Medicalization & Social Control - Essay Example

Medicalization & Social Control Medicalization masked the real implications of social problems. The medical profession had placed undue pressure on society to conform through the guise of health benefits. Contrary to the real context of the social problems, medicalization lends a surreal interpretation if not high-browed assertion that some social problems have medical or biological indications. Breaking from the mold of medical labels would prove difficult to many individuals. A familiar example is the stigma caused by the medical practice on people living with AIDS or HIV positive. By attempting to associate the curtailment of social behavior as a preventive measure, the inappropriate dissemination of information and the medicalization of the disorder had caused the society to discriminate against individuals who were afflicted with the disease (HIV & AIDS: Discrimination and stigma, 2007). In another situation, medicalization could perpetuate discrimination against individuals. A recent development was the use of genetic information to discriminate the selection of workers. The Burlington Northern Railway genetic screening case was the first lawsuit that questioned the legality and ethics on the use of biotechnology as part of the company’s strategy to screen its employees. The company used genetic screening unknown to its employees to determine whether disability claims of carpal tunnel injuries were job-related or that the employees’ genetic make-up was essentially the cause of the disorder. The findings of the genetic screen had implications on the company’s bottom line. This will determine whether the company had to shoulder the costs of disability claims or put the blame entirely on the employee for being “genetically disadvantaged” and free itself from obligations (BNSF and EEOC Settle Genetic Testing Case Under Americans with Disabilities Act, 2002).The case illustrated how biotechnology and medicine could be used for purposes other than lifesaving medical research and applications. The cited examples above mitigate the impact of medicalization as a form of social control. Dominance of the medical practice as a form of social control virtually gave it license to attach labels to “health” or “illness” (Conrad, 1992, p.214, Zola, 1994, p.392). Waitzkin (1989) referred to social control as “mechanisms that achieve people's adherence to norms of appropriate behavior.” (p.225). It is the professional verdicts of physicians that help reinforce controls that mediate social behavior. The effect becomes more devastating with the aid of technology. Conrad (1992) cited that there are generally three modes of medical social control: medical ideology, collaboration and technology (p.216). A medical model is imposed on socially acceptable benefits like health and wellness attached to it. It is a form of collaboration because medical practitioners generally act as “as information providers, gatekeepers, institutional agents, and technician.” (p.216). Medical technology is an instrument or ways to impose social control through drug prescriptions, screening, surgery and other forms that could become excuses to the imposition of social control (p.216). But medicalization of social control is not possible without the participation of the public. Conrad (1992) contended that it was with the tacit approval and interaction between the actors (physician, public) and not only the “medical imperialism” that appeared to be dominant, played significant roles in the medicalization of social norms. He also surmised that there could be underlying cultural and social factors that help propagate the medicalization process (p.219). Medicalization of social control often magnifies a medical condition that it becomes atypical or standard. As with the case of people diagnosed with diabetes, the medical condition is a consequence of a genetic disorder that could not have been the fault of the patient. However, because of medicalization, it was projected as a disease more debilitating than it actually is. The labels and medical indications accorded to diabetic patients had duly affected their daily lives and activities (Brennan, 2005, Greene, n.d.). Like other people with disabilities, they have to attempt to take medicalization out of their lives to live normally – normal according to the prevailing definition of society’s standards. They need to assert that the “management of stabilized disabilities is primarily a personal matter and only secondarily a medical matter." The labels and medicalization of the condition could be thought as “both unnecessary and counterproductive.” (Conrad, 1992, p.225) Physical disabilities, according to social perceptions could have a wide range of limitations. People with disabilities might find it difficult to look for work because of the public misconception that the condition is contagious or the condition would slow down productivity. The lack of appropriate information concerning the medical condition, compounded with labeling and unfounded conclusions put up barriers for people with disabilities to live a productive life. Persons living with diabetes are subject to condescending attitudes from the public as a consequence of improper labeling and over magnification of the disease. The intent of the medical profession may initially be cautionary in nature. However, the medicalization of the condition had caused problems for the individual with diabetes. For example, having been diagnosed with diabetes could have implications to the application of the patient for an insurance policy. Insurance coverage for individuals with genetic or acquired diseases at the time of the application carried higher premiums. The person living with diabetes may be discriminated against when looking for employment because of the restriction of the criteria “healthy and able-bodied workers.” With all the negative impacts of the medicalization of the condition, it would seem to be impossible for the afflicted individuals to live normal lives and enjoy the same rights and privileges. Finally, self-perception of people living with diabetes can be skewed as a consequence of socialization. People with diabetes are also governed by social rules on how other people would see them as individuals. Like most, they are also forced to conform to what is perceived as appropriate in society (Andersen & Taylor, 2005,p.68). References Andersen, M.L. & Taylor, H.F. (2005). Sociology: The essentials, Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc. BNSF and EEOC settle genetic testing case under Americans with Disabilities Act (2002). Retrieved 31 May 2007 from: http://www.bnsf.com/media/news/articles/2002/05/2002-05-08-a.html Brennan, V. (2005) Discrimination against people with Diabetes at the workplace. Retrieved 31 May 2007 from: http://www.articlesworld.com/index.php?art/id:18970 Conrad, P. (1992). Medicalization and social control. Annual Review of Sociology, 18; 209-232. Greene, M. (n.d.) Legal advocacy at ADA. Retrieved 31 May 2007 from: http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy-and-legalresources/discrimination/advocacy.jsp HIV & AIDS: Discrimination and stigma (2007). Retrieved 31 May 2007 from: http://www.avert.org/aidsstigma.htm Waitzkin, H. (1989). A critical theory of medical discourse: Ideology, social control, and the processing of social context in medical encounters. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30(2); 220-239. Zola, I. K. (1994). Medicine as an institution of social control. In The sociology of health and illness: Critical perspectives. 4th Edition. Conrad, P. & Kern, R. Eds. New York: St. Martin's Press. Read More