2008). Family and carer participation in mental health care: perspectives of consumers and carers in hospital and home care settings. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 15, 203-211.

Liamputtong, P. (November 03, 2011). Folk healing and health care practices in Britain and Ireland: Stethoscopes, wands and crystals. Sociology of Health & Illness, 33, 7, 1114-1115.

McMurray, A., & Clendon, J. (2014). Community health and wellness: Primary health care in practice.

Mckenna, H., Keeney, S., & Hasson, F. (2009). Health care managers’ perspectives on new nursing and midwifery roles: perceived impact on patient care and cost effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Management. 17, 627-635.

Milgrom, ,. P., Heaton, L. J., & Timothy Newton, J. (2013). Different Treatment Approaches in Different Cultures and Health-Care Systems. 183-199.

Mitchell, P. (2009). Mental health care roles of non-medical primary health and social care services. Health & Social Care in the Community. 17, 71-82.

Metcalf, D., Parsons, D., & Bowler, P. (March 02, 2016). A next-generation antimicrobial wound dressing: a real-life clinical evaluation in the UK and Ireland. Journal of Wound Care, 25, 3, 132-138.

Mohrman, S. A., & Shani, A. B. (2012). Organizing for sustainable health care. Bingley, U.K., Emerald. https://site.ebrary.com/id/10589740.

Rippon, T. J. (2000). Aggression and violence in health care professions. Journal of Advanced Nursing.    31, 452-460.

SöDerbäCk, M., Coyne, I., & Harder, M. (2011). The importance of including both a        child perspective and the child’s perspective within health care settings to provide truly          child-centred care. Journal of Child Health Care. 15, 99-106.

Van Doorslaer E, Clarke P, Savage E, & Hall J. (2008). Horizontal inequities in      Australia’s mixed public/private health care system. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 86, 97-108.

Varley, E. (June 01, 2016). Abandonments, Solidarities and Logics of Care: Hospitals as Sites of Sectarian Conflict in Gilgit-Baltistan. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry : an International Journal of Cross-Cultural Healthresearch, 40, 2, 159-180.