Society and Medicine

John H. Casada casada at uthscsa.edu
Fri Feb 20 09:46:27 EST 1998


ATeasd5941 wrote:
> 
> 
>       Much of the social change in medicine seems to have been
> helped along by the shifting role of social workers and social
> teaching. The flexibility of the teaching in this area has allowed
>  mobility in thought and change.

I assume that this paragraph has meaning but it didn't come through. 
What "social change in medicine" are you referring to?  What is the
"flexibility of the teaching in this area?"  What is "mobility in
thought?"

> 
>     The ridgid structure of social teaching in medicine, and the
>  paucity of  it, has constrained medicine to one point. The only
>  flexibility comes seemingly from the scientific end of the teaching
>  and movement. This leaves the question of whether medicine is now
> serving the few at the expense of the many, therefore needs to
>  be constrained for societies sake?

What is "social teaching" and how does it display a "rigid structure?" 
What "one point" is medicine constrained to?  What has led you to
believe that medicine serves "the few at the expense of the many?"  If
medicine is already "constrained to one point" then why should you seek
to further constrain it "for societies (sic) sake?"

> 
> Which leads me to anther point I would like to make;
> 
> The medical profession has been stifled by its own formality and
> has become unable to break away from it, why? Is it not time
> to break away from the Victorian values attached to its "status"
> and allow the medical profession to work with people and not
> for its self?

What evidence do you have that medicine has been "stifled by its own
formality?"  What evidence do you have that medicine has been unable to
break away from formality?  Medical schools and professional societies
are promote a cooperative model of medical practice.  None of which I am
aware actively promote a paternalistic (a possible rendering of your
word, "formal") attitude to the patient.  What "Victorian values" are
attached to the practice of medicine?  You also assume that physicians
have not been working "with people."  Why do you assume that?  I know of
no physicians who could tolerate the stress of a physician's life
without at least thinking that he was working for his patient's good.

As is probably clear, I easily adopt an opinion contrary to what I
perceive yours to be.  Still, I am open to more information from you
regarding the questions above.  I am also interested in knowing a little
more about where you are coming from with your recent posts.  Although
not offensive, they certainly are inflamatory.

Regards,
John



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list