Living in the twenty first century, medicine seems to have alwas reigned supreme, and doctors relishing in power and authority--not to mention riches in many instances--are notions so entrenched in society that it is hardly possible to imagine a time where this was not the case. Paul Starr starts out his book by challenging my views of how cultural and social authorities have been at the fingertips of doctors and physician since the dawn of the profession.In my readings, I have come to extract the following points of interest:
The roots of Medical Authority in Egypt.
The author brings up the fact that when medical knowledge is esoteric and lies within the hands the culturally endowed, the profession as a whole enjoys authority. I believe this case can be extended beyond the Nineteenth century England which the author uses as an example to include ancient Egypt where medicine was not only esoteric but also sacred. This got me wondering whether the status physicians enjoy in Egypt now can be dated back to that tradition.
Is Democratic Medicine Making People Happy
The distinction between ‘democratic medicine’ and medicine in a hierarchical society made a lot of sense to me. People who are more accepting of societal rank grant authority easier than those who view themselves on a par with physicians. The disillusionment and disenchantment that eventually follows as the society matures is the real problem, in my opinion. When patients grant power and follow advice but to no avail, they eventually withdraw their trust --sometimes from the profession as a whole-- and try to go back to the ‘domestic medicine’ that was once popular. I believe this is the case nowadays, with the revived trend in allopathic/traditional medicine, homeopathy, Aruyveda and what not. It seems to be that many people don’t really appreciate the lack of an air of mystery or occult around medicine anymore. They interpret cancers, diabetes, and hypertension and all the other the rampant chronic diseases in our society as an undeniable proof that modern medicine does not get the whole picture. There is still something missing. What Starr called “the spirit of rationalism” appears to be dimming, and slowly replaced by mystification and a shift away from ‘democratic medicine’ by the masses.
The Qualification and Licensing of Practitioners.
It had never occurred to be before how qualification and licensing were central to the medical profession. They, in part, are what made medicine a profession as opposed to a trade or just an ‘occupation’.
While American practitioners fought the battle early for English-like, authoritative, professional societies and licensing bodies. The battle is being fought now in Egypt with the Egyptian medical syndicate trying to establish the “Egyptian Fellowship” as a board of medical authority.
As the medical profession was prospering in Egypt and doing just fine with no such bodies, medical societies in Egypt were merely honorary. This book got me thinking that perhaps the shift is caused by democratization (subtle but still there) of the Egyptian society.
The author brings up the fact that when medical knowledge is esoteric and lies within the hands the culturally endowed, the profession as a whole enjoys authority. I believe this case can be extended beyond the Nineteenth century England which the author uses as an example to include ancient Egypt where medicine was not only esoteric but also sacred. This got me wondering whether the status physicians enjoy in Egypt now can be dated back to that tradition.
Is Democratic Medicine Making People Happy
The distinction between ‘democratic medicine’ and medicine in a hierarchical society made a lot of sense to me. People who are more accepting of societal rank grant authority easier than those who view themselves on a par with physicians. The disillusionment and disenchantment that eventually follows as the society matures is the real problem, in my opinion. When patients grant power and follow advice but to no avail, they eventually withdraw their trust --sometimes from the profession as a whole-- and try to go back to the ‘domestic medicine’ that was once popular. I believe this is the case nowadays, with the revived trend in allopathic/traditional medicine, homeopathy, Aruyveda and what not. It seems to be that many people don’t really appreciate the lack of an air of mystery or occult around medicine anymore. They interpret cancers, diabetes, and hypertension and all the other the rampant chronic diseases in our society as an undeniable proof that modern medicine does not get the whole picture. There is still something missing. What Starr called “the spirit of rationalism” appears to be dimming, and slowly replaced by mystification and a shift away from ‘democratic medicine’ by the masses.
The Qualification and Licensing of Practitioners.
It had never occurred to be before how qualification and licensing were central to the medical profession. They, in part, are what made medicine a profession as opposed to a trade or just an ‘occupation’.
While American practitioners fought the battle early for English-like, authoritative, professional societies and licensing bodies. The battle is being fought now in Egypt with the Egyptian medical syndicate trying to establish the “Egyptian Fellowship” as a board of medical authority.
As the medical profession was prospering in Egypt and doing just fine with no such bodies, medical societies in Egypt were merely honorary. This book got me thinking that perhaps the shift is caused by democratization (subtle but still there) of the Egyptian society.
No comments:
Post a Comment