Search

The article focuses on the discussion of sociologist Frank Ferudi regarding medicalization. The author reflects that the term was used to describe the process of medical label application and phenomena. He said that the term was confusingly used for it sometimes referred to misapplication of medical terms in moral, social or political phenomena and biological or mental health. Although Furedi had provided examples of medicalization in present day situation, it was not enough and could have gone further by citing changes on genetics and reproductive technology.

This paper explores the nature and future of social research on patient-professional interactions. It first sketches the historical background to such research and notes that in the UK and US this was characterised by a focus on the doctor–patient relationship. This research embodied a sceptical view of the power of the medical profession in sustaining and promoting social inequalities, and a critique of 'medical dominance' over other health care professionals and patients. The paper then goes on to outline changes occurring in the nature of professional practice that suggest a fundamental shift in the social relations of health care and the role of medicine. These include a putative loss of public confidence in the medical profession and the authority of science, an increased role of the media in informing patients, and a change in the state's relationship with health care professionals. Finally, the paper outlines some items for a future research agenda, including the need to understand better patient preferences about changes in health care delivery, including a willingness to engage in 'partnership', and the possibilities and barriers to change in professional practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is currently considerable renewed interest in narrative analysis in the humanities, social sciences and medicine, illness narratives, particularly those of patients or lay people, are a particular focus in health related settings. This paper discusses the background to this interest, especially its roots in critiques of medical dominance and distinctions between disease and illness, drawn by sociologists and anthropologists in the 1970s. The current emphasis on patient or personal narratives can also be seen to stem from changes in morbidity patterns, the expansion of information about disease and illness, and in public debates about the effectiveness of medicine. The paper then goes on to outline a framework for analysing illness narratives. This involves exploring three types of narrative form: `contingent narratives' which address beliefs about the origins of disease, the proximate causes of an illness episode, and the immediate effects of illness on everyday life; `moral narratives' that provide accounts of (and help to constitute) changes between the person, the illness and social identity, and which help to (re) establish the moral status of the individual or help maintain social distance; and `core narratives' that reveal connections between the lay person's experiences and deeper cultural levels of meaning attached to suffering and illness. Here, distinctions are drawn between such sub forms as heroic, tragic, ironic and comic, and regressive/progressive narratives. Finally, the paper discusses some of the methodological issues raised by narrative analysis. Given the complex character of illness narratives, their social and psychological functions, together with the motivational issues to which they relate, it is suggested that they constitute a major challenge for sociological analysis. From this viewpoint current claims about narrative analysis in medicine need to be treated with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the author's comments on the revised version of the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH2). A number of new features are being introduced, although I will confine my comments to just a few of them. The first of these concerns the relationship between the various concepts. The new scheme retains 'impairments' but replaces 'disability' with 'activities', and handicap with 'participation'. In examining the relationship between these planes of experiences the revised scheme suggests that 'participation' may cause impairments, and thus create a causal 'loop' back to the beginning. However the ICIDH, in its original form, did not intend to characterize these relationships in a rigid or linear manner. Many of the points made in the current discussion documents simply repeat what was said in relation to the ICIDH; that, for example, impairments do not always lead to disabilities but could still lead to handicaps and that the severity of related impairments, disabilities and handicaps were not always constant. Low levels of impairment can give rise to considerable disadvantage.

The article focuses on significant contributions of Anselm Strauss made to sociology in a dazzling array of areas: sociological theory, social psychology, occupations and professions, sociology of organisations, research methodology, and medical sociology. He was incredibly productive during his career, publishing over a hundred articles and chapters and nearly thirty books, many of them in several editions. Strauss was a field researcher and sociological conceptualiser. His empirical studies were always 'grounded' in the data of participant-observation and interviews, and often were exemplary in their attempts to attain some general sociological understanding. Strauss frequently worked with research teams, particularly in his studies of health and health care. His first forays into medical sociology took place when he was a member of the research team that produced that classic study of medical education, "Boys in White." A few years later Strauss was a leader of the research group that produced an important study of mental hospitals, "Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions." In collaboration with Barney Glaser, Strauss was among the first sociologists to study dying.

This article replies to the comments made in the previous study related to disability and the myth of independent researcher. Perhaps the first point to note is that most people are probably already wary of researchers, and for all kinds of reasons, both good and bad. Some people fear intrusion and surveillance, others (notably politicians and the wealthy) fear exposure of their activities, or the social costs of their actions or policies. The central issue raised in the article is, however, what degree of independence and accountability should researchers have, in responding to this ambivalence about research in society. On this point, Colin Barnes seems to offer a confusing answer. On the one hand, Colin seems to be objecting to academic research operating within an ivory tower of "researchers speaking to themselves" yet, on the other hand, he spends considerable space in his article castigating the threat to research posed by government sponsored edicts and procedures. Further, what needs to be recognized is that social research has often involved challenging a number of entrenched interests, especially within medicine and government circles. The idea that social research relies on a notion of disability as a profoundly medical problem is to completely misrepresent the history of research on disability and to attempt to elevate the social oppression model as the only one that can govern research.

The article reflects on self-care as a major part of English National Health Services. The Expert Patients Programme (EPP) launched in 2001 in England aims on dealing with exercise, nutrition, symptom management, fatigue and sleep management, and others. Moreover, patients entering in the programs such as EPP are positively oriented and committed towards self-management practices resulting to self-care benefits like improved self-efficacy, confidence and others.