nancy onyema !! 759 words to 1000 words due by 24 hours

1

READING ASSIGNMENT COURSE NUMBER : TERM YOUR NAME STUDENT NUMBER

Reference No

Keywords 1. Epidemiology 2. Paradigm 3.Biomedicine 4. Health 5. Mechanical Analogy 6. Weltanschauung

(cosmovision) Thesis, main arguments and debatable issues Thesis: The objective of the paper is to examine and explore present-day contentious issues within the health spectrum to expand the conversation surrounding how to effectively tackle challenges to the health care system. It also seeks to give room for alternative opinions that differ from the dominant ideological position of society. According to Llambias-Wolff, he intends to explore these contentious issues as the current paradigm for health care relies on expensive infrastructure, cost effectiveness, and cure related strategies, subsequently inundating the industry with these ideologies and leaving little room for constructional criticism of the current global health care model. Four categories are listed and analyzed; this includes the following: epistemological issues, science and knowledge, power relations and the political economy, and alternative approaches and practical implications. Main Arguments: According to Llambias-Wolff, the global health care system is facing an impertaive paradigmatic crisis, as the current paradigm creates problems related to cost and inequitable access, primarily due to reform and policy emphases on efficiency and productivity. As such, global health systems have often missed the mark as they prioritize cure driven and high technology methods that have not been scrutinized and effectively assessed to see if there are other methods that reach may be more effective. Debatable Issues: In its very essence, this article provides numberous debatable issues. These issues can be addressed under three of the four categories by which Llambias- Wolff divides the article into being: epistemological issues, science and knowledge, and power relations and the political economy. With respect to epistemology, the author addresses how the limitations of the biomedical model serve as one of the primary obstacles for overcoming the health crisis, but there is contention on how best to approach these limitations. On the one had, Llambias-Wolff suggests “there is a renewed emphasis on focusing upon social determinants, an integrated approach, the valauable input of subjective factors, the role of society and the importance of politics, economics and philosphy in the health field.” Here, the two sides to

2

the debate are that modern medicine remains focused on illness and infection rather than the underpinnings of the social issues surrounding health. In terms of science and knowledge, the current scientific paradigm has limitations. As such, part of the debate for this section is that a paradigm shift is necessary; a shift that relies on research but considers the research of policy makers, government officials, industry professionals, and also the consumers in the health market in the decision making process. But as it stands, this view is scrutinized as governments demand that these alternative methods be evaluated for legitimacy. With respect to power relations and political economy, although these concepts are intertwined, they can be the object of change, or they can maintain the status quo. The author suggests that health changes should be explained in terms of the economic conditions and different interests where individuals are seen as actors within specific social locations and relationships.

Personal analysis and opinions Llambias-Wolff presents a truly conspicuous and thought-provoking analysis of the contemporary health care system—effectively providing space for alternative paradigms or methods that will tackle the global health crisis. Overall, the article demonstrates that there is a clear dominance of biomedicine with repsect to global health crises. Yet, there are clear limitations of biomedicine—including its focus on diverting costs, expensive hospital infrastructure and prioritizing cure related research and efforts—subsequently stymieing advances in strategies and methods to tackle health issues as there continues to be an emphasis on biomedicine as the solution. This refusal by the global health field to accept alternative methods and open their eyes to the damage that this westernized medical approach focus is having globally is rather interesting. In part, this is interesting because on the one hand, medical professionals operate under the philosophy of the hypocratic oath, thereby pledging their allegiance to doing anything that saves lives and therefore is utilitarian in principle; but on the other hand, natural therapeutic means that may be effective are seen as objective medicines that the government suggests must be legitimated. For this reason the paradigm shift is necessary as there is a over-reliance on biomedince, promulgating the belief that it is the one and only way to tacke health challenges. Along these lines, there are a couple of key takeaways and points from this article that should be discussed. First, this article conveys the importance of research and research programs as they aid in the development of a paradigm that includes the environment, biology, psychology, and the social sciences. This is important as more research can be committed to alternative methods and emerging paradigms in health, enabling researchers to determine the limits of alternative methods and its potential for use in the future. Moreover, it is important because holding the philopsophy that biomedicine is the only way to solve global health challenges creates a lack of interest, and subsequently, a lack of understanding of alternative methods and emerging paradigms. This makes it extremely difficult, more so impossible, to know what these alternative methods can be

3

used for, and if they have space in the medical realm either as he primary method or complementary means to improving the quality of health (through accessibility and limited damage to bodily functions). Second, the debate between privatization and public health care was illuminated in this article. A notable point here is that there are numerous issues emerging in terms of the future directions for health and health care that are subject to the desires of the industrialization and political action—in simpler terms it is at the mercy of the capitalist structure. Here, what can be seen is that there is a dualistic relationship between the private and public sectors, thereby impacting how they react to emerging and existing crises. Due to this dualistic relationship, the general public suffers as there is a lack of harmony on how health challenges show be address towards the benefit of the greater public. In this light, what is necessary is harmony among the public and private sector in an effort to work towards an enhanced health care system for all, irrespective of their finances or socio-economic status. In order to achieve this a paradigm shift is necessary, and this requires social empowerment and activism, in addition to governments that value civic participation.

My questions for further inquiry:

1. The article suggests there should be a shift in focus from disease and treatments to cure illness, to the social determinants and an altered social strucutre. What elements of ones native culture, ethicity, race, and social class should be studied to best improve our understanding of health, in order to provide better blanket health care for all (irrespective of socio- economic class, race, and gender)?

2. Part of the enemy of advancing health goals is the emphasis on westernized medicine which falls within a capitalist structure. If medicine serves as a profit-driven industry, is it possible for alternative methods of health and health care to thrive within a society dominated by western ideals with a foundation of capitalism?

3. How can government and policy-makers safely legitimate alternative paradigm so to increase funding, research interest, and strategies surround aternative methods of health care? As a follow-up, is legitimation enough to encourage interest to research and understand these alternative methods?