Looking at ourselves as individuals, completely disconnected from nature and any form of ‘spiritualism,’ almost as superior beings, possessing endless ethical rights and with the self-belief and ability to permanently change the planet and everything in it, not only on the surface, but also on a sub-atomic level, places us in a very precarious position.
Specialist medical knowledge, is a body of knowledge, collective, similar to that of religion.
Michelle Ashton X384338 TMA04
It consists of many diverse aspects, ‘common sense,’ practical knowledge,’ , ‘institutional, established and expert knowledge.’ (Workbook 5, Chapter 4, p.53.) Within this specialism, ‘social change,’ has begun to play its part in dictating the direction and focus of this specialist knowledge. Disease and illness are different and ever changing, accidents are different now to accidents for example; fifty years ago. As society changes at a rate of knots, it must be becoming progressively more difficult to specialise within a specific area of medical knowledge. Medical scholars once chased cures for polio and diphtheria, then measles and mumps, today it is cancer and dementia, to which, are today’s diseases much more threatening than those of previous generations, or did we not recognise today’s diseases amongst all of the others? Even after researching this, I am still uncertain.
To draw on personal experience of this, within twenty-four hours of receiving the ‘diphtheria, polio inoculation, my son was extremely ill with, diagnosed by a doctor, ‘extreme tonsillitis’ I was told categorically there was no link to the inoculation. Co-incidentally, twelve other young people, post inoculation where similarly effected. Researching this, diphtheria itself resembles, ‘severe tonsillitis’ additionally, the statistics showed that after twenty years of inoculating against diphtheria, instances had increased by 0.1%. First point is why where we lied too, second point, why are theses inoculations being used when they are clearly un-effective? There are many considerations to take into account when ‘specialised knowledge’ is not challenged. Who benefits from un-effective mass-vaccination programs?
Michelle Ashton X384338 TMA04
When government was challenged about their passive acceptance of nicotine addiction, new research forced action to be taken. Cynically, cigarettes could not be banned entirely, purely due to the tax revenue accrued. Many ‘political specialist’ argue this ensures less illegal import, however, in whose interest is this? ‘Specialised knowledge’ can be used as a manipulation to produce a specific result/reaction.
Specialised knowledge is a double-edged sword, for example, the theory behind GM crops to feed poorer third world countries, was a good theory. However, scientific knowledge in the hands of politicians, backfired. After instructing GM crops to be experimentally planted on English farm land, (as well as else where in the world,) generously subsidising the farmers, despite vigorous protests from environmentalists and cautionary advice from scientists. It was then discovered that the plants spread organically from field to field (like a disease,) which, with hindsight, was glaringly obvious, this was further compounded by pollination by honey bees, which are strangely enough, now in decline, (that is an end of the world scenario, the extinction of bees.)
Specialised knowledge is not as such, anti-discriminatory to either gender, rather it is specifically gendered according to the social infra-structures to which it was perceived. An example of this being that the majority of NHS workers are female, however, this is exclusive of the more specialised positions within the medical field and subsequently, exclusive of the more specialised knowledge therein.
Michelle Ashton X384338 TMA04
The evidence is historical, stemming from the exclusion of women from medical guilds and universities alike. (Fox Keller,) Margaret Kiloh, Workbook 5, Chapter 6, p.70.) Therefore, specialised medical knowledge is inherently a ‘male’ knowledge, or male interpretation of specialised medical knowledge. Either way, it is not a balanced knowledge. Equally, within religious, political and environmental specialised knowledge, the origins and core are ‘male’ interpretations of that knowledge.
Illness is given specific classification, only relative to past and present information and knowledge and the discourse used at that specific time. Specialised knowledge to further understand something specific, is developed using this medium of communication and debate and is therefore related to the inclusiveness of the discourse, the culture of the discoursers and the power which they hold within a specific society. This sort of argument and evidence is used by ‘Faucault.’ (Faucault, Workbook 5, Chapter 6)
In answering the question, ‘does access to specialised medical knowledge make decision-making easier in contemporary society?’ I would have to say that specialised knowledge is only specialised within its era, within its category, within its culture and within its own boundaries - and sometimes for its own specific reasons/agenda.
Michelle Ashton X384338 TMA04
Making decisions appear to be made easier for each passing generation, however, genetically and physiologically etc.. people will always be human animals, they will not suddenly turn into a different creature, requiring different specialised knowledge. What has and is changing, is our invasive, irreversible manipulation of nature, science and medicine, striving for more specialised knowledge and information, a manipulation on a world wide scale as well as a genetic one.
Within a contemporary society, making decisions based on our access to specialised knowledge, is highly complicated, with different perspectives, opinions, evidence and ideas on everything. Once you can finally settle on a decision within this complexity, you are then left to wrestle the ethics and future implications of your decision at leisure.
As ‘specialised knowledge’ becomes evermore ‘specialised’ it has become more difficult to challenge. In doing this, would require the same ‘specialised knowledge’ the production of fresh claims, evidence and evaluation. It is therefore more difficult to prove or disprove. In that respect, specialised medical knowledge is not dis-similar to religious or political specialised knowledge, it is more a matter of a belief system rather than a trust in someone else’s accuracy in dictating absolute knowledge and absolute truth.
Michelle Ashton X483 4338 TMA 05 DD100
References
Margaret Kiloh, Workbook 5, Chapter 1, ‘Science and society; Knowledge in medicine.’ Section 1.1.2 ‘Arguments and examples,’ p.17.
DD100. Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Fox Keller, Margaret Kiloh, Workbook 5, Chapter 6, ‘Assessing block 5,’ p.70.
DD100. Milton Keynes, The Open University.
‘Faucault,’ Margaret Kiloh, Workbook 5, Chapter 6, ‘Assessing block 5,’ p.70.
DD100. Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Margaret Kiloh, Workbook 5, Chapter 4, ‘Changing times, changing knowledge.’ Section 4.1 ‘Chapter 4 and the block so far’ pp 53-54.
DD100. Milton Keynes, The Open University.
