The Glasgow Effect

The Glasgow effect is a term used to describe the poor health status of Glasgow over and above that explained by socio-economic factors. By comparing Glasgow with its two most similar and comparable UK cities, Liverpool and Manchester, researchers aimed to find evidence of a so-called ‘Glasgow Effect’. While the overall levels of deprivation in Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester were almost exactly the same, the all-cause mortality in Glasgow was more than 30% higher whereas the childhood mortality was significantly lower in Glasgow. In Glasgow, between 2003 and 2007 there were 4500 ‘excess deaths’, around half of which were related to alcohol and drugs. Even though researchers have found a number of possible hypotheses to what is causing this so-called ‘Glasgow Effect’, none have officially been proven.

Are Scottish People Healthy?

In terms of statistics, Scotland does have poor health standards and is known as ‘the sick man of Europe’. High levels of alcohol and binge drinking effect many people in Scotland’s health and costs the NHS billions every year. However, according to the Scottish Health Survey 2013 (SHeS) weekly alcohol consumption has decreased significantly and hazardous drinking has decreased from 33% in 2003 to 22% in 2013 for men and from 23% to 16% for women. In poor areas, children are introduced to smoking, drugs and alcohol at a much younger age than in most places. This has a huge impact on their health, whether they are participating in it or not, they are still exposed to it. The SHeS states that children’s exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in the home was 11% however a target has been set to reduce this to 6% by 2020.

Unhealthy food is a major part of Scottish culture and most children are exposed to this at a very young age. 40% of children eat chips two or more times a week and 34% eat cakes at least twice a week. Only 13% met the 5-aday recommendation in 2013 and this figure has not changed significantly over the past 10 years. However, 75% of children were active for the recommended level of 60 minutes every day (including school-based activities) which has increased from 71% from 2008.

According to the Equality Act 2010, “a person has a disability if s/he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on that person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.” However, the definition of additional support needs is not the same as the definition of disability as most think. Many people are covered by both definitions however there are some people who are covered by one or the other. During this lecture, what shocked me was how people’s attitudes towards disabilities have changed. It shocked me that disabled people were looked after in asylums etc.

Throughout this lecture, I began to understand the different between inclusion and equality. I had always thought they were one in the same however there is actually a big difference between the two concepts, even though they are interconnected. Inclusion is an antidote to exclusion and applies to those who have been discriminated against due to uncontrollable factors. By not promoting inclusion, people become oppressed and disadvantafed. Equality on the other hand, is about giving everyone equal access to opportunities and ensuring there is the same outcome for everyone. There are a number of different layers to equality. In order to understand why inequality and discrimination occur, analysing how they operate at the personal, cultural and structural level is important. At the personal level, it is all about the individual and their thoughts and feelings which are shaped by our experiences. At the cultural level, it relates to what is seen as right and what is seen as normal. Finally, at the structural level, it relates to how oppression and discrimination has been ‘sewn in’ to society.

There have been policies put into place to ensure that inclusion and equality become the norm. The Equality Act 2010 came into force to protect individuals and provide everyone with equal opportunities as well as promoting a more fair and equal society.

In this lecture, I came to realise how closely linked Religion and Culture are. I always knew that in some aspects religion influenced culture and vice versa however I did not realise the full extent of this until after this lecture. Religion and culture raise a number of social issues, both bad and good.  For example, religion can provide individuals tackling a social problem with a community who can help them, However, in contrast, religion is susceptible to internal extremist forces which can promote violence and conflict.

It was interesting to see the difference in opinion that some of the scholars had on religion as culture and where they overlapped. The difference between Karl Marx’s opinion and Max Weber’s opinion was very interesting as they were on total opposite sides of the scale.  Karl Marx claimed that religion is not necessary because God is ‘man-made’ whereas Max Weber praised religion and said it was an agent of social change. Bruce Lincoln was very in the middle of both of these scholars as he believed one must not believe everything religion claims as first hand evidence yet he also stated that societies contrast religion as part of the process of social formation.

For me, the most interesting part of this session was definitely the input on ‘Unchurched’ spirituality. When thinking of religion, I had always went straight for the traditional approach of a religious group who were part of a church and attended a church / prayed often. It interested me to see that there was a continuing decline in ‘organised’ religion as other forms gained ground.