Examine how this contribution could support or be expanded for future community and public health benefits

 

This is a continuation of your final project, which you started in Week 3. This last piece involves an analysis of how your individual’s contribution from the past continues to contribute to today’s public health system and how it might guide future work within the industry. As you recall, in week 3, you researched an individual and their contribution to community and public health. To begin, you need to review the feedback given to you from Week 3. Then, make the necessary revisions to Part I of this project. Then, you will be adding the second half to your project.

Follow this outline to help formulate your paper or presentation:

ACTION: Make sure you review all the feedback from your Week 3 (Part I) assignment and apply any necessary revisions. Your week 3 assignment should have included each of the following elements:

• GRADED ELEMENT : Describe your selected person’s experience
• GRADED ELEMENT : Analyze the climate of the time period in terms of political, socioeconomic, environmental and technological context in which this person worked.
• GRADED ELEMENT : Examine the personal beliefs of your person that prompted this work.
• GRADED ELEMENT : Examine how this individual overcame any adversities to succeed in his/her task.
• GRADED ELEMENT : Describe the final outcome of this individual’s contribution to community and/or public health.
• GRADED ELEMENT : Explain what his/her contribution did for overall community and/or public health at the time.
• GRADED ELEMENT : Explain why this contribution was so important at that particular point in history.

ACTION: Think about the individual’s contribution to community/public health

• GRADED ELEMENT : Analyze the impact of your individual’s contribution on today’s public health system.
  • HELP: You are asking “what happened as a result of this contribution at the national and community level?” For example, some elements you could address include:
    • did it change attitudes
    • did it change protocols and policies
    • did behavior change result
    • did it add/eliminate laws
• GRADED ELEMENT : Analyze how this contribution is still relevant today
  • HELP: Was this contribution only applicable at the time it occurred, or is it still applied today? Why or why not? Explain your response
• GRADED ELEMENT : Examine how this contribution could support or be expanded for future community and public health benefits
  • HELP: Using solid critical thinking, look at the historical value of the contribution and examine how it could be used for the future (is it applicable to another health issue, can it lead to more policy change, could it promote advocacy work or public health laws, etc.)

You have a choice of which format you wish to present your findings:

Format 1: Written Paper

• Must be at least 6 pages in length (not including title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
• Must include a separate title page with the following:
  • Title of paper
  • Students name
  • Course name and number
  • Instructor’s name
  • Date submitted
• Must use at least eight scholarly sources (one of those may be the course text).
• Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
• Must include a separate reference page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Running Head: SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO PUBLIC HEALTH 1

7

SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO PUBLIC HEALTH

Significant Contributions to Public Health

Brandy Vaughn

HCA415: Community & Public Health

Instructor: Nicole Vick

8 August 2016

Lula M. Terry and James Edward were the parents of Luther L. Terry. He was conceived on the 15th of September in 1911. His hometown was Red Level, Alabama where he grew up with his parents and attended local schools. When he reached 20 years of age, he had achieved his Bachelors of Science in the Birmingham Southern University. He was a young man full of dreams and ambition and after 4 years, he obtained his Degree in Medicine at the Tulane University four years later. Being a passionate and enthusiastic man, he felt the need to practice medicine in Cleveland as a means of giving back to the society (Hofer, n.d).

At his peak of his career, he decided to engage himself in the education sector where he was moved to the Texas University in Austin and become the assistant professor of public health and preventive medicine. He had also been a professor at the University of Washington where he used his impeccable teaching skills to educate students in the medical field (Hofer, n.d). Many opportunities came his way and he did not let any of them pass him. He later became a staff of Public Health Service Hospital of the U.S after he was genuinely offered the position.

Terry contributed to carrying out research related to solving cardiovascular health associated issues that were affecting many Americans. He postulated that smoking was responsible for causing chronic bronchitis, cancer of the lungs, cardiovascular diseases and emphysema among individuals. Terry’s warning was labeled in all tobacco products since then as a sign of creating awareness to smokers. For years, the physician advocated for an anti- smoking campaign in order to minimize deaths related to smoking. He continued to participate in many organizations that paved the way for establishing a continuous anti-smoking campaign. On April 29th, 1985, Luther L. Terry encountered his demise (Hofer, n.d).

The anti-smoking campaign was a Hollywood ending but this movement was curbed with few barriers and glitches. As much as President Kennedy participated in enforcing the anti-smoking policy, there were so many political leaders that did not take part in the action. Some of these leaders were linked to the beneficiaries of the tobacco use and participating in the campaign would have affected their profits (Bondurant & Wedge, 2009). If more politicians had participated in the anti-smoking campaign, many Americans would have listened to the grievances and reasons brought forward by them hence in the process the number of smokers in American would have decreased.

In terms of social economic, smokers’ behaviors also posed a challenge to Terry’s anti-smoking campaign in such a manner that it exacerbated the current situation being handled. Smokers in America during that period were highly addicted to smoking and on the other hand, the augmentation of tobacco use boosted the American economy especially due to the tax obtained from tobacco sales. This was such a big challenge since invigorating the American economy was a much more of a significant priority to mitigate tobacco use in America (‘‘Surgeon General Report’’, 2009).

Bondurant and Wedge (2009), posit that environmental and technological aspects were pivotal factors that thwarted Terry Luther’s effort in eradicating the use of tobacco in America and the world at large. The community did not condemn smokers but on the contrary assimilated the behavior. The technology was not advanced as today and in the process lack of advanced technology impeded Americans from obtaining reliable information concerning smoking tobacco products. The Americans had the notion that smoking was not bad for their health and only a few managed to take heed of the warnings presented by Terry. He believed that everyone had the right to live a healthy long life.

The anti-smoking campaign smoked controversies all over the U.S with many grievances presented against the campaign. Terry was more than determined to overcome the barriers that were placed to thwart his campaign and awareness program (Hofer, n.d). With regards to technological aspect, he cooperated with various organizations to cripple the media from successfully advertising the use of tobacco products on televisions and newspapers. Banning such advertisements paved the way for minimizing the number of smokers especially because individuals picked up the smoking habit from movies and such advertisements.

Since many Americans were unaware of the health risks associated with smoking tobacco products, Terry collaborated with President Kennedy in his anti-smoking campaign where his demand for labeling warnings about smoking on all cigarette packets was approved (Hofer, n.d). He did this with the intention of creating awareness to smokers such that every time these people opened a packet of cigarettes they would see the warnings and perhaps consider quitting smoking. This action was such a success that all cigarette packets are labeled with warning up to today.

Terry elaborated the extent of health associated risk that other smokers could bring to non-smokers especially if they share the same environment (Hofer, n.d). This perception led to policies being enacted to protect the health of non-smokers which stated that all smokers are restricted from smoking in public places such as hospitals, offices, learning institutions etc. The smokers were only allowed to smoke in designated areas. As a result of his action, it is evident that Terry decreased the risk of non-smokers from developing diseases that are linked to smoking. The purpose this action had on the community/nation is that everyone has the right to live a long healthy life considering individuals rights.

It was not easy for Terry Luther to achieve what he wanted in terms of lowering death rates linked to tobacco smoking as well as creating awareness to Americans about the health risks present with the habits of smoking. He believed that all individuals had the right to live a healthy life and because of this, he felt he needed to interfere in order to save humanity from early deaths resulting from smoking. His actions have had imperative contributions to both the society and the U.S as a nation during that period (Verkuil, 1998).

By advocating for the requirement of all cigarette packages to be labeled with clear warnings with regards to tobacco smoking, this had a significant impact on the society/nation during the 1960s. The society benefited in the sense that some people quit smoking and the public became aware of the health risks that one encounters as a smoker, hence minimizing early deaths that were common during that era. Restricting smoking in public places also favored the society especially non-smokers (Houston, 1993). The ban on tobacco advertisements on televisions and newspapers was also a good move that was significant to the society because young children were not easily exposed to the familiarity of tobacco as well as its use. This means that most of the smokers during that period were mainly the adults, hence young children were safe from this problem.

In conclusion, Terry L. Luther was an outstanding leader in the public health sector and therefore is worthy of our exceptional praise for his true contributions geared towards diminishing the number of tobacco smokers in the world at large, and promoting awareness to smokers in relation to the negative effects of smoking. Without his contribution, many people would have lost their lives in their early years due to lack of awareness. Truly, he is a hero!

References

Bondurant, S., & Wedge, R. (2009). Combating Tobacco Use in Military and Veteran Populations. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press

History of the Surgeon General’s Reports on Smoking and Health. (2009). Retrieved August 05, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/history/

Hofer, S.(n.d.). Luther L. Terry. Retrieved August 05, 2016, from http://pabook2.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Terry__Luther_Leonidas.html

Houston, T. P. (1993). Tobacco use: An American crisis, final report of the conference, January 9-12, 1993, Washington, DC. Chicago: American Medical Association.

Verkuil, P. (1998). “A Leadership Case Study of Tobacco and its Regulation” Retrieved August 05, 2016, from http://www.upenn.edu/pnc/ptverkuil.html