The Paradox of Choice

It hasn’t changed that the average person doesn’t like to feel pain or be ill. The evolution of medicine from 1776 to 1938 in the United States depended on the knowledge of current diseases and treatment at that time. The major diseases during this time were pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, gastrointestinal infections, heart disease and cerebrovascular disease.1 Ironically, much of those diseases still exist today. Over time, the world’s demand for drugs for any type of illness or disease drastically skyrocketed. Was the medicine really working or were people psyched into believing they had an illness? The diagnosis and treatment was incorrect many times, resulting in “shoulda, coulda, and wouldas” when dealing with diagnosis and medicine. Without a scientific basis, medical doctors, such as Benjamin Rush were ineffective with proper treatment, and quacks promoted strange treatments as to say: Yackedy Quack, Don’t Talk Back. By the end of the 20th Century, one could say American medicine was on the rise and researchers and physician were much more respected.

"In the past two decades or so, health care has been commercialized as never before, and professionalism in medicine seems to be giving way to entrepreneurialism," commented Arnold S. Relman, professor of medicine and social medicine at Harvard Medical School (Wekesser 66). This statement may have a great deal of bearing on reality. The tangled knot of insurers, physicians, drug companies, and hospitals that we call our health system are not as unselfish and focused on the patients' needs as people would like to think. Pharmaceutical companies are particularly ruthless, many of them spending millions of dollars per year to convince doctors to prescribe their drugs and to convince consumers that their specific brand of drug is needed in

Commercialized on TV as the only solution to our numerous problems, Big Pharma preys on people who struggle through life. Although seemingly meant to heal, pharmaceutical drugs have destroyed countless American lives instead because gullible patients rush to their doctor demanding prescriptions. Want to lose weight? Give me a pill. Want more intense sexual encounters? I need a pill. Want to grow longer, shinier hair? Hey, I’ll just pop a pill. Although some medical conditions do require medication, not every case of discomfort should be treated with highly addictive prescription meds nor should those drugs be trafficked via commercials that target a hypochondriacal nation of couch potatoes too lazy to put forth the time and effort to prevent disease. Instead, far too many Americans simply find a quick fix at their local pharmacy. These prescriptions lead to addiction and in the end death. Therefore, if I could take away any one invention from mankind it would be the crass commercialization of pharmaceuticals.

There are many direct to consumer advertising for prescription drugs. On television, magazines, radio etc, you see the most recent advertisements for prescription drugs. After some people see the advertisements they soon rush over to their doctor and their illness and life would be perfectly pain and stress free. Making the public conscious of options for treatment is not a bad thing. But these false advertisements are misleading consumers onto unnecessary treatment.

We live in a nation where thousands of people are constantly suffering from chronic pain; due to hard work, improper use of body mechanics, and accidents. As a result the population has become fairly accustomed to taking medications as a fast way to alleviate their pain. The majority of the population does not know what is in the pills they are taking. They rely on their professional physicians to make the decision as to what is being prescribed. They rarely question the side effects, effectiveness, or safety. The public is constantly targeted by advertisement. Making people believe that they know all the information needed to use new medication. Companies are constantly introducing new pills with various uses. Advertisements urge the

We in America tend to take medications for almost any problem we have, from headaches to gastrointestinal pain, to more serious chronic disorders such as depression and attention deficit disorder. While many of the uses of such medications may be necessary and legitimate, many are not, and due to this fact, many people become dependent on medications, mentally, and or physically. This problem is not simply the fault of the individual; in fact, the blame can also be placed upon the medical community, and the pharmaceutical companies who produce the drugs. How often can one turn on the television to see advertisements for Claritin, Aspirin, Pepto-Bismol, or even Zoloft or Ritalin? The pharmaceutical industry is motivated by monetary

Dr. William Glasser was a distinguished psychiatrist and author known for his distinctive views about mental illness. Glasser broke away from the traditional model of psychotherapy in the early 1960s to develop his own model of counseling. Dr. Glasser began with the development of therapy before he developed his theoretical stance. Glasser created what is known as Reality Therapy. Glasser first defined Reality Therapy as “a therapy that leads all patients toward reality, towards grappling successfully with tangible and intangible aspects of the real world” (p.6).

Prescription drug advertisements have a negative impact on Americans by causing them to become hypochondriacs in a certain way. A hypochondriac is someone who believes and becomes obsessed with the idea that they have a serious condition that was and is undiagnosed. This problem continues to have a negative affect because it can lead to unnecessarily prescribing. Patients are going into their doctors and they are requesting to be put on these drugs because of the great affects that they have heard that they do for them. In the article, Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising, the author states that in a study done over this and the results were that, when these request were made at about 40 percent of doctor visits and during this time more

The Myth of Choice: How Junk-Food Marketers Target Our Kids and “Marketing to kids gets more savvy with new technologies” show how children are targets in marketing. They both show the bad points marketers do to get children to buy their product. For example, on Webkinz they have you watch free ads to earn virtual money but they get money every time you click the “free ad” button on the site while in The Myth of Choice: How Junk-Food Marketers Target Our Kids, Anna Lappe from Real Food Media Project mentions that junk food is etched in the kid’s mind. In Myth of of Choice: How Junk-Food Marketers Target Our Kids shows how marketers target kids in the case of junk food while “Marketing to kids gets more savvy with new technologies” shows how

They along with many other authors (Sointu 2006) suggests that negative experiences within conventional medical practises can cause disenchantment and initiate people to seek out other methods of elevating their health care problems. They also cite from sociological studies that impersonal practises and the inability to cure chronic illness is part of the explanation for the move to use CAM and alternative therapies (Telford, Kralik, Koch,2006). The results of the study indicate that another reason for uptake is the fact that many believed in the trends of alternative methods and choose to use a ‘consumerist attitude’ (Sharma, 1992:80) to obtaining health care. Consumer demand has brought about the changes associated with CAM and alternative therapies use. The increase in several countries at grass root level as suggested by Barry (2005) has influenced the integration of several therapies into biomedical healthcare systems. Consumerism was one of the main ideas to influence factor incorporated in the changes to the NHS in the 1970’s. Consumerism led systems meant a more flexible and responsive health service which encouraged inclusion and self- help. This shift in thinking was brought about partly by consumer demand growing ever higher and medical sociologists debating changes to how society views illness and health

Some people believe that no matter what a person does in their life, it will ultimately have no effect on the outcome ofa it. Existentialists find this to be true because they believe that no matter what they ever do, they will always die. Existentialists link the inevitability of death to the idea that there is no higher power. Additionally, existentialists hold the belief that no one should allow society to control how they live their life. Writer Albert Camus uses many existentialist themes his works like The Stranger and “The Guest”. The protagonists in both stories demonstrate existentialist beliefs in their actions. As a result, many existentialist ideas can be seen throughout out both novels. Camus uses the paradox of free will in order to illustrate the inevitability of death for everyone as well as the idea that in order to obtain free will, a person must reject society and face exile.

Humans live in a world in which every day they encounter numerous choices. The way they decide and the outcomes of their decisions define their lives. Their day to day life essentially revolves around the choices they make. As a whole, a community benefits or suffers from the outcomes of its choices. Freedom of choice is the grant to an individual or community to make its own choices out of free will and without restrictions (Pereboom,2003). This is essay will discuss that though freedom choice leads to variety in life, it does not necessarily guarantee satisfaction. It will also argue that although some choice is undoubtedly better than none, more is not always better than less. It will then consider the implications of the paradox of

The rise of medicalization has been affected by many social factors, and has caused a winning-and-losing situation for those caught in the middle. In Peter Conrad’s article The Shifting Engines of Medicalization, he explains how medicalization was constructed by three certain factors: first, the authority within the medical profession; second, the activities of social movements and interest groups; and third, the rise in behavioral pediatrics in terms of medical control of childhood diseases, and directed organizational professional activities (Conrad, 2005, p. 4). There have been debates that some things should no longer be treated as an illness in the medical sphere. Conrad explains how the pharmaceutical industries are more aggressive in promoting their products to physicians and to the public, which is empowered by the consumers becoming increasingly active in their demand for medical services and treatments (2005, p. 5, 9). Companies are marketing diseases (creating “epidemics” and drug scares within a society) and then selling the drugs to treat those diseases (Conrad, 2005, p. 6). Society and these companies make it seem as though these disorders and diseases can happen to anyone at any time.

The treatment of physical and mental problems has undergone a rapid change in the past few decades. An increasing number of bodily and behavioural symptoms now have a recognised medical diagnosis and corresponding treatment. Sociologists have attributed these changes to the process of medicalization, wherein “non-medical problems come to be defined and treated as if they were medical issues” (McLennan, McManus & Spoonley 2009: 271). Medicalization is an ongoing, gradual process which occurs through the social construction of new diseases by groups such as health professionals (Conrad 2007: 4). It can be argued that medicalization is an active and passive process by which diseases are constructed in an attempt to find treatments for patients; and that diseases can be ‘socially’ constructed as well as ‘corporately’ constructed by companies to create a profitable market of consumers. At the micro level of society, medicalization in the Western world has been influenced by liberal notions of individualization which has extended to some parts of the health sector. At the macro level, medicalization has been buoyed by the process of the professionalization, expansion of state monopoly over the health profession and religious and political social movements. Although some academics argue that the medicalization of society is less significant than the process of “de-medicalization”, there is clear evidence that the process of medicalization is intensifying and outstripping the rate

In an ideal world, democracy would stand as the preferable choice for the welfare of all. However, in the real world, this is not always the case. Today, the term dictatorship typically yields a negative connotation. Many associate this term with a ruler acting in force and in self-interest, with the governed body suffering as a result. On the contrary, the term democracy typically yields a positive connotation and evokes positive emotion. When evaluating these terms with respect to the philosophical concepts of consequentialism, utility and Immanuel Kant’s motto, Sapere aude (Dare to Know), a new light is shed on the true significance of these terms. Utilitarianism is defined as the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct ("Utilitarianism, Act And Rule | Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy"). Although democracies have typically been viewed as the more civilized approach to government, consequentialism proves that dictatorships can in fact provide a governed body with a higher degree of welfare, as long as the doctrine of utility is exercised for all.