The Public Health Act Of 1848

The Tolpuddle Martyrs are a significant case in showing the increased involvement of the public in speaking against the justice system. In 1834, members of the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers were transported under an outdated law that prohibited the taking of oaths, when they protested for a better wage. Perhaps what brought the most sympathy for the case was the fact that their protest was peaceful, despite the history of violent protest among workers with riots and groups such as the Luddites. The authorities were equally unsympathetic to this case as they were to the other, more violent movements. Even after public interest attracted an 800,000 signature petition, protesters were oppressed at a demonstration in Oldham. The public was aware of the struggles of the poor worker, but the government still dismissed it; refusing to recognise the desperate circumstance of workers and citing greed as the motive of the Martyrs. Clearly the case had little impact on government opinions, with the treatment of the Chartists and the Rebecca Rioters later in the same decade being the same. But an important contribution of the Tolpuddle Martyrs case was the impact it had on public opinion, and the increased popularity of worker’s unions. This case might suggest that reform is unrelated to the attitudes of society at

The Public Health Act of 1975 was much more effective than the one made in 1848. Unlike the previous Health Act, this one actually made it compulsory for towns to make some changes to conditions, instead of just making suggestions. Sewers and drains were improved, fresh water supplies were provided and Medical Officers and sanitary inspectors were appointed. The Act also saw that the standards of housing were improved, the pollution of rivers was stopped and factory working hours were shortened. All of these reforms were incredibly important as they led to a high standard of living in towns, and an overall healthier population.

The working class has served as an integral part of our capitalist society; as the building blocks, and producers of the goods that supply and support our country, the working class and working poor have faced many struggles to gain working rights. The histories of labor movements in the United States are often silenced from the mainstream culture; while we take our current union laws for granted, long forgotten are the bloody battles that took place to secure these rights. The ideological issues facing our modern day working class have shown to stem from the same socially constructed ideals that existed during past labor wars, such as the Colorado Coal Strike. The Coal Strike of 1913-1914 culminated in the Ludlow Massacre; this event

There are different opinions towards inequality, some people are accepting of it while others dislike the whole idea of inequality. Is it okay to let the wealthy have more control than the poor? Should their ideas matter more than the non-wealthy? And most importantly should the poor be okay with this, if not what must they do? In “Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie and “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx, both Carnegie and Marx expose their thoughts behind inequality and its traits. They both focus and touch upon the poor (proletarians) and the rich (bourgeoisie). They bring up the pros and cons about inequality, capitalism, and communism. Inequality was in Carnegie 's view. In his opinion progress required the processes of competition. Making capitalism an engine of progress. Carnegie believed that there is good to inequality while Marx begs to differ. Marx had his own view on capitalism, he believed that it would eventually result disastrous. Marx believed communism was the best solution to keep both the proletarians and bourgeoisie in an equal place. Both of these socialists have much to say about capitalism and communism and also for economic inequality. They both share different points of view, neither wrong or right. Their opinions are based towards their life experiences and this essay will be noting the differences between they share on inequality, the means of production, and capitalism.

They also provided clean drinking water and a medical officer for each town. This was the first Public Health Act. (http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/towns/tyne-and-wear-case-study/about-the-group/public-administration/the-1848-public-health-act/, Parliament.co.uk, The 1848 Public Health Act

John Simon was professionally a physician, but he became famous for him dramatic reforms of the public health system. He was the first medical officer in the UK’s central government, and he influenced public health by improving public vaccination systems. He also was the founder of the water supply cleaner and made sewers more effective.

In order to consider the problem of income inequality from Mill’s perspective, it is of imperative importance to first grasp an understanding of what factors contributed to the development of his key ideas. Known as one of the most influential figures in classical economics, Mill is more commonly described as a philosopher and socialist than an economist due to his obstinate strive for progressive social reform throughout his

Public health may have remained a pool of disease was it not for the reforms made in the middle ages Though the town authorities tried their best, London was probably the most unsanitary town in England. Slowly, however, rules were made and enforced. In 1301 four women butchers were fined for throwing the blood and guts of slaughtered animals into the street. By 1370, 12 teams of 'muck' collectors combed the streets for animal and human excrement - money could be made out of it by selling it to local farmers (which helped further spread the various diseases…)

Public health strategies and interventions have changed drastically over time. Bloodletting is one of the most ancient forms of medical interventions. It originated in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Greece, persisting through the Medieval, Renaissance, and Enlightenment periods (PBS). Doctors used the bloodletting method for every ailment imaginable; from pneumonia, bone fractures, and even wounds, bloodletting was as trusted and popular as aspirin is today.

In 1906, the Pure Food and Drug Act, that was years in the making was finally passed under President Roosevelt. This law reflected a sea change in medicine-- an unprecedented wave of regulations. No longer could drug companies have a secret formula and hide potentially toxic substances such as heroin under their patent. The law required drug companies to specify the ingredients of medications on the label. It also regulated the purity and dosage of substances. Not by mere coincidence was the law passed only about five years after Bayer, a German based drug company began selling the morphine derivative, heroin. Thought to be a safe, non-habit forming alternative to morphine, heroin quickly became the “cure-all drug” that was used to treat

In the early 19th Century the vast majority of housing for the working class was in a terrible condition, which were mainly due to overcrowding, poor ventilation and unsanitary environments. These issues lead to outbreaks of cholera on a number of occasions between the years 1813 and 1865. The Public Health Act was introduced in 1848, which required all local authorities to provide towns with hygienic sewage disposal and clean water supplies. Due to the presence of disease in slums, the Sanitary Reform Act was introduced in 1866. The act gave local authorities powers to inspect the cleanliness of homes in their district. (Naidoo and Wills, 2009). As stated by Berridge, Martin and Mold (2011), the Sanitary Reform Act aimed to address the problems with sewage, household waste and contaminated

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles“ (Marx 15). The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx displays different ideas between the clashing social stances during his time. These thoughts highlight the several issues with the overbearing upper class showcasing the difference between social status and their given power in society. Similarly, the Marxist lens displays how the nobles gaining control of the social, economical, and political aspects of a society affect the lower class. William Shakespeare's Hamlet emphasizes division of social classes and unquenchable desire to obtain power through self- benefiting manipulation and misuse of authority.

Karl Marx describes “Society as a whole [as being] more and more [split] up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other-bourgeoisie and proletariat” (Marx 124).  As Marx made his distinction between upper class, bourgeoisie, and lower class, proletariats, it is important to keep in mind the societal structure at the time.  To understand how classes were created and the disparity between the rich and poor, or, bourgeoisie and proletariat, it is necessary to examine how people came to be rich and poor.  Exploring a time before money existed will help us to process and understand reasons why the binary between rich and poor exists and how it is reflective of low and high art distinctions.

During the 19th century, Europe underwent political and economic change resulting in a shift from craft production to factory work. This was a time known as the Industrial Revolution, in which class division and wage labor were the most foregrounded aspects of society (Poynton). Karl Marx’s theories during this time gave way to new perspectives and different ways of viewing oneself in class positions. Comparisons between social and political structures in the 19th century and the 21st century expose the similarities that have yet to be modified. Marxist theory proved to offer a framework for society to undergo evolutionary change that would put an end to the capitalist mode of production that developed during the Industrial Revolution in Europe (Connelley). Marxism greatly outlines the struggle between different classes and groups belonging to the political world and how this class struggle affects the means of production. Broadly speaking, capitalism is a structure of political inequality and once overcome will lead to communism, inevitably weakening the boundary between classes. Although beneficial for the workers who want to live as free men, the upper class will be placed on that same wavelength. The greater political structure will form into a realm that will abolish the exploitation and oppression of workers, thus placing power in the hands of those who do not benefit from the unequal distribution of wealth. It involves a combination of political and economic factors

In England during the Industrial revolution over the period 1760 to 1840 two different groups of working class people were formed. The groups were named the Luddites and the Chartists. Both the Luddites and Chartists had the desire to make a change to the working class and took action to achieve their goal. The Luddites were textile artisans who protested against the use of machinery in factories. The Chartists were workers in industry and agriculture and were in support of a document that demanded a change in working conditions.