Women's Health. Health Care Disparity Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Women's Health. Health Care Disparity - Essay Example There are factors that cause barriers for the people to get proper health care that they need. These factors are causing significant differences or gaps in the quality of health care received by the people. This means that there exists a disparity when it comes to health care. Health care disparity led to the unequal provision or access to health care services. The areas where health care disparities are attributed are the gender, race/ethnicity and the socioeconomic status determined by the income and level of education attained. Gender-based health care disparity caused the significant differences that exist in the quality of health care received by women and men. And because women’s bodies are different from men’s, they may also have different health care needs. But among women, there are also disparities in the quality of health care that they received. Some women may face barriers to health care. Their race/ethnicity, age and their socioeconomic status affect women ’s access to health care. Women’s health care use and health outcomes rely on the adequacy of access that they have to the health care services. Women’s access to health care also depends on their health insurance (AHQR, 2005).

Sociology of human rights - Explore and assess the challenges of Essay

Sociology of human rights - Explore and assess the challenges of cultural relativism and cultural imperialism in the context of - Essay Example However, such a deterministic view of universality is destined to be unsuccessful as it was in the case of development theory (Donnelly, 2007). According to Barr (2002), consequently, cultural relativists are often similarly deterministic, arguing the permanence and fixity of traditional culture. Specifically, in the aftermath of the Second World War, when human rights became a component of international affairs and political scheme as a result of the Holocaust, the universal human rights theory became ever more detached from its previous socioeconomic and cultural ties (Doebbler, 2004). Theorists such as John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, and Maurice Cranston argue that political and civil rights are natural, and are privileges for everyone (Bruun & Jacobsen, 2000). However, these rights have been interpreted as theoretical legal rights, thus assigning a value to equality without thought on the required condition for the accessibility of such rights, either institutionally or concerning th e socioeconomic prerequisites (Brannigan, 2000) fundamental to their attainment. Moreover, social and economic privileges were discounted at some point in the Cold War period by political leaders and Western intellectuals as only a great deal of Soviet expression to fight the West’s stress on political and civil rights and individual liberties (Brannigan, 2000). Community, the heart of the argument of cultural relativists, was absent in the framework of universal human rights. The system of communism is frequently viewed as repressive and a defiance of genuine human nature (Hashimoto, 2004). In other words, it can be claimed that the advocates of universality have deconstructed political and civil rights, which are allowed to churn in their own dimension, as scholars discuss the details of their arguments (Hashimoto, 2004), which are frequently enveloped in moral principles. The objective of this essay is to review and discuss the debate on the universality of human rights. T he discussion will be composed of a comprehensive analysis of the arguments and danger of cultural relativism and cultural imperialism, specifically in the context of the Asian values debate. The Debate between Universalists and Relativists Basically, cultural relativists claim that basic values or rights are specific to a culture and that the collective, and not the individual, is the core social component (Pollis & Schwab, 2000). An individual’s identity is rigid, reliant on group membership, and the role and status of an individual in this community (Bruun & Jacobsen, 2000). A contemporary Western creation, the rhetoric of rights, is absent in most instances. Interpersonal ties are ruled by a mutuality of disproportionate duties and privileges, which are varied, similar to their core behavioral norms and values (Brannigan, 2000). Nevertheless, what is widespread is that concepts like legal equality, free will, or individualism are foreign, usually hollow notions. The indiv idual is included within the collective whose interests and security has dominance, though the specifics of what comprises the collective good differ (Bell, Nathan & Peleg, 2001). As stated by Sloane (2001), basic to the collective structure is a network of alternative cultural and/or philosophic ideals that furnish legality and authenticity to the social order. Developing Clifford Geertz’