Social media channels are designed to be engaging, but they are often used by public health organizations and practitioners as a means to disseminate mass information, rather than to engage audiences in meaningful interaction. Harnessing social media to best achieve public health outcomes is a topic of much discussion and study in the public health community.
Analyze public health communication via social media in your community. Follow a public health organization, local or national, on a social media channel (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, or other) for at least 3 weeks. In a paper of 1,000-1,250 words, address the following:
Describe the organization you followed and the social media channel you selected. What kind of information is shared on social media by the organization?
To what degree does the organization engage with users/followers (e.g., responding to questions, engaging in conversation, hosting “chats” with experts, soliciting information)?
What improvements or suggestions would you make to this organization regarding its social media and community engagement? Why?
Sample Solution
their dying daysâ (quoted in Steinbock 2005, 235). The logical outcome of these arguments is that, if PAS can be justified on the grounds of suffering or autonomy, why should it be restricted to competent individuals or the terminally ill? Indeed the judge in Compassion in dying v State of Washington (1995) stated that âif at the heart of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment is this uncurtailable ability to believe and act on oneâs deepest beliefs about life, the right to suicide and the right to assistance in suicide are the prerogative of at least every sane adult. The attempt to restrict such rights to the terminally ill is illusoryâ (Steinbock 2005, 236). As noted above, religious disapproval of suicide has become less relevant an as arbiter of ethics and policy. In democratic societies that might best be described as secular with a Christian heritage, the views of religious groups should not restrict the liberty of individuals in society (Steinbock 2005, 236). Others argue that the role of the physician is to heal and help and not to harm, though supporters of PAS would say that death is not always harmful and assisted suicide is a help. Indeed, in a country where PAS is not legal people who wish to die without criminalizing those who assist in their suicide may be driven abroad, as in the case of Reginald Crew who was dying of motor neurone disease and travelled to Switzerland for AS, dying in January 2002 (English et al. 2003, 119). This may cause more harm through the stresses of dislocation and worry than allowing the PAS to take place. The two most serious concerns are that PAS would be abused and would lead to negative changes in society. This could happen in many ways through vulnerable groups such as the poor, the elderly etc, being pressured into choosing PAS (Steinbock 2005, 237). The BMA emphasises a concern for the message that would be given to society about the value of certain groups of people (BMA 1998). This is part of a wider concern also expressed in a Canadian Senate enquiry of 1995 (BMA 1998) which points to a policy of suicide prevention amongst some vulnerable groups that would be rendered anomalous by seeking to ease suicide amongst the disabled. However, the presentation is slightly disingenuous, since there is a difference in the reason for potential suicide that must be investigated. For example, seeking to prevent suicide amongst the youth may involve programmes of social inclusion or increasing life prospects, and this style of solution is not applicable in the case of those who may seek PAS. In Oregon at least, it seems that fears about PAS have not materialised, and one doctor suspects that the relatively low use of PAS is indicative of it being too restrictive (Steinbock 2005, 238). Users of PAS, rather than being the poor and socially vulnerable as predicted, tended to be middle class and educated, with younger patients more likely to choose it than the elderly, and most were enrolled in hospice care. Issues about PAS and euthanasia need to be clarified and argued separately. In the context of this issue at least, the question of whether suicide should be allowed is the wrong one to ask. A starting point is to ask how competent individuals can be allowed to fulfil their wishes as to life and death issues without endangering other people, whether doctors or loved ones and whether all embracing legislation is feasible.>
their dying daysâ (quoted in Steinbock 2005, 235). The logical outcome of these arguments is that, if PAS can be justified on the grounds of suffering or autonomy, why should it be restricted to competent individuals or the terminally ill? Indeed the judge in Compassion in dying v State of Washington (1995) stated that âif at the heart of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment is this uncurtailable ability to believe and act on oneâs deepest beliefs about life, the right to suicide and the right to assistance in suicide are the prerogative of at least every sane adult. The attempt to restrict such rights to the terminally ill is illusoryâ (Steinbock 2005, 236). As noted above, religious disapproval of suicide has become less relevant an as arbiter of ethics and policy. In democratic societies that might best be described as secular with a Christian heritage, the views of religious groups should not restrict the liberty of individuals in society (Steinbock 2005, 236). Others argue that the role of the physician is to heal and help and not to harm, though supporters of PAS would say that death is not always harmful and assisted suicide is a help. Indeed, in a country where PAS is not legal people who wish to die without criminalizing those who assist in their suicide may be driven abroad, as in the case of Reginald Crew who was dying of motor neurone disease and travelled to Switzerland for AS, dying in January 2002 (English et al. 2003, 119). This may cause more harm through the stresses of dislocation and worry than allowing the PAS to take place. The two most serious concerns are that PAS would be abused and would lead to negative changes in society. This could happen in many ways through vulnerable groups such as the poor, the elderly etc, being pressured into choosing PAS (Steinbock 2005, 237). The BMA emphasises a concern for the message that would be given to society about the value of certain groups of people (BMA 1998). This is part of a wider concern also expressed in a Canadian Senate enquiry of 1995 (BMA 1998) which points to a policy of suicide prevention amongst some vulnerable groups that would be rendered anomalous by seeking to ease suicide amongst the disabled. However, the presentation is slightly disingenuous, since there is a difference in the reason for potential suicide that must be investigated. For example, seeking to prevent suicide amongst the youth may involve programmes of social inclusion or increasing life prospects, and this style of solution is not applicable in the case of those who may seek PAS. In Oregon at least, it seems that fears about PAS have not materialised, and one doctor suspects that the relatively low use of PAS is indicative of it being too restrictive (Steinbock 2005, 238). Users of PAS, rather than being the poor and socially vulnerable as predicted, tended to be middle class and educated, with younger patients more likely to choose it than the elderly, and most were enrolled in hospice care. Issues about PAS and euthanasia need to be clarified and argued separately. In the context of this issue at least, the question of whether suicide should be allowed is the wrong one to ask. A starting point is to ask how competent individuals can be allowed to fulfil their wishes as to life and death issues without endangering other people, whether doctors or loved ones and whether all embracing legislation is feasible.>
