Many people have heard of ‘global health’.
In fact, it is hard to get away from it, particularly on the medical side of
college campuses, in health policy discussions, or the media when a newsworthy
epidemic breaks out somewhere. Global health is generally code for (unfair)
health disparities and the unhappy tendency of health crises walk or fly across
national borders. Perhaps less familiar is the concept of ‘medicalization’. Roughly
speaking, it is the process by which human problems are understood as (or ‘reduced
to’) medical problems. For example, one could view diabetes as a purely medical
problem, for which better treatments are needed, rather than (say) a condition
implicating a host of social, political and economic factors, such as the
low-cost of processed food, changes in work conditions and the structure of
built environments. So what happens when you put ‘global health’ and
‘medicalization’ together?
Jocalyn Clark has written some intriguing exploratory pieces on the links between medicalization and global health in the
online journal Global Health Action. Do global health initiatives tend to
medicalize the problems that they set out to tackle? And if so, what effects
does this process of medicalization then have? Certainly there is a tendency to
seek technological (‘innovative’) solutions to health problems in developing
countries, often with mixed results. To the extent that the determinants of
poor and better health are social, political and economic, purely medical
interventions are likely to have superficial impact. I wonder if there is also something
else at play: not just medicalization, but the allure of objectivity and
neutrality – think Red Cross -- associated with Western medicine. Coming into a
developing country with medical interventions seems far less politically
fraught than proposing large-scale changes to ways of life. So there is a
tension between a major tenet of global health (that health is socially determined) and the political implications of trying to improve health globally. The
tendency towards medicalization may paradoxically reflect a need to look for a
‘safe space’ for global health practice.
Labels: developing countries, global health, medicalisation