The Role Of Medicalization And Pharmaceuticalization

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).

"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

This diagnoses of the flaws in our health care system must start with identifying and redefining the social constructs of America. In most other civilized nations, it is generally accepted that it is in the best interest of the public that every individual be

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.

1). People have begun to rely on prescription drugs, more today than ever before. This is one of the immediate reasons for the breakdown in the patient-doctor relationship – the evolution and rise in the development of pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs (Changing, pg 3). For instance, the Baby Boomers are recognized nationally for taking the most prescription drugs. According to my mother, patients rely primarily on prescription drugs rather than other forms of treatment because of the fast paced economy and because society as a whole has adopted a “lack of caring” attitude. “As people age, all they want are pills.”-Mother

In the modern age of technological and medical advancements such as organ transplants and robotic limbs, Americans have developed unrealistic expectations about prescription drugs. The false belief that the right pill in the right dosage can cure all has led to a national epidemic: over prescription. Since the 1970s, the average American’s expenditure on prescription drugs has doubled because not only are new treatments for almost every ailment now available, but they are also aggressively advertised on television, the internet, and social media. At the same time that the American population confronts health issues associated with rising age, obesity, and stress levels, prescription drugs promise a quick fix for everything from depression to acne to insomnia leading to a one pill fix all.

The purpose of medicine is as contested of a notion as the term patient. While there are certain ends in which it is clear that medicine seeks to achieve, controversy often arises over how medicine chooses to achieve these certain goals. One such controversy is the treatment of patient-symptoms, more specifically, the role of medication in treating patients. The purpose of this essay is not to discuss the general issues of prescribing medication. Rather, the purpose is

Medicine has been used since ancient times, but it has greatly developed through the centuries. Today, people have doctors, nurses, surgeons, therapists, and many other individuals in the health field. Society’s definition of a healthy lifestyle, and the way people live, has greatly changed, and it has given most people a new perspective on society 's health. Before medications and doctors, people often died, or had no way to recover from illnesses and disease, because there were no cures. Advances in medicine are made every day. These advances could be a new allergy medication, a new vaccine to prevent a deadly disease, or a new way of performing surgeries, but all of these advances have one thing in common: they can save lives and make a better America.

First, disclosure of information to the patient will sometimes increase the likelihood of depression and physical deterioration, or result in the choice of medically inoptimal treatment. Second, disclosure of information is therefore sometimes likely to be detrimental to the patient’s health, and perhaps hasten his death. Third, health and prolonged life can be assumed to have priority among preferences for patients who place themselves under physicians’ care. Fourth, Worsening health or hastening death can therefore be assumed to be contrary to patients’ own true value orderings. Lastly, paternalism is therefore justified: doctor may sometimes override patients’ prima facie rights to information about their risks and treatments or about their own conditions in order to prevent harm (Vaughn, 96.)

Medicine is very common nowadays. People today will go to medicine as their first source when it comes to illness. There are

With the huge diversity and changeability of human biology, it is impossible to imagine a reality without some mutations, changes, or issues in the organs and tissues of humans. Thus, it rightly follows that medications and pharmaceuticals have been created in an effort to counteract the various ailments and illnesses that people can experience. However, as time has gone on and these pharmaceuticals have become more and more high-tech, regulated, and trusted, they have also become incredibly commercialized. Worse still, medications have become incredibly expensive and can be unattainable for some people.

“Medicines appear to have greater power in affecting the state of health than the natural morbific irritation, for natural diseases are cured and subdued by appropriate medicines” – says Hahnemann. In my opinion, he holds the view that natural disease has the power to make us sick only when our organism is sufficiently disposed and susceptible to the attack of the “morbific cause” whereas the power of medicine is absolute and unconditional. It acts at all times, under all circumstances and on every living human being. Therefore, appropriately chosen medicine (remedy) that matches the symptoms of the illness, and produce an “artificial disease” that is similar to that which is to be cured, administered in the right dose and potency with a greater degree of intensity than the “natural disease” has absolute power to heal the patient.

Are prescription drugs overprescribed? Are patients being prescribed the correct medications that they actually need? Are generic drugs doing the same for the human body that marked up brand name medications are? These are some of the public’s biggest questions that can be easily answered by research. Everyone is affected by medication and healthcare in general today. Many real life scenarios are offered throughout this writing to support the argument. The following thesis statement is a worldwide problem. Unfortunately, the United States has the largest problem with inflation of drug cost and over-prescription of medications. Many people are to blame: drug manufacturers, insurers, prescribers, educators, and many others. A change is needed.

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.

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