The Pros And Cons Of Medicalization

When people think of an “illness” they typically don’t automatically think of mental illness. They think about HIV, cancer, or even a cold or flu. However when it comes to mental illness it is a whole different idea. But is mental illness even real? Addressed in the book, The Myth of Mental Illness (1961), a psychiatrist Thomas Szasz argues that the idea of classifying psychological and emotional difficulties as “illnesses” takes away sense of control. Instead of holding people personally and morally responsible for their actions, he states, doctors attempt to “treat” the person, often with medications. Diagnosing mental illness, on the other hand, argue that mental disorders are as real as physical diseases and diagnosing them allows people

Overtime the understanding of human society has been seen and described in many different perspectives. With new concepts and point of views backed by research and study, sociology continues to be changed and adjusted as we learn more about humanity every day. But the interesting thing is, that the way sociology changes, is similar to the way many things in life change over time as well. For example, in this paper we will look at the medicalization of society through its three main perspectives, and see that they work hand in hand. The medicalization of society is constantly changing due to ever-growing technology and discoveries. We continue to learn more and more each day about both sociology and medicalization which is why it is easy for us to put them both into the same perspective together. The medicalization of society can be explained through the three main sociological perspectives allowing us to better understand and analysis each concept for its own different meaning.

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, industrialized nations have seen the medicalization of a plethora of diseases including the ongoing trend of acknowledging addiction as a ‘brain disease.’ The claimsmaking made primarily by Nora Volkow in the documentary Addiction encompasses the constructionist ideologies of socially constructing a problem, or in the case of deviant drinking and drug use, a disease. The functionality of medicalization in America is seen with many different conditions and diseases. For example, the recent spike in the prescription of medications for ADD and ADHD is a prime model for how a deviant set of traits can be spun into a more socially acceptable and treatable “disease.” Whether or not drug and alcohol addiction

In the sociology of medicine Parson (1951) regarded medicine as functional in social terms. By tackling the person’s problems in medical terms the tendency towards deviance that was represented by ill health could be safely directed, until they could return to their normal self. (Lawrence 1994: p 64-65: BMJ 2004: Parson cited in Gabe, Bury & Elston 2006, p 127).

Throughout history society has had many views on individuals with physical and health needs, consequently impacting the way they live. In the article, “The Discovery of Hyperkinesis: Notes on the Medicalization of Deviant Behavior,” it discuses the Pharmaceutical Revolution, and how psychoactive drugs were being produced to suppress, what society felt, was deviant behavior (Conrad, 1975). This article is a good example of how society has created ‘disabilities’ for people with health needs. The article also expresses how children who act out, or have parents and schools members feeling they are exhibiting deviant behaviors, are considered to have medical conditions. Many people in today’s society don’t have the time or patience to learn about individuals with physical and health needs, thus giving the medical world more control over, ‘disability.’

The idea is to create a government-run health care plan that would be an alternative to the private insurance plans offered under the Affordable Care Act, or provide a fallback in markets where insurers have been pulling out. A public option could also be a way to stabilize the exchanges because a government-run plan could be used to enroll the people with the most expensive medical conditions. The private insurers would be more enthusiastic about selling policies because they might have to worry less about losses. Public option is simply a public health insurance agency, typically a government-run agency that can compete with the private insurers. This is sort of a half-way point between single payer and the pre- ACA private market. Almost

In modern society there is a general consensus that ‘good health’ is something that everyone wants to experience and that each individual knows what this involves. Because there are so many different definitions of health and ill health it can become a very complicated concept. Walsh (2011) states that “In sociological terms ‘health’ and ‘illness’ are contested concepts. This means that the general meaning of these words should not be taken for granted.

In this paper, the USA healthcare system is being compared to the Canadian healthcare system. The U.S. health system has been described as the most competitive, heterogeneous, and inefficient, fragmented, and advanced system of care in the

We can see the sociological imagination in our everyday lives. The sociological imagination can be seen through an example of medicalization. Medicalization is defined as considering a behavior as a medical problem or disease and then mandating the medical profession to provide some treatment for it. Some examples of medicalization are ADHD, obesity,

Illich (1990) even went as to say that themedical proffesion (including pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment suppliers) have a vested interest in illness so they create illnesses which have to be treated by doctors and drugs etc. this means conditions that used to be seen as natural, such as dying or unhappiness have now undergone a social iatrogenesis (doctor caused illness) whereby people cannot handle their own health anymore. postmodernists dislike this use of medical discourse because one theory has more prestige that it should be considered the truth.

When I think about the things that have been brought up on the ethical point of view in a test tube, and genetic testing, I honestly do not see it to be as immoral or unethical, these developments have improved and history. The possibilities of how technology and science can make a difference and help people. I think if it puts harm to others that when the question of her.

In today’s current medical models there is belief that people who behave strangely are labeled as “sick”. Another is that some people cannot control their outcome of having an illness. Because of this it is up to us to have a sort of responsibility towards and over them. The type of treatments that these people need are only supposed to

The conceptualisation of medicine as an institution of societal control was first theorised by Parsons (1951), and from this stemmed the notion of the deviant termed illness in which the “sick role” was a legitimised condition. The societal reaction and perspective was deemed a pillar of the emerging social construction of disease and conception of the formalised medical model of disease. Concerns surrounding medicalisation fundamentally stem from the fusion of social and medical concerns wherein the lines between the two are gradually blurred and the the social consequences of the proliferation of disease diagnosis that results from such ambiguities of the social medical model.

Townsend and Davidson (1988) also suggested that the term health is derived from the word “whole”, which is a recipient of the healing process. Therefore, an attempt to heal or cure in medical field literally means, to make whole or restore health. It is this idea that influences medicine to adopt a mechanistic approach towards disease management thereby obscuring the understanding of health in human context of well-being, which advocates for alternative or complementary approaches. This viewpoint also reflects in some definitions and the medical model discussed above. The criticisms of the medical by Illich (1974) is that the medical view only deals with the cause of disease or illness rather than the external factors affecting the person’s health. Within different sections of medicine, for example the mental health department, there are marked differences when explaining the origin of illness, disease and treatments.

Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.