The Dominance of Scientific Medicine - Boon or Evil - Essay Example

Critical Discussion Name: Institution: Date: Introduction The dominance of scientific medicine within the western societies is no doubt a major issue. Scientific medicine is trusted for treating various ailments and relieving pain. Scientific medicine is dominance as compared to other alternative sources of medicine (Gale & McHale, 2015). Scientific medicine has no holistic view of disease as is the case in the holistic medicine. The prevalence of scientific medicine in the western societies has come with some risks despite bettering public health sectors of numerous countries. Public health has improved tremendously in the western culture due to the availability of scientific medicine and more money has been set aside for research and development (Keshet, 2013). Scientific medicine has improved delivery of public health and provided better ways of dealing with injuries and diseases. The value and dominance of scientific medicine in the western world cannot be underestimated but it has its own challenges. This paper discusses the dominance of western medicine in western culture and provides challenges accompanying this dominance. Discussion Disease represents the impact of malfunctioning body. It is important to trace all specific causal mechanisms in the body. Medical treatments that have proven clinical as well as scientific effectiveness are essential. The scientific medicine dominance among health discourses is evident in major western societies. Modern technology has transformed health sciences and increased longevity. People live longer, the DNA can be mapped and the risk of getting ill predicted. New drugs are being are continuously being developed (Almeida, 2012). Scientific medicine has resulted in great outcomes for health particularly for acute condition although there are some side effects that come with scientific medicine. Scientific medicine has enabled tremendous progress in immunization, open heart surgery, joint replacements, micro-surgery and laser technologies (Reddy & Banerji, 2012). The dominance of scientific medicine propels more research to look for alternative medicines to deal with diseases that are still a threat to human life. Many health professions are in competition for patients. Medicine has attained and maintained dominance as compared to other healthcare professions as well as practitioners. Human genetics is an exciting and quickly expanding area of medical knowledge. Genetic counseling and genetic screening are becoming more prevalent. Social changes have eventually unsellted medical relationships. Regardless of global public health threats, the surveillance for counterfeit is still limited with present data showing an escalating criminal trade that has not been addressed properly (Gale & McHale, 2015). Efforts by the World Health Organization have fallen short of incorporating the wide pool of stakeholders that are needed to address the problem. This has redirected the responsibility of combating counterfeit medicines to other organizations like UN office and the Interpol to fill the policy gap. Globalization in the pharmaceutical industry has the possibility of spreading poor-quality medicines across the world before adequate intervention and detection are possible. Products of poor quality come about due to absence of expertise, manufacturing practices that are poor or inadequate infrastructure but counterfeits refer to products produced by criminals. Falsified medicines avoid going through the evaluation of safety, quality and efficacy that is needed for the European Union authorization procedure (Caudron, 2008). This kind of medicine can be a health hazard. In the recent past the most commonly falsified medicines in western countries were expensive lifestyle medicines like steroids, hormones and antihistamines. In the developing world they have involved medicines for treating life-threatening conditions like HVI/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The issue of falsified medicines has been on the rise with more medicines being falsified. Falsified medicines refer to fake medicines that target to mimic real medicines. The use of poor quality, ineffective, and harmful medicines can occasion therapeutic failure, resistance to medicines, escalation of disease, and even death. It further undermines the confidence vested in the health systems, distributors, pharmaceutical manufacturer, and health professions. Funds used to buy poor quality and ineffective medicines are wasted either by customers or governments (Degardin, Roggo Been & Margot, 2011). Various governments have to come up with strong regulatory authorities to make sure that the manufacture, distribution and use of scientific medicine is adequately regulated for the purposes of promoting public health. There is presence of information asymmetry between the manufacturers or distributors of scientific medicines and the patients or consumers who are not in any position to arrive at independent evaluation of the safety, quality or efficacy of these medicines (Ayers & Kronenfeld, 2010). Patients who are desperate may end up buying ineffective or toxic medicine. Once doctors have prescribed medicines to patients other people in the distribution chain like drug sellers and dispensers get involved. Regulation is paramount to make sure that these interactions do not affect treatment outcomes in a bad way. Scientific medicine regulation comprises mutually reinforcing activities targeting to promote and protect public health. One major essential role of science is preventing and comprehending why many people develop sickness and scientists use technological advances to improve delivery of public health. The dominance of scientific medicine seems to have occasioned backlash. In spite of the expectations of the public with regard to science, and the progress made to highlight its importance in the medical professions, there has been a mounting social shift towards unorthodox, unconfirmed treatments as well as alternative sources of scientific and medical authority (Mackey & Liang, 2011). Practices and remedies fronted as natural or traditional are held to provide alternatives to the drugs. There are issues and diseases that need more research whereas the use of scientific medicine in western culture has some side effects that are long term. Toxicity in the body and development of other diseases due to the over-use of scientific medicine continue to puzzle researchers who are investigating better medicines (Cant, Watts & Annmarie, 2011). The prevalence of scientific medicine within the United States coincided with the rejection of other forms of alternative medicine comprising of holistic medicine from Eastern medicine and American Indians. Eastern medicine as well as holistic medicine is illustrations of the types of healthcare that within the US have usually been relegated to a role that is marginal owing to the prevalence of Western technologically oriented medicine that is practiced by American medical profession (MacArtney & Ayo, 2014). The dominant of scientific medicine within the US has led to the development of alternative medicine that has not been welcomed in the health insurance plans. Holistic medicine focuses on the entire person like the physical, social, environmental, and spiritual elements. Practitioners within holistic medicine have small or no separation between medicine and religious and spiritual belief systems that embody health and healing. Treatments in a holistic approach are based on the perception that ill health is caused by imbalances in the body that have to be corrected. Treatments comprise of nutritional supplements, acupuncture, herbal remedies, natural diets, as well as homeopathic remedies. Some components of holistic medicine like acupuncture are practiced alongside scientific medicine. The challenge of scientific medicine is that there are conditions that do not necessarily affect the physical part of the bod. Things like depression were not necessarily seen as medical conditions but it is now regarded as a form of illness (Ayers & Kronenfeld, 2010). Holistic view takes into consideration the whole person. The scientific medical knowledge belongs to the medical profession whereas other models of care have been excluded. The dominance of scientific medicine has led to patient powerlessness and the desire for more information. All the stakeholders have to be involved in important decision making but the medical profession has become the custodian of scientific medicine hence excluding other people. Other models have been locked out. Western medicine for more than one hundred years has worked in perfection of a dominant scientific discourse founded on viewing disease as the result of chemical and biological mechanisms in the body. The traditional biomedical model remains entrenched as the main paradigm within the contemporary Western medicine. The birth of health consumer concept is as a result of scientific medicine (Furze et al, 2011). Health consumer movement describes the relationship between patient and healthcare providers where trust and faith are emphasized. Consumer movement focused on changing the dynamics of patient/doctor relationship. It focused the patient rights to information as well as to make decisions concerning their own heath care. Many of the health problems have social causes hence focusing on economic and social problems can improve population health. Scientific medicine does not include such observations and disregards social, economic and religious involvement. The social context plays an important role in the health and well-being of a person. The prevalence of the biomedical model focuses on the Australian health care system. There is more emphasis on curative as opposed to preventive medicine. Professional and cultural models of illness influence the decision on individual patients as well as delivery if healthcare. Biomedical model of illness that has dominated healthcare cannot explain completely various forms of illness (Nayyar et al, 2012). The inability stems partly from three assumptions: illness has an underlying cause, pathology (disease) is usually the underlying cause and removal of disease will restore health. These assumptions are not true. Health may mean different things to various people and this is seen in the experiences of pregnancy as well as childbirth. People’s perceptions on health as well as disease are usually influenced by official discourse has projected authoritative messages about what has to be regarded as important (Caudron, 2008). Official accounts have judgments concerning health, focusing on some practices and ideas while marginalizing others (Morris, 1998). There is a strong urge in the United Kingdom to enhance care for women in the course of childbirth and this has comprised of a shift from a medical model whereby pregnancy and childbirth are viewed as something that is pathological towards broader and more social model of care. Medicine’s crisis emanates from the logical inference that disease is defined in terms of somatic parameters. The physicians do not have to be preoccupied with psychosocial issues which are found outside medicine’s authority and responsibility. Under the biomedical model feelings of discomfort or pain or perceiving change in the usually functioning and they are believed to show the ill health of a person (Brent & Lewis, 2013). Conceptualization of disease or sickness can be comprehended as physical reductionism that excludes psychological, social and behavioral aspects of illness. The model is closely associated with the physical or mechanistic view of the human body where sickness is not regarded as something happening to a ‘whole’ person but to their ‘parts’. Some of the convention medicine has unknown effectiveness but on the other hand practitioners avoid alternative medicine for being unproven. Only 11% of the conventional treatments have been proved to be beneficial (MacArtney & Ayo, 2014). Scientific medicine has only got financial incentives that maintain the practitioners’ jobs. Improvement of the general health will deny them a source of living. Conclusion Scientific medicine has played a major role in making life better and increasing longevity. Scientific medicine has improved the quality of life but it is not a guarantee that people are healthy. Development and dominance of scientific medicine has prompted the development of alternative sources medicines. Studies on healthy vividly demonstrate that dominant biomedical model concerning healthcare delivery is not sustainable and has to integrate social model in manner that is effective for the purpose of enhancing quality of healthcare for huge populations of people across the globe. There are challenges that accompany scientific medicine and its perception of disease. Not all scientific medicines are beneficial. Consumer movement has come about due to the dominance of scientific medicine and monopoly of medical professionals. Poor quality medicines threaten the lives of consumers and lead to a confidence drop in the scientific medicine. Public health is very important and any threat to it has to be dealt with successfully. Key achievements in scientific medicines have not translated to perfect life. Instead there are other worries to be addressed as a result of the dominance of scientific medicine in western societies. As the pharmaceutical industry continues to invest billions in developing alternative medicines, the drawbacks that come with scientific medicines have to be addressed to raise the confidence of the consumers. References Almeida, J. (2012). The differential incorporation of CAM into the medical establishment: The case of acupuncture and homeopathy in Portugal, Health Sociology Review 21(1): 5–22. Ayers, S.L. & Kronenfeld J.J. (2010). Using Factor Analysis to Create Complementary and Alternative Medicine Domains: An Examination of Patterns of Use, Health 14(3): 234–52. Brent E., & Lewis J. S., (2013). Learn Sociology, Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Cant, S.; Watts P., & Annmarie R. (2011). Negotiating Competency, Professionalism and Risk: The Integration of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Nurses and Midwives in NHS Hospitals.’ Social Science & Medicine 72(4): 529–36. Caudron J.M. (2008). Substandard medicines in resource-poor settings: a problem that can no longer be ignored, Trop. Med. Int. Health.; 13: 1062–1072 Degardin K, Roggo Y, Been F, & Margot P. (2011). Detection and chemical profiling of medicine counterfeits by Raman spectroscopy and chemometrics, Anal Chim Acta, 705:334–341. Gale N.K., & McHale, J.V. (2015). Routledge Handbook of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Perspectives from Social Science and Law, New York: Routledge. Furze B., Savy P., Brym R.J., & Lie J. (2011). Sociology in Today's World, New York: Cengage Learning. Keshet, Y. (2013). Dual Embedded Agency: Physicians Implement Integrative Medicine in Health-care Organizations, Health 17(6): 605–621. Mackey TK, Liang BA (2011). The global counterfeit drug trade: patient safety and public health risks, J Pharm Sci., 100: 4571-4579. MacArtney, J.I. & Ayo, W. (2014). The Problem of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Today: Eyes Half Closed? Qualitative Health Research 24(1): 114–23. Morris, D.B. (1998). Illness and Culture in the Postmodern Age, Illinois: University of California Press. Nayyar GML, Breman JG, Newton PN, & Herrington J. (2012). Poor-quality antimalarial drugs in SouthEast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet Infect Dis.; 12: 488–496. Reddy D, & Banerji J. (2012). Counterfeit antimalarial drugs. Lancet; 12: 829. Read More