Social construction analysis claims that illness and health are products of social constructions meaning, society has created these concepts. These concepts categorise men and women separately within illness. Statistics show that women are more likely to suffer illness than men, but social constructionists criticise these statistic and say they should be looked upon with caution. They have good reason for these views being unreliable, because it all amounts in opinion to what is apparent between gender and what is socially accepted. Men will and do suffer as much illness as women but are less likely to visit a doctor. Therefore the statistics are unreliable. It is more acceptable by society for women to seek help. Society pressurises men to tolerate illness and be self reliant in their situations. Men who complain or seek help are viewed upon by society as weak. Women through tradition are viewed as the weaker sex and have been socialised into the situation to seek help if they need it. So as we see it appears that it is socially acceptable for the woman to be ill and not the man even if he is and in most cases experiencing the same symptoms as the woman.
Extra criteria: Gender: It is proven that women do live longer than men; statistics show that women will live an average of up to four years longer than men. There are clear differences in illnesses between the male and female gender also. Women are understood to be more prone to stress. Accumulation of stress leads to; according to professional opinion stress induced related illness within women. Breast cancer is a huge threat women face and psychological illness peaks within women and it is indicated to being induced as a result of daily hassles and physical strain. Women are in the higher category for illness due to being run down even though they have a longer life expectancy than men. Men with the shorter life scale frequently display and seem prone to illness surrounding the heart and respiratory systems. Heart disease, lung cancer and bronchitis sway statistically toward the male gender. These illnesses are suspected to be a result of the harsher outdoor weather and work conditions in which men are exposed to on a daily basis.
Extra criteria: Ethnicity: refers to people with a common ancestry, usually linked to a particularly geographical territory, and perhaps sharing a common language, religion and other social customs. Doctors may find themselves in a position of caring for patients from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds dependent upon the prevalence of that particular group in the community. This requires that the Doctor must have an understanding of the knowledge and skills effective for Tran cultural care, for example procedures for contacting interpretation services, for meeting dietary needs, or for caring for patients of different faiths throughout the process of death and dying. To use the term 'ethnicity' is not without its problems, it may encourage Doctors who, whilst attempting to acquire the knowledge and skills to care effectively for patients from multi-cultural backgrounds, come to view those being cared for as 'other' than themselves. This has lead to some groups in society being referred to as belonging to an ethnic minority. The term 'minority' has connotations of 'less important' or 'marginal'. In many settings it is not only insulting but also misleading or inaccurate. Further, its use perpetrates the myth of white homogeneity a notion that everyone who does not belong to a minority is by that token a member of a majority in which there are no significant differences.
Nature-nurture-Joy and Jane. In the past sociologists were unable to agree which factor in children’s makeup was the most important in their later development. There were those who argued that their nature, their innate ability, the biological characteristics which they inherited and were born with were of absolute importance in deciding their future lives. And there were the others who replied that the environment which nurtured them, their early experiences in the family and the influence of others were the most important factor in deciding what kind of people they would turn out to be. This argument came to be known as the nature-nurture controversy. However sociologists today tend to think it is usually a combination of the two factors within nature-nurture working together that effects learning. This to me also makes more sense than the separate qualities.
Class differences are more marked in Britain than in many other countries and confirmation from research conducted indicates that despite continuing improvement in the nation’s health the gap between the social classes has and is continuing to widen. Between the classes it seems the higher the occupation the better chance of survival. With regards to death the lower class are more vulnerable to all the killer diseases i.e. heart disease, cancer, stroke and accidental death due to injury or violence. All the above sway strongly and accordingly to the lower class. The gap is still rapidly increasing death rates among the higher class from disease such as cancer and heart disease is decline but increasing amongst the lower class. This does put forward strong points that illness could be inflicted from which social margin you are in. It seems that the lower classes are without a doubt more prone and vulnerable to illness and disease as a result of their living conditions, and lack of money to provide a healthy diet and their Out of reach resources and hazardous lifestyles. Their ill health and higher death rate does seem to reflect upon their class position. This seems to explain why doctors almost automatically apply these specific disease labels more readily to the lower class group and not so spontaneously to the higher class group.
The higher class group do stand above the lower class where illness and disease are concerned. Their living conditions are better; Money is available to provide better health care and pay for a healthy suitable diet. Environment conditions are remarkable and due to their position they have greater opportunities which allow them selection and sway them away from danger so they are able to live a less hazardous life.
From all of the above I think it is safe to say that yes different backgrounds do effect peoples perceptions upon you, the social classes are much separated. Be it the doctors concerning Joy a decision would more than likely have been made about her condition and person before she even arrived at the doctor’s surgery. Upon her being at the doctors thought would sway to her being frequently ill throughout her life and on a downward spiral. This would all be accumulated from the poor environment she has come from and would be going back to. The outlook being a girl fighting a losing battle. Joy like the rest of the lower working class is a statistic.
Jane however would be given the benefit of the doubt. She would I think be treated fairly like an open book and given the opportunity to express herself before the doctor makes his decision. Her social class is positive therefore indicating hope and improvement. Jane would be openly welcomed and suitably treated; she will not be looked upon as a statistic but labelled to have a chance with improvement inevitable.
