Here are the two parts of the Diagnosis podcast we listened to today. This is one episode of the amazing podcast RadioLab, which covers a host of scientific topics in an interesting, unique way. Seriously--the show blows my mind all the time. You will never think about some topics the same again!
Here is a story that is just coming out today, on how drug testers are turning to the poor areas of India to do their drug testing, so they can workaround all of the rules we use in the U.S. to protect people during human drug testing.
"Drug trial outsourcing to foreign countries is rapidly becoming an attractive alternative for U.S. pharmaceutical companies looking to save millions of dollars, avoid regulatory scrutiny and tap into a seemingly endless supply of drug study participants.
But a year-long Datelineinvestigation into one of the preferred destinations for overseas drug trials, India, raises questions about lax regulatory oversight in these studies, the integrity of some of the companies contracted to run them and the reliability of the data they produce. "
After Spring Break we will be continuing our discussions on the social construction of "sick" and what we consider to be individual vs. societal issues.
For March 20, we will take a slightly different look at violence than we did at the beginning of this section when we look at the concept of self-harm. What happens when we want to turn violence inward, and cause ourselves harm? Is that okay? Should we be able to legally do whatever we want to our own bodies? If we do cause ourselves harm, is it because we are "sick" or is it a valid form of self expression? Is it the result of other social constructions around gender, and so forth? What causes some people to self harm? Are some people/groups more or less likely to participate in self harm? We will be talking about several types of behaviors that have been considered "self-harm" including cutting (and related behaviors), Body Integrity Identity Disorder and eating disorders.
We will complete this section on March 22 with a discussion on drug and alcohol use. Why are some drugs seen as "dangerous" while others are seen as viable recreational opportunities, with wide public support? With any drug, why does one level of consumption get perceived as "normal" (to varying degrees) while another level of consumption gets labeled as "sick"? Who gets to decide when you have crossed that line? What groups benefit from some drugs being made legal, and others kept illegal? Who gets to influence policy decisions? What are the advantages and disadvantages to seeing drugs and alcohol as a medical issues? What about seeing them as deviance? Which drugs, if any, should be controlled? Is that a medical, or criminological decision?
Read "Hey Don't Blame Me...Blame The Booze" by Robert L. Peralta, available in your textbook.
Read "OxyContin: A Prescription for Disaster" by Inciardi and Goode, also available in your textbook.
In this section of the course we are going to discuss mental illness in a few different ways. First, we are going to discuss behaviors (such as physical violence) that society seems to think of as individual psychological issues. Is violence the result of "sick" people, or is there something about our social constructions contributing? Then we are going to tackle the diagnosis of mental illnesses--what should be considered "normal" and what is "sick"? What are the advantages, and disadvantages, of being diagnosed as mentally ill? How have definitions changed over time? Are some groups more or less likely to be diagnosed as mentally ill?
In this section we will talk about the concept of medicalization. As I talked about in my last post, there is a lot of money to be made by cosmetic companies and the diet industry, if they can make you feel bad about yourself and sell you a solution to a host of socially constructed problems. Another group that stands to make a lot of money off of our "problems" is the medical industry, including pharmaceutical companies. Medicalization is the framing of socially constructed problems as "medical issues" so that the medical industry can offer a solution, through a diagnosis and/or treatment. Technological advancements mean so much good news--we now know so much more about the brain, and our bodies than we could have imagined. But some of those advancements have led to more categorization, and more placing of judgement on those categories. Sometimes instead of our body flaws being seen as a cosmetic problem, they get framed as a "medical" problem--that is medicalization.
For example, take eyelashes. Some people have short eyelashes, some people have long eyelashes. Have you ever thought of that as a problem? Whether or not it is a problem, there is a medical solution--you can get a prescription for a product to make your eyelashes glow. Commercials about this product medicalize eyelashes--they frame short eyelashes as a medical problem, which labels it first and foremost as a problem, and secondly, something that needs to be fixed. Good news: they can sell you the solution. Just go tell your doctor to write you a prescription.
For February 23, you are reading some different perspectives on physical violence:
Read the Fox and Levin article about serial killers, in your textbook.
Read the Kimmel and Mahler article about school shootings, in your textbook.
Read the Gilligan article "Shame, Guilt and Violence" available on Angel.
For February 28, continue reading about physical violence:
Be prepared to watch and critically analyze Tough Guise in class. Even if you have seen it before, watch it with your "deviance" lens. The Film Review will be due Sunday, March 4.
On March 1, we talk about violence when it gets turned inward and becomes self-destructive. Is suicide bad? Is it deviant? Is it noble? Should it be allowed, legally or socially? Who should be able to make those decisions?
Required:
Read "The Desire For Death" by Joiner, in your textbook.
Read "A Poet Crusades for the Right to Die His Way" by Fisher, available on Angel.
Read "Death With Dignity" by Dincin, available on Angel.
Optional:
Watch "The Suicide Tourist" (55:00). This is an episode of PBS's Frontline with the tagline "A story of struggling to live ... and deciding when to die. Is this a choice everyone should have?"
On March 6, we start to tackle the problems with diagnoses. How do we decide what is normal vs. what is sick? Who gets to make those decisions? Categorizing a host of symptoms as a sickness comes with rewards and consequences--maybe you can finally get help, or your insurance will now pay for a treatment, or you can build community with others like you. But you also have to take on a label, and we devalue those we see as "sick" ...so what is the best option? Why are so many behaviors that used to be seen somewhere in the spectrum of "normal" now seen as "abnormal" and is that advancement, or policing? Why do some illnesses almost become a "fad" and suddenly surge in diagnoses?
Read "Being Sane in Insane Places" by Rosenhan, in your textbook.
On March 8 we will explore one particular diagnosis that has generated much controversy, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). We will discuss who is invested in seeing these behaviors as problematic "symptoms" and what the consequences are of the diagnosis. This will be preparation for your Blog Post 4 (details coming soon!).
Read "The Emergence of Hyperactive Adults as Abnormal" by Conrad and Potter, in your textbook.
