Differences between Sociological and Lay Ideas about Illness from the Biomedicine Ideas - Literature review Example

Differences between Sociological and Lay Ideas about Illness from the Biomedicine Ideas Student Name Course Tutor Institution Date Explain how sociological and lay ideas about illness differ from those of biomedicine? The concept of how sociological and lay ideas about illness differ from those of biomedicine has been the subject of discussion in the past few decades with many scholars giving their perceptions about how they relate and differ. Despite being a topic of study in the past few decades, various scholars have given different views on whether health professionals should go the scientific way without involving the lay concepts or use the blended type. Some scholars have argued that some illness explanations such as those related to lifestyle illnesses should take the folk and lay assumptions rather than medical assumptions. In a similar way, the concept of whether they are related or not has also had been a subject of discussion in the past few decades. Some scholars perceive the two to be completely different and independent of each other while others have a perception of the two being related. For example, Hansen & Easthope, (2007) highlight the fact that the boundaries between medical and lay ideas with regards to lifestyle health explanations are blurred. According to them, doctors currently do not restrict themselves to medical knowledge but rather they use blended form that combines both the medical hence the two ought to be perceived as one. On the other hand scholars such as Judy et al., (2007) argue that the two are completely different. Perhaps, by highlighting the differences, it might help in giving a solution to the question of which method should be adopted or how helpful it is to combine both. This essay will explain the perceptions of illness in the realm of biomedicine and, sociological and lay ideas of illness. To be able to discuss how sociological and lay ideas about illness differ from those of biomedicine, it might deem crucial to define the common concepts. The two common concepts are sociological and lay ideas and biomedicine. Understanding the meanings of these two concepts will help us in explaining their differences. Sociological and lay ideas are the non-scientific approach used by different people to explain illness and it involves theory application and use of non-scientific facts. Lay people are generally those people who do not fall in the group of health professionals. Sociologists are social scientists who use systematic techniques to explain how different people fit into the society. The sociological perception of health and illness concerns itself with the social ancestry of and the how it influences the disease (Michael, 1997). Biomedicine is an approach that explains illness from the scientific point of view and also provides a treatment scientifically. It is normally referred to as the contemporary pathway that helps in solving psychological, physiological and biological problems with the use of modern technology in the examination and diagnosis. This approach has influenced modern beliefs about health. Inspite of this difference, both theories seems to concur at some points and therefore necessary when looking for the solutions regarding illness and health. Health is perceived differently by different groups of individuals based on culture and it is dynamic. Blaxter (2010) perceives health as a subjective experience of ill health and it is usually a personal in nature where an individual feels that there is a problem that cannot be treated. 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). As earlier stated, health and illness are dynamic in nature. The way health and illness are perceived keeps on changing from time to time. The biomedical model outlines a most refined view of health and illness and it is guided by the following assumptions of a disease (Michael, 1997): it is an organic condition it is temporary and can be cured medically it is an experience of sick people who can be treated It can be cured after the appearance of symptoms thus making treatment to be a reactive process It can only be treated in a medical environment. According to this model, modernity has taken over the whole process of medicine and it is all about the expertise in the field rather traditional folk beliefs (Michael, 1997). Despite taking over the entire medicine practice in the modern world, this model has evolved from what used to be called the germ theory of 19th century and Descartes' theory of mind body dualism. The model further presumes that illnesses are caused but external factors that attack the body or non voluntary internal changes. It further points out that individuals are not to blame for their illnesses but basically because they have little control to the external factors and there is no link between psychology and illness. Additionally, sick persons ought to be treated by medical professionals. The biomedical model is guided by four main science based principles including; health is a deviation from normal, specific etiology, generic disease assumptions and scientific neutrality principle (Blaxter, 2010). The generic disease assumptions postulates that every disease has unique characteristics that are displayed by all individuals with the same illness (Blaxter, 2010). The postulation that illness is a deviation from normality perceives health as the equilibrium point and movement from this equilibrium point is caused by disease (Blaxter, 2010). According to the scientific neutrality postulation, medicine embraces the values of neutrality and human beings are perceived as the products psychological processes under which human being have little control (Blaxter, 2010). The specific etiology doctrine postulate perceives that all diseases are cause by disease causing agents. Medical sociology relates to illness and health in two ways. Radley (1994) argued that medical sociologist tries to make sense of illness by relating experience and social distribution of illness. Indeed, they are dealing in matters that are of concern to nursing, clinical medicine, public health, biomedicine and epidemiology. Medical sociology is therefore relevant in many fields of specialties. One advantage of sociology in the study of illness and health is that it opens a way for more social processes. An assessment of the distribution of health and illness provides a means for determining issues such like inequalities, expertise and the relationship between an individual and the society. Functionalism was one of the perspectives by sociologists that were used to analyze health and illness in the society (Dew, 2012). This dealt with the contribution of health to the functioning of the society. High level of health in the community was seen to be essential for a smooth functioning in the society, depending on the social organization and achievement. Parsons urged that illness is the inability of an individual to carry out day to day social duties and task. This can be due to the inability of an individual to remain well in the occurrence of a trauma or disease or may be the propensity of an individual to fall sick due to stress; in this case illness was seen to be a form of deviance. This provides physical and psychological mechanism that can explain health and illness (Dew, 2012). Parson (1951) saw functionalism as an essential way through which the danger, due to illness, to the welfare of an individual and society comes through. The sickness is therefore provides an avenue through which an individual can enter into an independent state without tempering with the social cohesion in the community. The danger to social reciprocity due to illness could therefore be eliminated. The development in medicine has shown how science and rationality has become the center for the formation of social and legitimate system in the society. Parsons described an ideal model which defines the reciprocal roles of a patient and a doctor and in such a way that the social costs of deviant sickness behavior like malingering. The doctor’s approval of illness dismisses the claims which deny the sick individuals their role. It means that the doctor determines the access to the illness benefit, treatment and sick leave. Parsons saw the obligation of the patient to make an effort of recovering as this will be an avenue through which people can go back to their regular social duties as quickly as possible, therefore reducing the harm caused by illness (Parsons, 1951). The view of health and illness in form of functionalism is rather a casual view of the social structure. If the shared values are maintained, the relationship in the community would be smooth even with the presence of inequality. Many sociologists, however, agree with this positive view of the social life, or the functionalist view (Dew, 2012). Perhaps, Parson’s work provided a stage for the development of alternative views that has characterize modern sociology. 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). 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). Scholars like Turner (2000) believe that health and illness in the traditional society is based on religion and thus medical treatment were focused on health and soul instead of the physical body. The concept of health before 19th century was in favor of the balance between the body, mind and the environment. Illness occur if balance is disturbed (Blaxter, 2010). After 19th century, it was discovered that some diseases are caused by microorganisms and thus it transformed the notions of the medical practice, as well as create a model of health in biomedical. This model has four principles: that all diseases are caused by particular agents like bacteria and germs; that each disease has a unique feature; illness is not normal; and that disease is as a result of biological processes out of control of an individual (Blaxter, 2010). However, the biomedical model has been criticized because of its failure to locate health and illness in the bigger environment (Blaxter, 2010). In addition, it has failed to give account of the subjective understanding and experience of an individual. The social model is more inclusive as it integrate the biological process within the social context and it not only sees an individual as a whole, but also perceives health as a positive state and not just an absence of disease (Blaxter, 2010). A study conducted by Blaxter 2004 shows that health is not unitary concept, but rather has different dimension depending on the lifestyle and areas of life. Blaxter found out that lay people define health in various ways. They define health negatively as absence of illness, positively as well being, functionally as the ability to perform daily activities. However, there are two important factors to be considered in general. The first one is that health has moral dimensions, which reflects on the maintenance of healthy lifestyle, as well as how the community responds to illness and its aftermath. Illness has the potential of devaluing the individual’s identity may be due to its cause like smoking or sexual contact, or due to inappropriate conduct in the presence of symptoms. Moral concepts on health have also been studied by scholars. Conrad (1994) studied students in USA and Williams (1984) studied individuals with arthritis in England. Therefore, illness is not viewed merely as a deviation from biological normality, as in medical model, but it is seen as a deviation from social norms. The second dimension is that the lay view of health and illness are sometimes mutually inclusive. For example, some people reported that they feel healthy even if they had diseases like diabetes. This shows that there is strong tendency towards feeling and to being seen healthy. This is especially prominent when the issue of disability is considered, particularly in the context of the association of illness to a range of disabling conditions. For people who have disabilities, health may be redefined to include who an individual fees then (Blaxter, 2004). 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. 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). 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). 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. From the sociological perspective, health is seen as the relation as well as attribute that involve social and biological factors. This implies that there is a dynamic view of illness and health across the historical and biographical time. Health can be influenced by the conditions into which people are born and the action and circumstance that exist in different life stages. 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. References Blaxter, M. 2010. Health. London: Polity Press. Kevin, W., 2009. An introduction to the sociology of health and illness, SAGE, London Hansen, E. & Easthope, G. 2007. Lifestyle in Medicine. New York: Routledge. Judy, O., Jane, P., Pat, T., & Melanie, G. 2007. Public Health For The 21St Century. New York: McGraw-Hill International. Michael, B. 1997. Health, Illness and Medicine In Bury, Michael. 1997. Health and Illness in a Changing Society. London: Routledge. Dew K., 2012. The cult and science of public health: a sociological investigation, New York: Berghahn Books Scambler, G. (2003). Sociology as Applied in Medicine 5th ed. London: W.B Saunders. 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. Helman, C. (1990). Culture, Health and Illness. Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman. Read More