The first and is by far the most influential as just mentioned is the biomedical model; it is the basis of modern western medical practice. It came about from the enlightenment period after the 16th century and most recently reiterated by Nicky Hart in 1985.. This model’s basis works on the theory that if a part of the body isn’t working properly it can be fixed or replaced, treating the body as simply a machine and eradicating any social factors/influences that could be possible in an individual’s life. Also it very much emphasises that Illness and disease can only be identified and treated by doctors via drugs and if need be surgery.
By taking this model onboard as we very much do in the western world we are placing the doctors of this world as the elite, and that infact that illness is then temporary and wellness is the norm. By eradicating external/social factors out of the equation, a question for example such as “Why do non smokers also die of lung cancer?” would cause a problem for this model to be able to answer. The onus of health would very much seem to be placed on the shoulders of the doctors, and healthy living and self responsibility of an individual to keep themsleves healthy is also taken away.
By the very example of the biomedical model that has been put forward and acted upon in our society, the only answer to better health is to have more doctors, enabling them to treat, cure and save more people. But many disagree with this model!
The second model put forward in 1946 by the World Health Organisation (WHO). They defined health as “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” If this were true in all cases, for each individual, then the majority of all countries would grind to a halt. We all are prone to off days, we may awake a little tired, a bit fed up, have a slight headache and so on. Does this mean we are all ill at that point?
Also those within society who have a disability/abnormality, these individual’s may feel perfectly healthy and able to function as anyone without their disability etc, but by this definition they are forever unwell. They may certainly take offense to The Worlds Health organisations model.
Both models have in common that they are looking at defining symptomlogy as in what is ill health, rather than the root cause of it.
As well as the biological factors that might result in one becoming unwell there are also social factors that can be linked to many individuals who are classed as in poor health today. Even with medical research and treatment supposedly being far more advanced than ever before in a report by McKeown in 1979, he states that health professionals, more so doctors have not really had a huge impact on improving health since medicines last advancement over a hundred years ago.
Many attributes to childhood diseases etc that were on the decline were put down to the vaccinations given by doctors. Infact these diseases where already on the decline prior to the vaccines starting to be introduced yet doctors were being given false credit. The major factor in the incline of these diseases were more down to the higher standards of living, individuals recognising how to implement more healthy changes with the lives of themselves and their families. An increased awareness of the need for cleanliness and so on, was contributing and major factors in the decrease of fatalities of these diseases, not that of a doctor’s intervention.
Marxism echoes this, in that doctors are simply gatekeepers, controlling who is allowed to be classed as ill or not, who treatment can be given to and so on. Marxism very much believes that good health is more likely to be experienced by the higher classes as doctors are simply a product of capitalism, and so better health has only been acquired by a change within society, not with the increase of doctors.
.
Educating the public and society certainly does seem more advantageous when it comes to battling the issues of health; a supporter of this theory was E. Annandale
Who in 1998 in “The Sociology of Health Medicine” listed along with the World Health Organisation, on the subject of health. It was suggested that the governments one function was to promote to society the necessary improvements needed within various areas of everyone’s life, including better nutrition, housing conditions, hygiene, leisure, pay and working conditions, taking environmental factors into consideration, like the social model of health does.
This social model of health clearly sees poor health as a symptom of many attributing factors in an individual’s life, unlike the biomedical model takes into consideration the person as a whole rather than a series of malfunctioning body parts.
Unlike the biomedical model of health, the social model accepts that health is determined by more than just biology. Social determinants of health include culture, education, socio-economic status and geographical location. Many of these determinants are factors beyond the control of an individual. A social model of health looks at how community infrastructure is critical in preventing ill health and in creating socially good health outcomes for all members of society including the poorest, as it would appear “Poor Health” is seen here to affect the poor more adversely than that of individuals within a higher class structure. This was confirmed in 2002 when according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation poor people in rented accommodation tend to live in unhealthy neighbourhoods, have poorer physical health, and be more socially excluded than home owners.
As well as social exclusion, gender exclusion is also blamed for ill health, Feminists believe that Women serve the needs of society by reproducing children. The menopause, Pregnancy, cervical cancer and so on, is attributed to the basic viewpoint that women are simply breeding machines, and their health suffers because of this fact. Government screening programme’s such as cervical smear tests etc primarily is a form of control of women’s health. Barriers apparently are in place to stop some women from gaining the medical treatment they need as in the case of women from differing cultures are less likely than western women to be treated by a male doctor.
Evaluation
When looking at both the biomedical model and the social model of health there are two clear approaches when viewing health. The biomedical models emphasis is that on the medical profession and with it treating the human body as a machine whereas the social models takes into account external and environmental influences. Both certainly seem valid viewpoints yet neither wholly answers the question as to what truly is ill or good health or infact to the cause of ill health.
Marxism believes a persons health is affected by their social class, Feminist believe health is affected by a persons gender.
The Marxist viewpoint though does not explain why the common mans life expectancy is lower even though in the UK we have free medical treatment available, where all persons have access to that treatment.
Also the fact that thousands each year are saved by the very screening programme the feminists say is for control purposes only, does not hold much weight for their theory nor the point that women are just doing what comes naturally to them by becoming pregnant through choice, would dismiss society just views women as breeders
What seems very evident is that though there is a health care service available,
There is still inequality depending upon your social class and gender. There does not appear to be a clear cause for ill health, nor the ability to exactly define it. What is clear is that only through education and addressing those inequalities will good health be balanced in society overall, and only then can a valid model defining health be put forward and used as a guideline by not just doctors, but all within society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.answers.com/topic/disease
http://www.answers.com/topic/medical-sociology
http://www.coursework.info/University/Su....ss_ L84767.html
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Health_and_Medicine
Haralambos, 1990, Sociology themes and prospective, Third edition, Harper Collins Publishers, London
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/113.asp
www.who.org
