Is Medicalisation a Problem Today - Literature review Example

Is Medicalisation a Problem Today? According to Kennedy p.5), “Medicalisation refers to the expansion of medicals jurisdiction into areas traditionally thought to be non-medical.” The term medicalisation is common in the field of medicine. It involves giving a patient advice as well as treatment so that he or she can get well. The same term is also employed in non-medical domains such as social lifestyle with the intention of bettering one’s life. The essence of medicalisation was felt as early as 1970s when people started defining problems in medical terms, usually as a disorder, or employing medical interventions in managing them. It is as a result of its positive contributions to the lives of people that its use started to rise in the society. Among the problems that medicalisation managed to solve include hyperactivity, post-traumatic stress disorder as well as child abuse. The reduction of the number of suicidal cases as well as the immortality rate was also as a result of the extensive use of medicalisation in hospitals as well as in the society. As a consequence of this, it is evident that medicalisation is not a problem today. In connection to this, the paper aims at expounding on why medicalisation is not an issue today. In addressing this, the paper will mainly describe on the impacts of medicalisation in childbirth as well as suicidal practice. It will also give some detailed information as to why some people associate medicalisation with some complications such as the death of women in childbirth. It will also provide a solution to ignorant perceptions about mobilisation among members of the society. In the past, women decisions were highly regarded concerning their pregnancy and childbirth. During that time, expectant women highly disregarded some practices such as checkups through aid of technological devices such as ultrasound. Majority of the women during that time associated fate with normality. For instance, some of the women considered breech birth as a mere complication that did not deserve any form of medication. It is as a result of such a perception that some people claim that medicalisation has led to more harm than good to the women and children in childbirth. For instance, Jonsdottir (2012) argues that it is the association of the delivery with health settings that many women have developed complications that have resulted in death of some of them. Jonsdottir also claims that the use of medical procedures in delivering babies has significantly devalued childbirth that is supposed to be valued as a natural process that does not deserve any form of rush. Kitzinger (2005) in his work claims that delivery used to be a process in which women were bound to the birthing process by taking care of the birthing mother in the past. According to him, the birthing process used to take place in a secluded place within the reach of women whereas currently it is conducted within sterile walls of hospitals under the control of health professionals. In connection to this, Lupton (1999) claims that medicalisation has limited personal choice in addition to encouraging dependency on medical care. The medical system has significantly discouraged health professionals from allowing the childbirth process to be a social process (Davis-Floyd 2001). Additionally, the promotion of hospitalisation of expectant mothers by medicalisation has contributed significantly to the rise of use of c-section in giving birth (Kitzinger 2005). Unfortunately, some of the people associate this mode of giving birth to occurrence of many complications such as high maternal death rates. According to Brodsky (2008), the use of technological devices such as forceps, suction cups, and electronic monitoring of the foetal has the potential to cause complications because they impede personalised care. In justifying his point, Brodsky claims that the use of technology diverts attention of the birthing mother an act that can result in complications because it makes childbirth not only impersonal, but also technical (Crossley 2007). Despite these claims, it is evident that medicalisation has contributed significantly to the childbirth. Most of the maternal deaths occur during the duration of the third trimester of pregnancy as well as the first week after giving birth. Khan et al. (2006) associate the deaths with excessive bleeding, hypertensive, and complications of anaesthesia as well as caesarean. In connection with their assertion, it is evident that there is a need for proper care in order to decrease the number of maternal deaths. Ronsmans and Graham (2006) concur with Khan et al.’ assertion; according to them, the leading causes of maternal mortality in developed countries are complications that result from caesareans and use of anaesthesia. Although the maternal mortality is very low in developed countries, it is evident that the use of technological devices has contributed to its rise. In connection with this claim, Jonsdottir (2012) claims that the maternal death rate in the U.S as well as in Canada has started to increase steadily because of dependency on technology. In justifying his point, Jonsdottir provides two cases; the maternal death rate in the U.S. and the maternal death rate in Canada. According to him the lower number of maternity mortality in Canada compared to the U.S is as a result of the most women in the UK valuing the role played by midwives during midwives as well as in childbirth. The UK also provides postnatal care to women. It is as a result of this variation in maternal mortality rates between the U.S and the UK that the majority of the people confirm that medicalisation contributes to the rise of maternity mortality rates. Just like childbirth, suicide was also viewed differently in the West. When Greece was used as a reference point for Western civilisation, suicide was regarded a moral response to not only disgrace, but also the right method of raising a political statement. After some time, suicide became an insult to God as well as a lawfully punishable offence in Europe. The bodies of persons who had committed suicide were not respected and, as a result, they were not given proper burial. The names of those who had committed the suicidal crime were also not inherited by any member of the society. In 1821, a French physician by name Esquirol declared suicide a medical problem. Since that time till now, majority of the people believe that the suicide is a mental disorder. In connection with this assertion, the paper will also explain why medicalisation of suicide is a problem today. According to Jacob (2006), a mentally healthy individual has the potential to value oneself, perceive reality in the right way, accept limitations and possibilities associated with realities, respond to challenges associated with facts, carry out oneself responsibilities, establish and maintain close relationships with others, and makes the activities of the day worthwhile. In connection with this definition, it is evident that there is no right definition of mental disorder. It is as a result of lack of the proper definition that some people came up with a description of it. Currently, mental disorder is described as “…each of the mental disorders is conceptualised as a clinically significant behavioural or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability…” It is evident that this description employs vague as well as undefined terms such as “clinically significant”, “distress” as well as “psychological syndrome”. The use of this description in defining a mental disorder has led to many people having difficulties in differentiating mental disorders from normal individuals’ experiences of guilt and grief. In Australia, a psychological problem is considered as a mental illness that crops from the reactions one develops towards the stresses of life. According to Pridmore and McArthur (2008), the association of a mental problem with health illness was one way doctors used in increasing their power. However, Pridmore and McArthur (2008) also claim that drug companies are also drivers of medicalisation of normal problems with the intention of selling their products. As introduced above, suicide is not a medical disorder. Suicide is a legal finding in which death is associated with the intentional decisions that were made by the deceased about death (Pridmore & McArthur 2008). Unfortunately, majority of the Western academic writings have resulted to medicalisation of this problem. For instance, Pridmore and McArthur (2008) claim “a psychiatric disorder is a necessary condition for suicide to occur.” In connection with Pridmore and McArthur argument, Foster (2011) also asserts that “unequivocal presence of severe psychopathology in those who die their hand.” Some also claim that psychiatric disorder is proven in 100% of suicide cases. However, all these claims are based on assumptions because they have not been scientifically proven. Despite many assumptions linking suicide with distress, it is evident that the suicide epidemic has social origins. This claim is evidenced by the research that was carried out recently in Korea. According to Foster (2011), “A report from Korea showed that the current suicide epidemic in Korea has social origins.” It is also evident that the suicide also takes place in individuals with no mental disorder. The association of suicide with a mental disorder has significantly contributed to the rise in dependency on hospitals lowering the essence of social practices in managing common problems. In connection to this, Pridmore and McArthur (2008) claims that the association of suicide with mental disorder leads to the neglect of crucial social, cultural, cultural as well as political factors that could aid significantly in the management of the causing agent of the problem. Additionally, it is evident that medicalisation of suicide also makes a suicidal behaviour be accepted as socially response to distress. Thus, medicalisation of suicide contributes to its rise instead of its reduction. Sridhar (2001) claims that the primary contributing factor for high rate of suicides in China is abuse of alcohol. According to him, many men in China prefer using alcohol in control of their emotions due to lack of distress coping skills. From his assertion, one can deduce that suicide can result from external social constraints as well as internal domains. In relation to the causation agent of suicide, it is evident that medicalisation is not one of the essential methods of managing the problem. According to Pridmore (2010), majority of the people commit suicide after some moments of interactions with physicians rather than the psychiatrist. In connection with this claim, it is evident that suicide prevention requires the intervention of psychiatrists and not medicalisation of the victims. According to Parens (2011), economic instability contributes significantly to the occurrence of suicide cases in the world. In connection to his argument, it is evident that the majority of the people take their lives as a result of the lack of access to basic needs and other social strains (Conrad 2007). Use of medicalisation as a solution to such problems does not solve the main cause of the problem instead it only worsens the situation (Watters 2004). The extensive use of medicalisation today has led to many governments failing to carry out responsibilities such eradication of poverty that is one of the leading causes of suicide. According to Pridmore (2011), the abuse of medicalisation has led to the majority of the people making rapid decisions on societal issues that can be solved on the ground without any medical intervention. For instance, he associates suicidal thoughts with the typical rush to a place of ‘safety”, hospital. This type of rush has made many people develop a belief that there is a path for preventing suicide in health centres (Chodoff 2002). Despite this notion, the fact remains that the solution to suicidal attempts as well as cases is within the society one belongs. It is the society that has the potential of identifying the contributing factor for a suicidal thought (Kim et al. 2010). In conclusion, medicalisation is a problem today. It has led to the loss of normal routines of functionality to the current use of technology in every aspect. Medicalisation is the key contributing factor for the rise of maternal mortality in developed countries. Medicalisation is also a core contributing to the loss of social responsibilities. It is the one that has led to the current perception about suicide; it is the one that has resulted in the association of suicide with mental disorders that need medication. In connection with the problems associated with medicalisation, it is advisable for the normal activities not to be subjected to medicalisation. Reference List Broadsky, L 2008, The Control of Childbirth: Women Versus Medicine Through the Ages, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc. Chodoff, P 2002, The medicalisation of the human condition. Psychiatr Serv, 53(5):627–628. Conrad, P 2007, The medicalisation of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders, Baltimore (MD): John Hopkins University Press. Crossley, L 2007, Childbirth, Complications and the Illusion of ‘Choice’: A Case Study, Feminism & Psychology, 17(4), pp.543-563. Davis-Floyd, E 2001, The Technocratic, Humanistic, and Holistic Paradigms of Childbirth, International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics, 75, pp. S5-S23. Foster, T 2011, Adverse life events proximal to adult suicide: A synthesis of findings from psychological autopsy studies, Arch Suicide Res, 15(1):1–15. Jacob, S 2006, The cultures of depression, Natl Med J India, 19(4):218–220. Jonsdottir, O 2012, Medicalisation of Childbirth in Western Society: Can Women Resist the Medicalisation of Childbirth? Reykjavik, Island. Kennedy, P & Kennedy, C 2014, Using theory to explore health, medicine and society, New York: Policy Press. Khan, S, Wojdyla, D, Say, L, Gulmezoglu, M & Van Look, A 2006, WHO Analysis of Causes of Maternal Death: a Systematic Review, The Lancet, 367, pp. 1066-1074. Kim, H, Jung-Choi, K, Jun, J & Kawachi, I 2010, Socioeconomic inequalities in suicidal ideation parasuicides and completed suicides in South Korea. Soc Sci Med, 70(8):1254–1261. Kitzinger, S 2005, The Politics of Birth, Edinburgh: Elsevier. Lupton, D 1999, Risk, New York: Routledge. Parens, E 2011, On Good and Bad Forms of Medicalisation, New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pridmore, S & McArthur, M 2008, Suicide and reputation damage, Australas Psychiatry, 16(5):312–316. Pridmore, S 2010, Suicide and predicament: Life is a predicament, New York: Bentham Publishers. Pridmore, S 2011, Medicalisation of Suicide, Malays J Med Sci, 18(4): 78-83. Ronsmans, K & Graham, J 2006, Maternal Mortality: Who, When, Where and Why, The Lancet, 368(9542), pp. 1189-1200. Sridhar, V 2001, Life and Death Questions, India’s National Magazine. Watters E 2004, Crazy like us: The globalisation of the American psyche, Melbourne (AU): Scribe Publications. Read More