1. “Removing Choice of Food Options (e.g. Healthy Eating Guidelines in School Canteens) will reduce Obesity”
Obesity is one of the disorders that we can consider controversial because we can view it as an issue of medicalization or otherwise (Lecture Notes/Week 9 2012). Nevertheless, obesity is one of the most common examples of medicalised deviance. In the lectures, medicalization was defined as a process wherein non-medical problems become medical problems. Obesity is not actually considered to be harmful in the past (about 1-3 decades ago).
This can be due to the fact that medical organizations during the past three decades were not able to see or diagnose morbidities that are directly and indirectly associated with obesity. It was only within the past ten years that medical organizations worldwide became aware of the actual and other possible health consequences of obesity. This in turn raised an issue whether obesity should be medicalised or be classified as a psychological disturbance that can trigger health-related conditions.
The quotation above regarding the removal of freedom to choose which types of food to eat and its possible effect or effects on obesity is, I think, a very risky move as of this moment because it is still not clear whether obesity will be considered a medicalised deviance turned into a medical disorder or an illness which, according to the University of Toronto, is relative and can be modifiable.
The statement above actually supports the notion that obesity is an illness and is therefore relative from one individual to another, almost perfectly modifiable. By any means, obesity can be managed and controlled by simple modifications such as imposing a new school canteen policy that limits the customers’ food choices to healthy ones. Provided that obesity is, in all aspects, really a psychological condition, imposing similarly structured rules as a paramedic will certainly affect the way how I handle obese patients.
2. There are two major policy concepts in regards to alcohol and other drugs policy and the health education/health promotion of sex education and sexuality. These are harm minimization and zero tolerance or abstinence. Choose one of the weeks (10-11) and based on the lecture content, consider the potential public health or educational implications of each. Make reference to at least 2-3 sociological themes or concepts explored in the lectures and at least one of the allocated readings when presenting your discussions.
Harm minimization is a major drug policy concept that was adopted in Australia in 1985 (Lecture Notes/ Weeks 10-11 2012). It was, at that time, considered visionary and was actually pronounced as a major public health achievement. Basically, harm minimization is centered on the logical belief that we cannot decrease the rate of drug abuse or even drug use to zero; what we can only do is remove and minimize the effects of drug use and abuse.
There are lots of proposed ways how that ideal environment can be realized. One of the most promising ways is to treat drug dependence as a victim of a medical issue instead of a perpetrator of crime. Zero tolerance on the other hand is a policy enforcement approach than entails strict policing efforts (Lecture Notes/ Weeks 10-11 2012). It focuses more on the criminal aspects and consequences of drug use although it does recognize drug dependence as a medical issue.
The concept of medicalization can also be attributed in this scenario because dependence on drugs and other controlled substances can be modifiable, at least before an individual had been addicted to the substance. Going the harm minimization or the zero tolerance way of dealing with drug dependent individuals will certainly have a huge public health and educational implications. It will directly affect the way how people will react to the polices related to drug use and can therefore be a significant factor that can affect the effectiveness of a drug use policy. I think harm minimization would turn out to be the more effective approach here rather than the zero tolerance because aside from the fact that it is more realistic, it tries to tackle many angles compared to the zero tolerance approach which only tries to tackle one. But certainly, more complex steps and measures will be involved in harm minimization. Therefore, a larger amount of resources and manpower will be required for even the slightest improvements to be realized. Being a proponent of either one of these approaches can have a major impact with the way how I manage my patients that has or had a history of drug abuse in the future. Will I enforce strict drug abuse policies as mandated by the state or will I view him as a medical patient and go the harm minimization way?
3. How does the information presented in the lectures in weeks 9-12 confirm, challenge or change your existing perceptions?
I had an almost completely different perception about things before I was able to attend the past 4 lectures. I thought that my world as a paramedic is completely separated from law enforcement. Clearly, I was wrong. I came to realize that there can be certain points where issues and conflicts may arise between law enforcers and paramedics such as when issues regarding alcohol, drug and other controlled substance abuse are touched. The good thing I have realized is that we, as paramedics, have a choice. We can disregard almost everything and focus on the medical issues at hand or we can also bring up the legality of even the act of treating a drug abusive patient.
The lecture about medicalization from week 9 influenced my perceptions and ideologies the most. It enlightened me about the different possible ways how I can view a medical condition. Is that medical condition a result of modifiable factors or factors that are related to psychology or is it entirely medical? Are those patients responsible for their current physical state or not? These are some of the questions that I was able to ponder during the lecture.
4. How can you use the information from the lectures presented in weeks 9-12 in your future professional practice?
I strongly believe that everything that I have learned and discovered in the past four weeks would be of great help to me when I am already practicing my profession as a paramedic in a public or private medical center in the future. Firstly, the knowledge I acquired from week 9 would enable me to judge and weight things more logically. If for example I have a patient suffering from Angina Pectoris who also happened to have a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, I would know that PTSD could, at some point, hinder me from administering medical managements, especially if the patient is conscious and manifests symptoms of PTSD at that moment. Secondly, the knowledge I acquired from weeks 10-12 would also enable me to judge and weight things more logically. If for example I have a patient who happened to have a history of substance abuse, I can administer medical managements more smoothly because I would know my limitations as a paramedic and if a certain action would have any legal implications against me or the patient. Overall, all that information would help me be a better paramedic by equipping me with the knowledge I need to protect me, my profession, the medical center I am affiliated with, and most importantly, my patients.
References
Lecture Notes: Week 9 2012, “Medicalisation”, HLTH1306, Flinders University.
Lecture Notes: Week 10 2012, “Sexual Health”, HLTH1306, Flinders University.
Lecture Notes: Week 11 2012, “Alcohol and Other Drugs”, HLTH1306, Flinders University.
Lecture Notes: Week 12 2012, “The Body: Food, Physical Activity and Obesity”, HLTH1306, Flinders University.
