Abstract
Health is more than just diabetes, hypochondria, malignant tumor, tuberculosis, cholera, and myocardial infarction. It transcends beyond biological definitions and perceptions of health. It is not imaginary neither is it an abstract of human imagination. It is a 3-dimensional concept that is a result of various factors embedded in society.
The paper throws light on health and its relation with society; the various factors in society that have molded our definition of health; the gradual evolution of the concept of health; the obstacles that stand in the way and the way health is perceived by different factions. Religious, moral, and biological reasoning to the definition of health is also cited.
That, health is symbiotic with social values is known but how so is elaborated. The inter-relationship between time, society, and health is also established and an empirical cum subjective concept of health is inculcated.
It delves into various examples to substantiate the arguments cited. Social structures, social actions, and their association with health are explained explicitly. In doing so, a relationship between health and society is established and piqued over.
The truth of the idea behind “health and society” is sought for. Purportedly questions like in what way does society define its notion of health? How are the notions of health based on decision-making? How are the decisions treated? The role of law agencies in catering to the various stakeholders at hand and the survival role of every individual is sought for.
Health in its essence an amalgamation of scientific, theoretical, imaginative, mythical, historical, and objective notions. It has and will change with time and circumstances. Darwin’s survival of the fittest evolved humans, in evidently evolving health in the process.
Introduction
Society and health are notions that, if categorically juxtaposed with each other, would be inevitably never seen without each other. The masses have a huge role to play in shaping health. The inhibitions, fears, and historic myths have a lot to explain when it comes to the excruciating forms of most diseases. Medicine is and never will be a universal scientific connotation. It is a form of social practice that observes understands and codifies sufferings. They barely reflect the notions and aspirations of society.
The verdict of society holds sway in most diseases that confront our doctors today. The verdict itself is shaped and interwoven as a result of various forces. The most conspicuous of these is the economic state of the nation. Factors such as historical experiences, preconceived notions, and forms of health care employed.
Society has a big part to play in shaping the modes of health care practiced. Why else would an uproar over cloning and embryonic implantation, would eventually end up in a bill passed by Congress calling for its ban? Why else would a transfer from traditional to modern therapies become a humongous issue for doctors? Why would diseases like aids and their victims become societal taboos?
The impact of society on medicine is big. It has carved medicine and its universal appeal as an answer to all forms of physical health conditions. We explore the various ways in which society has manipulated health.
Society and Health
It has been oft-repeated that every society creates its own definition of health. Disease and other concepts of malady have also put forward other analogous claims. According to a very influential theory, society is dependent on language. Language is the context of communication that is embedded within its masses. We can evidently coin words like man, health, and life because we can produce symbols connoting these words. Similarly, the use of the term ‘health’ describes its concept as seen by the society that employs it.
The ability to execute something is specifically determined against a particular backdrop. The background and context in which an action is performed may enable a person to perform it or may even impede it if the variables are not rightly placed. Society is one such variable. It can help pursue a particular course of action or completely shun it. The uproar following silicone gel breast implants in the early 1900s substantiates this argument.
It was a battle of sorts between surgeons, lawyers, FDA (Food and drug administration), and women.[Swelen: 1982] While implant manufacturers and surgeons advocated the transparency of the devices used in the breast implant, some scientists were claiming it to be highly toxic for the body, women claiming it to be badly damaged by the implants, and FDA demanding valid scientific data. The controversy surrounding FDA policy over breast implants reached its apex during April 1992, after which a 3 stage trial was announced to be conducted under its supervision. The data resulting from the trial (Kessler:1992)would be used to make any final decisions pertaining to the general use of devices.
The social construction of a particular public problem was directly a function of various actors in the field. The need for breast implants was catered to by the implant manufacturers and the array of interests of various stakeholders had to be looked into by FDA. The voices of women at hand were another major issue. Need precedented technology in this bid. The need to solve health issues associated with breast and to legitimize the modes of health care employed. Thus, major forces of the society gave way to an answer pertaining to health issues surrounding breast treatment. (Kessler:1992)
Hence, society is one of the many requirements for health by constituting part of the background action. We look into this argument from the points of view of 2 different societies for example A and B. G is a common goal in both societies. We find that G is easily accomplished in society A as compared to society B. This implies that accomplishing G in A is different from accomplishing it in B. The psycho-physical needs are greater in B. In effect to stay healthy in A is easier. The concept of health remains common in both societies but the social and psychological forces construing it vary.
If we look at the aforementioned concept from the point of view of a disease, or impairment, the requirements as stated will again vary. A health state converts into disease after it reaches a certain stage of severity. Severity is assumed to be the probability of causing illness. The psycho-physical integrity that demarcates A and B, makes the way through to severity easier in A compared to B. The borderlines and standards required to qualify for a disease thus vary in both A and B.
Society is more than just a passive background for the action. It plays an important part in shaping our values. In essence, it acts like an evaluating system, nurturing an individual with notions of health. But the question that looms over is the way society evaluates? Is not the ascription of health by one individual the same as the other? Are there any external factors involved? History cites that there are. An individual’s age, peers, education, and even his culture cater to his evaluation and general perception of health. Societies are heterogeneous entities. It sets out in pursuit of a particular ideology failing to make it there in the process.
The hoopla surrounding aid victims is the same. Society has evaluated aids as incurable, disastrous, and ‘bad’. Aid victims are like a social taboo, who can’t be talked to and looked down at. They have been shown the doors of isolation by most societies of today. On the contrary, NGOs and humanitarian organizations advocating support for successful accommodation and acceptance of aid patients are to name a few. From the medicinal point of view, aids is NOT contagious, they have all the right to live, talk, and breath as others in the community. Society is the difference here; society has evaluated aids as a health condition that is disastrous, viral, and inconceivable.
Genetic engineering which aims at using bacterial multiplication to treat various diseases receives fierce opposition from various segments of society. Cited as the answer to diabetes, and various other diseases, the methods employed have been vehemently rejected. Religious factions oppose it for the power it induces in the hands of a mortal, while morally it has been rejected over fears of exploitation. (Janie D, 1999) Health care through gene manipulation, in effect, has given rise to skeptical eyebrows by the patients. Its worldwide implementation remains to be seen and adopted. (Norten Felt:1993, p 17-24)
Symbolic theory, which in part holds that illness is socially constructed, is thus true. The true meanings of illness and wellness are interrelated. It may be dependent on time as well. A physical condition referred to as illness in one era may be construed as wellness in the other era. At the start of the twentieth century, plump women were considered to be healthy while thin women anorexic and unhealthy. Health care in itself is a socially constructed phenomenon. The way we interact with and treat doctors, the ill, and humanitarian efforts for example Health Maintenance Organization, are all a part of our social creation. (Pom I, 1993)
The ideologies and these preconceived notions will continue. The debate over the concept of health persists. It is not a biological concept but a 2-dimensional predicate concept as argued by some. The claims made by insurance authorities are worth a note in this regard. According to insurance authorities, health is a technical concept adjudged by the way we fulfill our professional roles. Each and every one of us including the sick has a role to play, measured by his/her fulfillment of the goal at hand. Failure to do so is deemed as a state of illness by health insurance authorities. It should be however noted that the role criterion and its accomplishment will vary from individual to individual.
Conclusion
As explained and suggested, health and society are interwoven with each other. They form a matrix, which can only gel if the ingredients match. Social stratifications and the way we experience health are essential to our understanding of illness. (Green OH, 1999)Social structures inclusive of gender, race, class, etc have evolved over time. The medicinal practices employed have also advanced in due course.
It is ironic to see how health care and alternative therapies now compete with modern scientific developments. Gone are the days of homeopathy. The Chinese have started practicing an even more peculiar form of medicine where they prick needles to relieve pain. Much to everyone’s wonder, the practice is doing wonders and has developed a strong brigade of followers in the process. Response to reproductive technologies like cloning and treatments like Viagra has also shaped over time. People have become more accommodative and social forces have started becoming more resilient. Due to the hype and furor, cancer patients are finding it easy to survive today. They are happier and more content. (Telfer: 1980)
There still exist some fatal points of debate and the struggle between health and society is yet to reach the point of complete unanimity.
References
Kessler, da. [1992].. The basis of the FDA’s decision on breast implants., Vol 326, no 25, 1713-1715.
Love SM, Gelman RS, Silen W.[ 1982] Sounding board. Fibrocystic “disease” of the breast–a nondisease? N Engl J Med Vol no 307.
Jamie, D. (1999) Geniticising disease, Implications for racial disparity, Meredith L. King.
Sarah, P. (2006) The Health of Men and Women.
Green, OH. (1999) Emotions a Physical Theory :, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lis , Pe. (1993) Health Care Need, Avebury, Aldershot.
Fluford KW M.[ 1983] Praxis Makes Perfect; ‘Theoretical Medicine’ Vol no 14; no 4.
Pom I, [1993] Health and Adaptedness; Theoretical Medicine, Vol no 14.
Norden felt L, Quality of Life, Avebury, Aldershot. Norden felt L, On the Notions of disability and Handicap; Scandavian Journal of Social welfare. Vol no 2, p 17- 24.
Telfer, E, 1980 Happiness, Macmillan Press, London.