Differences between Sociological and Lay Ideas about Illness from the Biomedicine Ideas - Term Paper Example

Differences between Sociological and Lay Ideas about Illness from the Biomedicine Ideas Student Name Course Tutor Institution Date Differences between Sociological and Lay Ideas about Illness from the Biomedicine Ideas Introduction Health is a complex subject that is involved with a number of aspects. It is argued that giving an explanation of wellness and health can be tricky without putting the aspects of illness in consideration. Just like health, illness is also multifaceted and it is studied in various perspectives (Cockerham, 2006). The different perspectives through which illness can be studied include the biomedicine concepts, lay concepts as well as the sociological concepts. Basically, the lay and sociological concepts tend to fall under one bracket of being non-scientific in terms of the theories and ideas applied, unlike biomedicine concepts which are purely scientific (Kleinman, 1988 pp54). Being the only scientific way of explaining illnesses, biomedicine concepts are referred to as the modern way through which human microbiological, biological, psychological, as well as physiological issues are solved. The solving of these issues is done using modern technology through scientific means of examination, evaluation, and diagnosis. The biomedicine concepts of illnesses have gone beyond the prior beliefs and postures towards healing in the ancient times. Despite the differences that exist between the sociological and lay ideas about illness with biomedicine ideas, studies indicate that these ideas work together in acquiring relevant information regarding illnesses in the society (Morgan, 1997). Therefore, the essay below seeks to offer comprehensive discussion on how the sociological and lay ideas about illness with biomedicine ideas differ. Sociological ideas As a functionalist, Parsons points out that when an individual gets ill; they have potential destructive impacts on the society. For instance, illness is viewed as a form of deviance that requires to be controlled. Suppose the issue of illness is not controlled within the society, the behaviors that are linked to it may threaten the smooth operation of the society. The behaviors include one being incapacitated, and being dependent to others. It is the role of the doctors to ensure that illness in the society is controlled. This is based on the authority maintained by the objective of the doctor with regards to scientific knowledge that he or she possesses (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Conversely, there are various condemnations that Parson’s model has received. One of the criticisms is the fact that various researchers in biomedicine have argued that when an ill person arrives at the doctor’s surgery, it is always the final stage in the construction of sickness. For instance a great number of patients tend to consult with lay ideas before they make up their mind to visit the doctor. Another criticism is that Parson’s model tends to assume that it is always possible for one to recover, but there was a growth in chronic conditions in 20th century (Parsons, 1951 pp65). The third criticism of the model is that it assumes that people who are ill will have knowledge and be sensitive with regards to their condition to know that they have to consult a doctor, but will be naïve in the surgery. In return, it is expected of all doctors to treat all patients with equality. However, research has it that the treatment provided to patients by doctors depend on the class, age, ethnic group, and gender of the patients. For instance, more consultation time is offered to those who belong to higher social classes than those of lower social classes (Byrne & Long, 1976 pp43). In addition, advanced explanation is given to their illnesses as compared to the lower in social class. Other than that some of the female related health issues are treated as typical feminine complaints and neuroses. On the other hand, when male patients experience the same issues, they are perceived to be work-related stress. These form a few examples of the variation in practice among the doctors (Parsons, 1951). Still on Parson’s arguments, a functioning society is that which is based on the well being as well as health of individuals and the control of illness. According to Parson, he introduced “the sick role” as the term which focused on the social behavior of those who are defined as ill by the society. Based on his arguments, this functionalist states that an ill person is not responsible for normal duties, is supposed to look for assistance in order to get out of the role, is not held responsible for being sick, and is not supposed to like the role (Parsons, 1951). A number of people argue that only science can determine an illness. However, based on the above definitions of the sick role by Parsons, it is clear that there is also a sociological perspective that the four points are considered by the society as a way for a person to assume the sick role. In addition, based on the above, the society tends to rule out the individuals who do not seek treatment or like sickness as unqualified for the role. This is a clear indication that the society plays a huge role in determining illness as well (Scambler, Death and dying, 1991). It is argued that there have been great changes with respect to the sociological ideas on illness as well ass the sick role. For instance, as a result of chemical dependency such as addiction to drugs and alcohol, this was viewed as weakness in character in the past years. However, in the current situation, the case has changed especially with the arrival of the drug rehab centers and programs. These centers tend to classify the addiction to drugs and alcohol as a disease. In this case, when one is addicted and taken to rehab for medication, he or she is allowed to assume the sick role because of the treatment (Byrne & Long, 1976). On the other hand, Marxists tend to view the medical profession and medicine to be a sector that carries out functions for capitalism and not for the society at large. For instance, doctors tend to act as agents of social control. They do this by making sure that an abandoned workforce cannot run away from the sick role but remain at work so that they can make profit. Based on the Marxism arguments, they ideologically mask the exploitation of capitalist society, which makes it look like they are caring. It is worth noting that medicine and health care provides huge profits for the big international drug companies. According to Marxism ideas, it is argued that capitalist medicine has been established by a number of sociologists together with health policy analysts (Scambler, Deviance, labelling and stigma., 1991). For instance, there are four features that tend to define medicine as part of being capitalist. One of the features is that medicine is currently more specialized and hierarchical than it was in the previous years. Another feature is the fact that medicine has been altered to corporate medicine from being an individual skill of craft. In addition, currently medicine has a wide wage-labor force. This may include the workers in the industry of pharmaceuticals. The fourth feature that indicates medicine is capitalist is that the professional status of most of the medical practitioners has been undermined over time. This is because the managerial and administrative staffs have taken over the task of providing health care services. With these four features, it is clear that medicine is currently viewed as a commodity t be sold and bought. To add on that, medicine has become capitalist in the sense that the corporate sector benefits through the sale of medical instruments and drugs, and the finance sector through the provision of private insurance (Helman, 1990). Feminists Perspective A perspective of feminists on this issue is that the society has become patriarchal and doctors play a major role in making this take place. For instance, it is argued that medicine has kept women in an inferior role since it has a social control function. An example in this case is that the fertility of women is being controlled through control over through contraception, medicalisation of childbirth and pregnancy and access to abortion. On this issue, a number of feminists tend to challenge the medical regulation and control of the lives of women through contraception, child birth, as well as pregnancy (Stewart & Roter, 1989 pp98). Their difficulty is based on the fact that natural processes of reproduction including pregnancy, child birth, and menstruation are being medicalised. It is argued that most of the healers in the ancient society were lay women. This is before the introduction of medicine. The lay women would handle such situations together with family and female friends. This indicates that these women had ideas with regards to child birth and female reproduction in general without medical intervention (Scambler, Health and Illness behaviour, 1991). It is argued that through modern medicine, the experience of childbirth for women has been altered to a technical issue that needs the intervention of medical profession. Studies indicate that most doctors tend to stereotype women as being neurotic, emotional, more excitable and less objective as compared to men. Even when a woman suffers from a physical illness and seeks medical attention, the doctor must see the illness as having a psychological cause. In the past, it is argued that religion played the role of regulating women bodies by controlling their reproductive capacity and sexual expression. Currently, this has changed and is being conducted by medicine. The challenge of these feminists is also focused on the male domination in the medical profession in broad-spectrum and in explicit areas such as acute cares (Oakley, 1984). Lay ideas Other than the above discussed sociological perspective of health and illness, there are also lay ideas on health and illness. Just like the sociological ideas, the lay ideas on health and illness are not scientific based. For instance, it is argued that the lay ideas on health and illness entail conceptual models utilized by communities, individuals, or cultures with the aim of giving explanation for illness, as well as on how to maintain health. Most of the lay ideas on health and illness have theoretical underpinnings that come from broader theories of illness. These theories include biomedical, humoral, and Ayurvedic among others. In addition, the ideas also entail the locally established concepts with regards to the body in health and illness that may not be associated directly to the key theories of illness (Public Health Encyclopedia, 2012). The lay ideas on illness tend to include specific ideas on the manner in which the body functions. In addition, particular symptoms are also highlighted in the lay ideas as being of special importance. For instance, the body of an individual is always thought of as a complicated machine that must be kept tuned-up, and being deviant, illness is perceived as a break of the machine. This particular idea is of the western world (Scambler, 2003). It is argued that this idea tends to be in contradiction with that Ayurvedic concept of the body, which is mostly known in South Asia and India. Based on the Ayurvedic concept, is has been established that health is viewed as a state of balance between social, physical and supernatural environment. On the other hand, illness is viewed to be a result of disturbances in many various spheres (Helman, 1990 pp56). An indication like chest pain has a specific cultural significance in the Western world and needs to be examined with alarm. In Ayurvedic medicine, the symptom of chest pain is as well viewed with great concern. This differs with the Western world perception because in this case it is seen as a symptom of emotional distress and not as organic failure of bodily functions. Another example is that in South Asia, semen loss symptom is basically perceived to be harmless while in the western world this symptom is harmless and needs immediate attention. For instance, it is argued that cultural differences in lay ideas on illness, especially in the meaning of symptoms, may lead to the delay in diagnosing the condition (Public Health Encyclopedia, 2012). In addition, research has it that lay ideas on illness are classified as being obtained from within the individual, from the social world, from the natural world, or even from the supernatural world. For instance, in the rural India, lay ideas on illness tend to locate the origin of illness within the supernatural world and the social world. Based on the idea that illness is from within the supernatural world, an illness is always caused by an evil eye or an attack from the spirits. Based on the idea that illness originate from within the social world, an illness occurs as a result of failure to abide by the stipulated social norms or failure in carrying out important rituals. In addition, other lay ideas about illness in India are in relation to the natural world through the exposure to extremes of cold or hot, and to the individual through lack of proper diet. Another example of the origin of illness based on lay ideas can be drawn from the Western world. For instance, in the Western world, it is believed that origin of illness is always from within an individual through improper behaviors such as lack of physical exercise and poor diet or perhaps if the person is prone to illness through heredity or psychological factors (Kinsley, 1996 pp76). According to various studies, it is argued that lay ideas on illness do not only focus on the origin of an illness, but also focuses on estimating the severity of the illness, meaning of the illness, as well as appropriate treatment for the illness. For instance, these ideas tend to differ greatly based on the culture of various social groups, as well as between groups of individuals from different socio-economic strata. Based on a research that was done on members of lower social class in the United States of America, it was revealed that lay ideas of illness in this group of people tended to have a functional basis. That was based on the fact that only if an individual was ill enough to not be able to work would medical consideration be sought. It is established that with regards to appropriate treatments for illness, lay ideas may greatly differ from the doctors’ concepts (Shaw, 2002). This is because the lay ideas are based on cultural or sociological beliefs, while the doctor’s ideas are based on biomedical facts. For example, in the contemporary North America there is this commonly held belief that antibiotics are supportive in curing colds and the flu. This is a concept that most doctors across the board are trying so hard to refute. Lay ideas with regards to the meaning of illness are as well fundamental. When most individuals become ill, they need to find an answer to the "why" of the illness in addition to the "how" of the illness. Bringing sense to the severity of an illness becomes a critical duty that entails the patient at the deepest level (Kleinman, 1988). Based on lay ideas about illness, there are some illnesses that are viewed as folk illness. A folk illness is one that occurs when various people in a given culture come to terms about a pattern of signs or symptoms, and possess a conceptual model with regards to the origin and significance of the said symptoms and signs. For instance, it is argued that folk illnesses have a number of symbolic meanings that have social, psychological, as well as moral dimensions. An individual that suffers from a folk illness always conveys emotional pain through the physical body. The emotional pain may occur from misunderstandings within the family, or from the bigger social world in which the individual lives in. Symptoms that are linked to folk illnesses always possess a specific cultural significance. In addition, they are always shaped by the manner in which individuals in a cultural group think about the body both in health and illness. Traditional healers in a certain cultural setting tend to recognize, interpret and treat the illness with the use of therapies that are matching with the particular lay ideas of illness that strengthen the condition (Public Health Encyclopedia, 2012). There are a couple of examples that are classified to be folk illnesses in various cultural settings. These include amok in Malaysia, susto in Central and South America, as well as nervios among Latino populations. In some cases, research has it that the folk illnesses tend to overlap with serious biomedical diseases. An example can be an individual that complains of being dizzy, weak and of palpitations may be diagnosed by a traditional healer based on lay ideas to be suffering from nervios, when he or she actually is going through a cardiac or neurological emergency. In most occasions, the symptoms of the folk illnesses may not have a serious organic cause, and are linked to the emotional or social stresses the individual is going through. For instance, it is important to note that the biomedical experts who are not familiar with nervios as a folk illness may fail to interpret properly the condition, and end up overmedicating the patient. This clearly indicates that is crucial for most doctors to learn about lay ideas of health and illness so that they may be alert for the signs and symptoms that reflect social and emotional pain rather than a failure in the biomedical functions of the body (Scambler, 1991). Biomedical ideas For people to understand the role of biomedicine ideas and medicine at large in the society, they need to view it as part of a broader social requirement for the regulation and observation of the body in terms of physic and all the senses in the body. For instance, it is argued that the demand for the regulation grew up when the society became more sophisticated by being urbanized, which brought many people together. It is argued that the urban areas possess both the private and public spaces that dictate relevant behavior for the bodies that occupy the spaces. It is therefore imperative for people to understand biomedical ideas, especially the clinic, the medicine of the asylum, as well the everyday public hygiene within the broader context of public control. It is argued that the position taken by medicine is not only clinical, but also a moral role within the society. An example of a moral role that medicine plays within the society is in relation to relevant forms of sexual expression. This tends to describe the manner in which medicine has played a progressively more important role in coming up with a treatment of acceptable sexuality. In this case, the concept of discipline is critical (Foucault, 1972 pp28). In addition, medicine should not be viewed as an activity that only relates to clinical healing. For instance the medicalisation of the body has to be well understood by people as a process of social control. Based on the biomedical ideas on this issue, various scientifically proven methods are used in medicalisation. For example in the case of controlling child birth and pregnancy in women, contraceptives can be used. It is important to note that medicalisation is a process that tends to define and treat health issues that were previously viewed to be non-medical as medical illness, problems or disorder. For example, shyness is perceived to be a social phobia that needs medical assistance. Just as it has been discussed above, various aspects of life are always medicalised based on the biomedical ideas of illness. Some of these aspects include homosexuality, child birth, everyday unhappiness, menopause, as well as alcoholism among others (Naidoo & Wills, 2008). It is argued that there are three distinct levels through which medicalisation can take place. Medicalisation can conceptually take place. This is when medical vocabulary is used in the definition of a problem such as Post Traumatic Disorder. Secondly, medicalisation can occur institutionally. This is through various organizations that adopt a medical approach in treating a social problem. Finally, it can take place at the level of the doctor-patient relationship. This is when the doctor treats a social problem experienced by a patient medically (Blaxter, 2010). Conclusion In conclusion, it is clear that just like health, illness is a huge field of study that is defined differently based on various ideas. As discussed in the above essay, giving an explanation of wellness and health can be tricky without putting the aspects of illness in consideration. Illness can be discussed from various perspectives as per the arguments made in various studies. The diverse perspectives through which illness can be studied include the biomedicine concepts, lay concepts as well as the sociological concepts. Essentially as it has been discussed in the essay, the lay and sociological concepts tend to fall under one bracket of being non-scientific in terms of the theories and ideas applied, unlike biomedicine concepts which are purely scientific. The main focus of the above essay was on providing a comprehensive discussion on how sociological and lay ideas differ from biomedical ideas on illness. The sociological ideas in relation of illness have been discussed based on various sociological scholars. One of them is the arguments made by Parsons. As a functionalist, Parsons points out that when an individual gets ill; they have potential destructive impacts on the society. For instance, illness is viewed as a form of deviance that requires to be controlled. Suppose the issue of illness is not controlled within the society, the behaviors that are linked to it may threaten the smooth operation of the society. On the other hand lay ideas on health and illness entail conceptual models utilized by communities, individuals, or cultures with the aim of giving explanation for illness, as well as on how to maintain health. Most of the lay ideas on health and illness have theoretical underpinnings that come from broader theories of illness. In addition, the major difference between the biomedical ideas on illness with the other two is that the biomedical ideas depend heavily on scientific research. The biomedical ideas have brought about the issue of medicalisation. Bibliography Helman, C. (1990). Culture, Health and Illness. Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman. Kinsley, D. (1996). Health, Healing and Religion: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kleinman, A. (1988). The Illness Narratives: Suffering, Healing and the Human Condition. New York: Basic BooksBlaxter, M. (2010). Health 2nd ed. London: Polity Press. Byrne, S., & Long, L 1976, Doctors talking to patients, HMSO, London. Cockerham, W. (2006). Medical Sociology 10th ed. New York: Prentice Hall. Foucault, M. (1972). The discourse on langauge. New York: Pantheon Books. Morgan, L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research . London: Sage. Naidoo, J., & Wills, J. (2008). Health Studies; An Introduction . Palgrave: Macmillan. Oakley, A 1984, The Captured Womb: A history of the medical care of pregnant women, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Public Health Encyclopedia. (2012). Lay Concepts of Health and Illness. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health:: http://www.answers.com/topic/lay-concepts-of- health-and-illness Scambler, G. (2003). Sociology as Applied in Medicine 5th ed. London: W.B Saunders. Scambler, G. (1991). Stigmatizing illness. London: Penguin. Shaw, I. (2002). How Lay are lay beliefs. Health (6) 3: 287 , 291-293. Stewart, M., & Roter, D. (1989). Communicating with medical patients. London: Sage. Tajfel, H., & Turner, C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Read More