Health and Medicine - The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge (SOCI 1306)

Health and Medicine SOCI 1306 The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge Conrad and Barker's concept that medical knowledge is socially created explores the complex interplay between cultural norms, values, and the advancement of medical knowledge. Conrad and Barker (2011) contend that the cultural and social settings in which medical knowledge is generated and implemented have a significant impact on it and that it is not just an objective collection of facts. This implies that the notion of "medical truth" that we hold is frequently a mirror of the dominant societal attitudes, prejudices, and power structures. Therefore, medical knowledge—especially when it comes to issues of gender, class, race, and ethnicity—can both reflect and perpetuate current social injustices. Medical procedures, diagnoses, and treatments have the potential to actively replicate and prolong these inequities, rather than merely reflecting them passively. A significant illustration of this social construction may be seen in how women's health has been treated historically and in the present. In the past, perceptions about women's health have frequently been shaped by wider cultural views around gender. For example, medical experts' views regarding pregnancy during the beginning of the nineteenth century were based more on social concerns than on scientific data. It was not because of any medical proof that driving or dancing was detrimental for pregnant women, but rather because of cultural standards that aimed to limit and regulate women's behaviour in general and during pregnancy in particular. During this period, women were expected to stay within the home and refrain from partaking in activities that were deemed too strenuous or improper for their social standing. Therefore, by prohibiting actions that were perceived as contradicting the conventional ideals of femininity and motherhood, the medical advice provided to expectant women worked to further solidify these gender norms. The medical community's knowledge of women's health has changed over time in tandem with cultural attitudes on gender and women's roles. But this knowledge has not always developed in a linear or fully progressive manner. Some antiquated ideas have been abandoned, while others have endured or taken on new forms. During the early 1900s, for instance, women who were viewed as excessively sentimental or who displayed actions that went against social expectations were frequently labelled as suffering from "hysteria," a disorder thought to be related to the female reproductive system. Women's emotions and behaviours were pathologised through the adoption of this diagnosis, which successfully silenced and controlled them. Even if "hysteria" is no longer accepted as a medical diagnosis, several features of modern medical treatment nevertheless reflect the underlying beliefs that gave rise to this diagnosis—that women's bodies and emotions are naturally unstable and require management. The medical profession has come to understand the value of evidence-based procedures and the necessity of addressing gender inequalities in medical care and research in more recent times. These initiatives haven't entirely eliminated social construction's impact on medical knowledge, either. For example, compared to health difficulties affecting males, women's health issues are still frequently the subject of inadequate study. The previous exclusion of women from several clinical trials has resulted in a paucity of understanding regarding potential differences in the effects of particular drugs or therapies on this population. In addition, women's health issues like fibromyalgia and endometriosis have frequently been minimised or disregarded, with patients being informed that their symptoms are "all in their head." This demonstrates how the social construction of medical knowledge may have longlasting implications on women's health, especially when it can be linked to the same gender prejudices that affected previous medical ideas. The social production of medical knowledge is significantly influenced by race and ethnicity as well. Medical procedures have frequently been utilised historically to support and uphold racial hierarchies. For instance, medical experts supported the notion that Black people were inferior to White people due to biological differences during the time of American slavery. These ideas served as justification for cruel treatment, such as the use of enslaved women for anesthetic-free gynaecological experiments. The false notion that Black people had a greater pain threshold than White people served as justification for these treatments, and it's alarming to see that this view still has an impact on medical care today. Research has indicated that certain healthcare providers still have false beliefs on racial biological differences, which causes discrepancies in how patients of different racial and ethnic origins are treated and how their pain is managed. Class and the social production of medical knowledge also interact. Depending on one's financial situation, medical care might differ significantly in terms of both accessibility and quality. The working-class and impoverished have historically frequently been the focus of medical experiments without their permission, with their health needs being dismissed or ignored. Even in this day and age, those from lower socioeconomic origins are more likely to face obstacles to receiving healthcare, such as insufficient funds, insurance, or regional restrictions. These obstacles are frequently made worse by the stigmatisation of poverty, which can give rise to presumptions that those who are impoverished are less worthy of assistance or that their health issues are the result of personal faults rather than systemic injustices. The construction and use of medical knowledge may be seen as a reflection of this stigmatisation, with some disorders being more strongly linked to poverty and hence receiving less attention or urgent treatment. The social production of medical knowledge is further complicated by the intersections of gender, race, class, and ethnicity. Women of colour, for instance, frequently experience exacerbated disparities in healthcare, when racial and gender prejudices combine to provide particular difficulties. Research has indicated that, even after adjusting for variables like education and wealth, women of colour are more likely than White women to have poorer health outcomes and get care of inferior quality. These differences stem from institutionalised medical knowledge and practice, which have historically marginalised some communities while elevating others. They are not merely the product of individual prejudices. The investigation of the social production of medical knowledge by Conrad and Barker (2011) emphasises how critical it is to identify and confront these disparities. It demands a critical look at the processes involved in the creation of medical knowledge as well as the people who get to decide what constitutes "truth" in the field. In order to do this, one must challenge the presumptions and prejudices that guide medical practice, education, and research. One must also work towards a more inclusive and equitable system of healthcare. Recognising the ways in which medical knowledge has been utilised to support social injustices and striving to undo these detrimental legacies are equally necessary. In summary, Conrad and Barker's discussion of the social construction of medical knowledge highlights the intricate relationship between medical knowledge and society norms and power dynamics. Even while some of the biases that have traditionally shaped medical knowledge have been recognised and addressed, there are still many obstacles to overcome. It is essential to keep critically analysing the ways in which social variables impact medical knowledge and to strive towards eradicating the disparities that it might reflect and replicate in order to establish a more fair and equitable healthcare system.