Was McKeown justified in undermining the role played by medicine in the conquest of infectious disease?
McKeown won controversy due to his insistence that the modern rise in the world population from the 1700s to the present was due to broad economic and social changes rather than to targeted public health or medical interventions. His thesis still inspires debate, support, and criticism despite his underlying points having been refuted. McKeown was not justified in his claim. Conclusive empirical evidence has nullified it. Nonetheless: the main reason that his thesis inspires the debate that it does is due to the enduring potency of the question: Are public health ends better served by targeted medical interventions or would broad-based efforts to redistribute the social, political, and economic resources better determine the health of populations? The question continues and it seems as though there is no one approach that is more important than the other: medicine and economics have an equally significant role to play in ameliorating and propagating the human race.
2. Explain or define any abstract or problematic terms
McKeown attempted to explain the decline in the population growth from 1770 to the present. The main thrust of his thesis was that population growth was due to improvement in economic factors. Everything else including and particularly improvements in medicine, medical research and medical technology was only marginal/ peripheral to the
make a subjective opinion of
Many historians over the years have bestowed upon us many conflicting
thesis and ideologies regarding the impact that the ‘Great War’ had on
the well being of British