The Critical Approach
WHAT IS THE CRITICAL APPROACH TO MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY?
The critical approach to medical anthropology stands to examine one's own assumptions and accounts of how the world works. The critical approach to medical anthropology examines the culture of biomedicine, treatments, and pharmaceuticals used to treat a disease. The culture of biomedicine is questioned through the institutional history of biomedicine, the language used in biomedicine, and the rituals of biomedicine, as well as, how biomedicine is culturally constructed and amended over time by gene theory and genetic science. In Western culture, especially in The United States of America, the population is heavily dependent on the medicines prescribed by doctors. Medical anthropologists use the critical approach to see what this dependance on medicine says about the American culture. The cultural ways we think about lung cancer greatly shape how others in the population, including our doctors, think about the disease and its causes. The history of how lung cancer came to be can show how, culturally, the ideas of the disease have changed, as well as, how our world has changed to promote lung cancer occurrence.
The critical approach to medical anthropology stands to examine one's own assumptions and accounts of how the world works. The critical approach to medical anthropology examines the culture of biomedicine, treatments, and pharmaceuticals used to treat a disease. The culture of biomedicine is questioned through the institutional history of biomedicine, the language used in biomedicine, and the rituals of biomedicine, as well as, how biomedicine is culturally constructed and amended over time by gene theory and genetic science. In Western culture, especially in The United States of America, the population is heavily dependent on the medicines prescribed by doctors. Medical anthropologists use the critical approach to see what this dependance on medicine says about the American culture. The cultural ways we think about lung cancer greatly shape how others in the population, including our doctors, think about the disease and its causes. The history of how lung cancer came to be can show how, culturally, the ideas of the disease have changed, as well as, how our world has changed to promote lung cancer occurrence.
WHAT IS THE HISTORY SURROUNDING LUNG CANCER?
The history of lung cancer is a relatively short one. Lung cancer was discovered in 1878 at The Institute of Pathology of the University of Dresden in Germany during autopsies (Toxicological Sciences, 2001). The malignant tumors seen in the lungs of patient's autopsies at that time only accounted for maybe 1% of all other cancers seen. Needless to say, lung cancer was extremely rare and very uncommon in 1878. Slowly, as the years went on, the incident rates of lung cancer increased from the 1% seen in 1878 to 30% in 1930 (Toxicological Sciences, 2001). Scientists at that time suspected that World War I had the greatest influence on the drastic increase in lung cancer incident rates due to soldiers smoking in the trenches to relive stress, and then unfortunately, bringing the habit home to their families. An advertisement promoting smoking among soldiers, as a way to be patriotic to ones country is shown below.
Most common was the thought that the increase in gas and mine exposure during the war significantly increased the population's risk of developing lung cancer. The journal also reports that " increased air pollution by gases and dusts, caused by industry; the asphalting of roads; the increase in automobile traffic; exposure to gas in World War I; the influenza pandemic of 1918; and working with benzene or gasoline" may have lead to the increase in lung cancer throughout the years (Toxicological Sciences 2001). This was relayed by the increase in lung cancer among deceased male soldier's autopsies; however, scientists at that time also noted that lung cancer incident rates were also rising in countries not involved in war or current industrialization (Toxicological Sciences, 2001). Although cigarette smoking was very popular during an after World War I, there was never a defined positive association between cigarettes and smoking to lung cancer incident rate. There was however a brief mentioning of smoking and lung cancer incidence by "the German physician, Fritz Lickint, in 1929, [when he] published a paper in which he showed that lung cancer patients were particularly likely to be smokers" (Toxicological Sciences, 2001). It was not until 1964 that the Surgeon General fully recognized that smoking increased lung cancer rates in the population (Toxicological Sciences, 2001). It was not until 1964 with the report from the Surgeon General that "public awareness woke up and smoking became recognized as the hazard it is" (Toxicological Sciences, 2001). The actual Surgeon General report cover is listed below.
BIOMEDICALIZATON VS. MEDICALIZATION?
First let's focus on medicalization. Medicalization is an era (1950-1985) of when medicine, testing, treatments, etc. was designed to obtain control over our bodies and our behaviors through medical intervention. The symbol of the body is used to normalize people; that is, people compare a normal body to a diseased body, and how they differ drives the need to create medical treatments. The focus is on specific organs that may be dysfunctional and causing the disease. The doctor is seen as an authority figure and has professional control over a patient's health, as well as, how the hospital is controlled. An example, established in the 1940's, is chemotherapy treatment to shrink and reduce lung cancer masses in the lungs (Cancer Research UK). Chemotherapy directly targets the cancer cells in the lungs, so people can, hopefully, establish healthy lung tissue again and be considered normal. A doctor controls if a patient receives chemo or not.
In contrast, biomedicalization was developed in 1985 and continues to be used today. Biomedicalization is used to not only treat an illness or disease, but also enhance and improve the body and it's behavior to a state that is better than what it was before. The symbol of the body is seen as customizable and health is a commodity. The general population has access to public health documents online and through the media. With this, patients can scan their symptoms and develop a diagnosis before going to the doctor, otherwise known as the "expert patient"; this could affect how the patient is treated by the doctor. This era is used to be the best someone can be in the social role. An example, in the sense of lung cancer, is seen in lung transplant surgical procedures. "New" lungs are given to a patient that would usually have diseased lungs. The patient can now breathe better than they ever could.
HOW IS LUNG CANCER SEEN IN AMERICAN POP CULTURE?
As stated many times, lung cancer is often associated with smoking. Americans infer that if someone has lung cancer it is from smoking. It is interesting to note, however, that smoking has been seen as "cool" for many decades. In movies, the cops are smoking cigarettes as they are processing their homicide suspects. The cute protagonist boy that wins over the girl is always leaning against a hot rob car smoking. If smoking is seen as cool, why are the repercussions used to put a stigma on a lung cancer patient? Other than the obvious fact that cancer is bad and harms the body, I think the biggest argument is that if someone developed lung cancer, smoker or not, they are no longer seen as that cool guy with the hot rod car, now they are seen as diseased and old. Americans are obsessed with not being seen as old. This is seen in the many plastic surgery ads and medicines that can make someone look younger.
First let's focus on medicalization. Medicalization is an era (1950-1985) of when medicine, testing, treatments, etc. was designed to obtain control over our bodies and our behaviors through medical intervention. The symbol of the body is used to normalize people; that is, people compare a normal body to a diseased body, and how they differ drives the need to create medical treatments. The focus is on specific organs that may be dysfunctional and causing the disease. The doctor is seen as an authority figure and has professional control over a patient's health, as well as, how the hospital is controlled. An example, established in the 1940's, is chemotherapy treatment to shrink and reduce lung cancer masses in the lungs (Cancer Research UK). Chemotherapy directly targets the cancer cells in the lungs, so people can, hopefully, establish healthy lung tissue again and be considered normal. A doctor controls if a patient receives chemo or not.
In contrast, biomedicalization was developed in 1985 and continues to be used today. Biomedicalization is used to not only treat an illness or disease, but also enhance and improve the body and it's behavior to a state that is better than what it was before. The symbol of the body is seen as customizable and health is a commodity. The general population has access to public health documents online and through the media. With this, patients can scan their symptoms and develop a diagnosis before going to the doctor, otherwise known as the "expert patient"; this could affect how the patient is treated by the doctor. This era is used to be the best someone can be in the social role. An example, in the sense of lung cancer, is seen in lung transplant surgical procedures. "New" lungs are given to a patient that would usually have diseased lungs. The patient can now breathe better than they ever could.
HOW IS LUNG CANCER SEEN IN AMERICAN POP CULTURE?
As stated many times, lung cancer is often associated with smoking. Americans infer that if someone has lung cancer it is from smoking. It is interesting to note, however, that smoking has been seen as "cool" for many decades. In movies, the cops are smoking cigarettes as they are processing their homicide suspects. The cute protagonist boy that wins over the girl is always leaning against a hot rob car smoking. If smoking is seen as cool, why are the repercussions used to put a stigma on a lung cancer patient? Other than the obvious fact that cancer is bad and harms the body, I think the biggest argument is that if someone developed lung cancer, smoker or not, they are no longer seen as that cool guy with the hot rod car, now they are seen as diseased and old. Americans are obsessed with not being seen as old. This is seen in the many plastic surgery ads and medicines that can make someone look younger.
Bibliography:
Cancer Research UK. Accessed August 10, 2014. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/who-discovered-chemotherapy.
Langley, Tony. Roads to the Great War. Accessed August 1, 2014. http://roadstothegreatwar-ww1.blogspot.com/2013/09/cigarettes-for-soldiers-how-tobacco-and.html.
Terry, Dr. Luther L. Orbach Regulation. Accessed August 1, 2014. http://www.regulationonline.com/chapters/reg-ch5/1964report/.
Witschi, Hanspeter. "A Short History of Lung Cancer." Toxicological Sciences: The Oxford Journal (June 2001). Accessed August 1, 2014. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/1/4.full.
Cancer Research UK. Accessed August 10, 2014. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/who-discovered-chemotherapy.
Langley, Tony. Roads to the Great War. Accessed August 1, 2014. http://roadstothegreatwar-ww1.blogspot.com/2013/09/cigarettes-for-soldiers-how-tobacco-and.html.
Terry, Dr. Luther L. Orbach Regulation. Accessed August 1, 2014. http://www.regulationonline.com/chapters/reg-ch5/1964report/.
Witschi, Hanspeter. "A Short History of Lung Cancer." Toxicological Sciences: The Oxford Journal (June 2001). Accessed August 1, 2014. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/1/4.full.