One idea that comes to mind when reading this weeks texts is that Western medicine, hiding behind the guise of ‘objectivity’, has sabotaged a myriad of traditional and cultural approaches to health and medicine. It is arguable then that western medicine has oppressive tendencies, perpetuating a myriad of gender, race and class binaries.
Quite often, contemporary medical rhetoric hides behind the guise of objectivity. However, as Goldacre and James point out, modern medicine is often driven by profit, and results are often manipulated in an attempt to sustain a certain reputation. This, to me, is far from ‘objective’. Moreover, conceptions of objectivity and the advent of the scientific method in order to carry out quantitative research are developments that are deeply rooted in colonialism. Having taken GRSJ 100, the understanding of colonialism as an incredibly racist, sexist and classist institution is common place. So how can we claim that western medicine is beneficial to everyone?
Judging by this weeks blog posts, it isn’t. Many of us have had a less than favourable run-in with contemporary health care. And one can only imagine how this negative experience can become profoundly exacerbated depending on ones gender, race, or class.
In sum, it is understandable that not everyone reaps the benefits of westernized medicine. Westernized medicine, although it is not without it’s incredible feats, is ultimately a ‘whitened’ institution, that is not equally received or accessed across the globe. This makes me wonder if utilizing an umbrella term such as ‘global health’ to assess ones state of being will ever be practical. Each individuals experience with health differs, and perhaps it should be treated as such.
Allison I enjoyed reading your blog as it provides a much needed criticism of western medicine. After reading the articles of weeks one and two it opened up a whole new discourse of medicine that i had never really considered. Although I didn’t get a chance to read every article in depth I can safely say that the perspective of a foreigner who has had a good experience with western medicine is left out. From my own personal experience western medicine provided me a better quality of life. I immigrated at an early age to Canada specifically for medical treatment and after 17 years of being in the country i cannot imagine using any other alternative to medicine. And I agree it is a whitened institution but compared to other occupation such as the police I find it to be on a lesser scale. I guess your last sentence really hit the right note ” Each individuals experience with health differs, and perhaps it should be treated as such”.
Hey Allison
I completely agree with your comments regarding ‘objectivity’. Ben Goldacre’s TED talk comes to mind, where he discusses the scientific process- a process that was designed and is supposedly objective. In reality the scientific process is warped in order to produce desired results that can then be used to create profits. The main focus, therefore, is not objectivity, but rather profits. The scientific process is commonly believed to be primarily concerned with objectivity, but that is clearly not the case in today’s advanced-capitalist society.
I agree with you, Allison that pharmaceutical companies are profit driven and western medicine, as a result, are not “objective”, in some sense. However, scientific method and quantitative research per se is not racist or sexist. Contemporary pharmacology is based on reproducible empirical research, with rigorous systematic review. Whereas folk medicine, despite its long traditional use, is unproven treatment.
It is the term “westernized”, that carries the colonialism overtone; medicine, like any other scientific branches of study, is not whitened institution. The fact that it is not equally accessed across the globe is the reason why some countries have life expectancy half of ours.